alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Thigpen, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 74]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

During voir dire, a prospective juror, a police officer, stated that police officers were inherently more credible witnesses because they had taken an oath which required them to testify truthfully. After this statement was made, the court told the prospective juror that it had to “treat a police officer like anyone else,” to which he responded “I think so.” However, the court did not further explore the prospective juror’s bias or attempt to otherwise elicit an expurgatory oath.

The tendency to accept uncritically the testimony of police officers constitutes a “state of mind that is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; *see, People v Zachary,*260 AD2d 514; *People v Sumpter,*237 AD2d 389). Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, it is the obligation of the trial court, and not of the defense counsel, to “require the prospective juror to ‘expressly state that his prior state of mind * * * will not influence his verdict, and * * * that he will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence’ ” *(People v Torpey,*63 NY2d 361, 367, quoting *People v Biondo,*41 NY2d 483, 485, *cert denied*434 US 928; *see also,*
      *262
      *People v Zachary, supra; People v Cruz,*244 AD2d 417). Here, the court failed to obtain such a statement from the prospective juror and denied the defendant’s challenge for cause. Inasmuch as the defendant was forced to use a peremptory challenge to excuse the prospective juror and then subsequently exhausted all of his challenges before jury selection was complete, we reverse and order a new trial *(see,*CPL 270.20 [2]; *People v Torpey, supra; People v Molinari,*252 AD2d 532).

We note that some of the prosecutor’s statements in summation were improper, including his reference to the defendant’s prior convictions and his arguments predicated upon facts not in evidence.

In light of the above determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### M. Morton Gratz et al., Appellants, v Columbia Presbyterian Hospital et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 31, 1976, granting defendants’ motions dismissing the action for failure to file a timely notice of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In this medical malpractice and negligence case, there was delay by the plaintiffs in complying with various of the procedural demands upon them. Although the time to comply was extended by stipulation, there was no compliance with the 45-day notice, and when the defendants moved for dismissal for such failure, the opposition asked for an inordinate additional amount of time. Under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the action. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.
§ 100.10 Exemptions. ( a ) This part does not: ( 1 ) Prohibit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted because of race, color, or national origin;
( 2 ) Prohibit a private club, not in fact open to the public, which, incident to its primary purpose or purposes, provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members;
( 3 ) Limit the applicability of any reasonable local, State or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling; or
( 4 ) Prohibit conduct against a person because such person has been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
( b ) Nothing in this part regarding discrimination based on familial status applies with respect to housing for older persons as defined in subpart E of this part.
( c ) Nothing in this part, other than the prohibitions against discriminatory advertising, applies to: ( 1 ) The sale or rental of any single family house by an owner, provided the following conditions are met: ( i ) The owner does not own or have any interest in more than three single family houses at any one time.
( ii ) The house is sold or rented without the use of a real estate broker, agent or salesperson or the facilities of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings. If the owner selling the house does not reside in it at the time of the sale or was not the most recent resident of the house prior to such sale, the exemption in this paragraph (c)(1) of this section applies to only one such sale in any 24-month period.
( 2 ) Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his or her residence.
### §6214. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–469, title I, §103(3), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2029

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §106, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 880, related to production of oil or gas at the maximum efficient rate and temporary emergency production rate.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2704 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2704

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-
  4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6-
                            (phenylamino)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-
  4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6-
                            (phenylamino)-.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 3-PYRIDINECARBONITRILE, 5-[(2-CYANO-4-NITROPHENYL)AZO]-2-
              [[2-(2-HYDROXYETHOXY)ETHYL]AMINO]-4-METHYL-6-
              (PHENYLAMINO)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.08      3-                  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Pyridinecarbonitr                                                  31/2008
                         ile, 5-[(2-cyano-
                         4-
                         nitrophenyl)azo]-
                         2-[[2-(2-
                         hydroxyethoxy)eth
                         yl]amino]-4-
                         methyl-6-
                         (phenylamino)-.
                         (CAS No. 14998-44-
                         3) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.11.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §6312. Purposes and coverage

#### (a) Congressional statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this part to improve the efficiency of electric motors and pumps and certain other industrial equipment in order to conserve the energy resources of the Nation.

#### (b) Inclusion of industrial equipment as covered equipment

The Secretary may, by rule, include a type of industrial equipment as covered equipment if he determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the purposes of this part.

#### (c) Inclusion of component parts of consumer products as industrial equipment

The Secretary may, by rule, include as industrial equipment articles which are component parts of consumer products, if he determines that—

(1) such articles are, to a significant extent, distributed in commerce other than as component parts for consumer products; and

(2) such articles meet the requirements of section 6311(2)(A) of this title (other than clauses (ii) and (iii)).

