alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Front Matter
Title Page

- Introduction
- Eligibility for Interview
- Distortions at the Boundaries of Age Eligibility
- Distortions in Reporting De Facto Status
- Probable Effects on the Measurement of Vital Rates
- Dates of Birth of Children
- Knowledge of Dates
- Distortion at the Five-year Window
- Probabe Effects of Displacement of Birth Dates
- Omission versus Displacement
- The Calculation of Infant Mortality Rates
- Conclusions
- References
- Appendix
- Demographic and Health Surveys Working Papers Series

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T02:33:27-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Micah Greene et al., Appellants, v Lula A. Mullen, Also Known as Lula A. Mullen-McCartney, et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 215]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 2, 2006, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for leave to reargue (a) the plaintiffs’ prior motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, which was granted in a prior order of the same court dated February 3, 2006, and (b) that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of their answer, which was denied in the order dated February 3, 2006, and, upon reargument, vacated the order dated February 3, 2006, as to the defendant Ruby Mullen, and, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ prior motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Ruby Mullen and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of their answer insofar as asserted by the defendant Ruby Mullen.

Ordered that the order dated May 2, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for leave to reargue *(see e.g. Loland v City of New York,*212 AD2d 674 [1995]; *Schneider v Solowey,*141 AD2d 813 [1988]) and, upon reargument, in effect, in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ prior motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Ruby Mullen and in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of their answer insofar as asserted by the defendant Ruby Mullen. The defendants adequately demonstrated a reasonable excuse for Ruby Mullen’s default, and her delay in answering was brief, was neither delib*470erate nor willful, and did not prejudice the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the defendants raised potentially meritorious defenses regarding Ruby Mullen’s ownership and/or responsibility for the subject premises, as well as issues regarding notice of the hazardous condition thereon and the classification of the premises as a multiple dwelling. The Supreme Court’s consideration of all of these factors, as well as of the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits, supported its determination *(see Ubaydov v Kenny’s Fleet Maintenance, Inc.,*31 AD3d 536 [2006]; *Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc.,*21 AD3d 876 [2005]; *O’Loughlin v Delisser,*15 AD3d 372 [2005]; *Seccombe v Serafina Rest. Corp.,*2 AD3d 516 [2003]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Selina Y. Lo, Chief Executive Officer of Ruckus Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”), and Seamus Hennessy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of her or his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

|   |                                                                                                                                                            
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

In Witness Whereof , the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 5th day of March, 2013.


/s/ Selina Y. Lo/s/ Seamus HennessySelina Y. LoSeamus HennessyChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer





“This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Ruckus Wireless, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter J. Chapman, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 28, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §8901. Introductory provisions

#### (a) Congressional statement of findings and purpose

The Congress finds and declares that acid precipitation resulting from other than natural sources—

(1) could contribute to the increasing pollution of natural and man-made water systems;

(2) could adversely affect agricultural and forest crops;

(3) could adversely affect fish and wildlife and natural ecosystems generally;

(4) could contribute to corrosion of metals, wood, paint, and masonry used in construction and ornamentation of buildings and public monuments;

(5) could adversely affect public health and welfare; and

(6) could affect areas distant from sources and thus involve issues of national and international policy.

#### (b) Congressional declaration of purpose

The Congress declares that it is the purpose of this subchapter—

(1) to identify the causes and sources of acid precipitation;

(2) to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic effects of acid precipitation; and

(3) based on the results of the research program established by this subchapter and to the extent consistent with existing law, to take action to the extent necessary and practicable (A) to limit or eliminate the identified emissions which are sources of acid precipitation, and (B) to remedy or otherwise ameliorate the harmful effects which may result from acid precipitation.

#### (c) "Acid precipitation" defined

For purposes of this subchapter the term "acid precipitation" means the wet or dry deposition from the atmosphere of acid chemical compounds.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title VII, §702, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 770.)

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

#### Short Title

Section 701 of title VII Pub. L. 96–294 provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Acid Precipitation Act of 1980'."
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00069-CV

____________________

MILLET HARRISON JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 94-66306

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Appellant filed a motion to recuse Justice David Gaultney on June 17, 2013. 

Justice Gaultney certified the matter to the entire Court. The Court finds appellant 

failed to present grounds which justify recusal in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 16; 

see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b. Accordingly, the motion to recuse Justice David 

Gaultney is denied.

ORDER ENTERED June 20, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ., sitting en banc

Gaultney, J., not participating
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD J. MCINTOSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR.,

Defendant. /

No. C09-00750 CRB

ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR

CLARIFICATION

Now before the Court are Petitioner’s Requests for Clarification regarding the Court’s

November 12, 2015 Order. See Follow Up to Request for Clarification (dkt. 189); Request for

Clarification (dkt. 188); Order (dkt. 187). The Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for McIntosh may review the 174 pages of discovery at issue as discussed in

the September 2015 Protective Order, and the FBI must allow counsel to review those

174 pages of discovery in accordance with that Protective Order, but the government

is not required to furnish counsel with a copy of those 174 pages.

2. The under seal declaration regarding the undercover operation referenced in the

Court’s November 2015 Order, see Order (dkt. 187), shall be served on Petitioner.

3. The government shall include in its declaration why agents’ notes of conversations

with Raiton concerning the Ewing homicide should not be disclosed.

//

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 190 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

4. The declarations referred to above shall be produced to McIntosh and filed with the

Court on or before December 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 190 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]  

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:44 PM

To: Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Gary Fernstrom; Tim Ballo; Jerry Schoen;