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §341, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title IV, §441(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3268.)
Swanson , Bria n (OST ) &0T > 0«>'r

- l<<^b

- l<tog >

From : Micke yBowma n [mbowma@gulfstreamair.com ] Sent : Thursday , January20 , 2011 10:2 9 A M To : Devany , Denni s (OST) ; Swanson , Bria n (OST ) Cc : 'Dav e Hacl<ett ' Subject : R e Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airlines Bid s fo rMontan a an d Arizona/ Ne wMexic o Citie s

Gentlemen , I wante d t o mak e yo u awar e ofpotentia l futur e filing s b yGulfstrea m dependin g o n ho wsevera l pendin g Essentia l Ai r Servic e contract s ar e awarded

. A s yo u know , Gulfstrea m ha s tendere d submission s i n recen tcase s involvin g bot h seve n citie s i n Montana : Glasgow , Glendive , Havre , Lewiston , Mile s City , Sidne yan d Wol fPoint ; a s wel l a s seve n citie s i n Arizon a an d Ne wMexico : Carlsbad , Clovis , Silve rCity , Sho wLow , Page , Prescot tan d Kingman

. W e hav e bi d thes e package s i n suc h a s wa ya s t o allo wfo rsufficien tmas s t o justif yth e establishmen tofthes e remot e operations , relativ e t o ou rcurren t system

. Whil e w e welcom e th e challeng e ofestablishin g suc h operation s an d hav e n o doub ti n ou rabilit yt o delive ra qualit yproduct , w e fee l i t i s onl ypruden tt o limi tourselve s i n term s oflogistica l reach

. Gulfstrea m ha s receive d th e endorsemen t ofth e Montan a Essentia l Ai rServic e Committe e an d th e Montan a Departmen t ofTransportatio n an d w e ar e ver yhopefu l tha t you roffice s wil l concu rwit h thos e endorsement s an d awar d thos e seve n Montan a route s t o Gulfstream

. Pleas e b e advise d tha tshoul d tha tsituatio n occur , Gulfstrea m woul d withdra wit s bid s fo r servic e t o th e Arizon a an d Ne wMexic o markets

. W e simpl yd o no twan tt o stretc h ourselve s to o far , to o quickly

. W e fel t i t onl yfai rt o advis e you roffic e ofthi s possibl e scenari o i n advance

. Pleas e als o understan d tha tshoul d Gulfstrea m no t b e awarde d th e Montan a contracts , ou rbid s fo rth e Arizon a an d Ne wMexic o citie s woul d no tb e retracte d an d remai n fo r you ran d th e community' s consideration

. Shoul d yo u hav e an yfurthe rquestion s relatin g t o thes e bid s pleas e don' thesitat e t o contac tm e directly

. Verytrul yyours , Micke yBowma n Vic e Presiden t ofCorporat e Developmen t 

## Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airline s (270)689-218 0 Offic e (270)303-871 9 Cel l mbowma@aulfstreamair.co m
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2707 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2707

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, [4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-
dioxo-7-phenylbenzo[1,2-b:4,5-b]difuran -3-yl)phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl 
                                 ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, [4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-
dioxo-7-phenylbenzo[1,2-b:4,5-b]difuran -3-yl)phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl 
                                 ester.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, [4-(2,6-DIHYDRO-2,6-DIOXO-7-PHENYLBENZO[1,2-
              B:4,5-B]DIFURAN-3-YL)PHENOXY]-, 2-ETHOXYETHYL ESTER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.11      Acetic acid, [4-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (2,6-dihydro-2,6-                                                  31/2008
                         dioxo-7-
                         phenylbenzo[1,2-
                         b:4,5-b]difuran-3-
                         yl)phenoxy]-, 2-
                         ethoxyethyl
                         ester. (CAS No.
                         126877-05-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.11.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §§5117 to 5117d. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §142(a), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3089

Section 5117, Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §202, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 907, related to congressional findings for this subchapter.

Section 5117a, Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §203, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–127, §2(1), Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 770, related to temporary child care for children with disabilities and chronically ill children.

Section 5117b, Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §204, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 907, related to crisis nurseries for children who are abused and neglected, at high risk of abuse and neglect, or who are in families receiving child protective services.

Section 5117c, Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §205, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 101–127, §§2(2), 3, 4, Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 770, 771; Pub. L. 101–476, title IX, §901(a)(3), (g), Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1142, 1151; Pub. L. 102–295, title II, §202, May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 200, related to administrative provisions.

Section 5117d, Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §206, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 909; Pub. L. 100–403, §1, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1013; Pub. L. 101–127, §5, Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 771; Pub. L. 102–295, title II, §203, May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 200, related to authorization of appropriations for carrying out this subchapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §207, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 909, which provided that title II of Pub. L. 99–401 was effective Oct. 1, 1986, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §142(a), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3089.

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 99–401, title II, §201, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 907, as amended by Pub. L. 101–127, §6, Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 772, which provided that title II of Pub. L. 99–401 be cited as the "Temporary Child Care for Children With Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act of 1986", was repealed by Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §142(a), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3089.
Order entered September 30, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00843-CV

IN RE JOSEPH DINGLER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05083-A

ORDER

Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 147

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A appear at 84 FR 37577, Aug. 1, 2019.

#### § 147.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), which requires that when Federal departments and agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use information and communication technology, they shall ensure that the information and communication technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees, applicants for employment, or members of the public.
Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.

900 Cope Industrial Way ● Palmer, Alaska 99645

(907) 317-5368 ● alan@alaskaairfuel.net

June 11, 2015

Re: Petition for exemption

To Whom It May Concern:

Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. requests an exemption from 14 CFR §§91.313(a) and (c) to the extent 

necessary to conduct training in Restricted Category Aircraft.

Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. operates a fleet of two (2) restricted category aircraft hauling various types of 

fuel to provide the citizens of Alaska with heating, automotive fuel, and aviation fuel. 

We request that this exemption allow all pilots and DPE employed (including contract employment) 

by Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. to conduct training in our restricted category aircraft. The training would 

include initial type ratings and/ or recurrent training as outlined in FAR Part 61. 

This exemption would benefit the public as a whole because our operations are critical to the wellbeing of the residents and tourists of Alaska as well as assisting in the currency and proficiency of 

the flight crew to operate the aircraft in a much safer capacity.

This exemption would not adversely affect safety because it would allow for us to complete training 

in the aircraft which there are no simulators for. Training has been proven as an effective way of 

reducing accidents and incidents in aviation.

The aircraft we request exemption with are:

1.) 1944 [McDonnell] Douglas C54E-DC 

- Tail Number: N96358

- Serial Number: 27284 

- Type Certificate Data Sheet: A-762

2.) 1947 [McDonnell] Douglas C54D-DC

- Tail Number: N3054V

- Serial Number: 10547

- Type Certificate Data Sheet: A-762
 

Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.

900 Cope Industrial Way ● Palmer, Alaska 99645

(907) 317-5368 ● alan@alaskaairfuel.net

Summary:

We are requesting an exemption from 14CFR §§91.313(a) and (c) that would not allow us to be 

able to conduct the training that has proven to be effective in our operations. This training helps 

reduce the risk of an emergency which could potentially harm persons or property if it were not 

done. Training the crewmembers who operate these aircraft to a level of competency so that they 

are aware of situations which require operator input is not imperative

This is a time-critical request for exemption and would be prudent if this was granted as soon as 

possible.

Sincerely,

Alan Cruce

Alan Cruce

Director of Operations

Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between John P. Gallagher, Respondent, and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to compel arbitration, Government Employees Insurance Company, the insurer herein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 29, 1960, directing that arbitration proceed in accordance with the provisions of a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by said insurer to petitioner. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Petitioner, with respect to his claim for damages sustained as a result of being struck by an uninsured motorist, sought arbitration as provided in the insurance policy. The insurer disclaimed liability on the ground, in effect, that the policy provision was superseded by the provisions of chapter 759 of the Laws of 1958, which became effective on January 1, 1959, shortly before its policy was issued, and which made the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation the source of payment for injuries caused by uninsured motorists. The learned Special Term held, in substance, that the insurer was estopped to disclaim liability, since it led petitioner to believe that it was investigating his claim with a view to its adjustment, and since it did not reject his claim until after the time had expired within which his claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation should have been filed. In our opinion, while the doctrine of estoppel may properly be invoked by petitioner (cf. *Gibson Elec. Co.*v. *Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.,*159 N. Y. 418, 426; *Moore Constr. Co.*v. *United States Fid. & Guar. Co.,*293 N. Y. 119, 123; *Ashland Window & Housecleaning Co.*v. *Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co.,*269 App. Div. 31, 36; *Merchants Mut. Cas. Co.*v. *Wildman,*12 A D 2d 664), the question of whether the insurer’s conduct was in fact such as to estop it from disclaiming liability, is one which cannot be determined on the conflicting affidavits and papers contained in the record (cf. *Gibson Elec. Co.*v. *Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.,*supra; *Ashland Window & Housecleaning Co.*v. *Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., supra).*The questions of fact with respect to the enforeibility of the contract for arbitration and with respect to its breach may be decided only after a trial (cf. *Matter of Kahn [Nat. City Bank],*284 N. Y. 515, 523; *Matter of Settineri [Jacobs],*5 A D 2d 885; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1450). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur. [25 Misc 2d 777.]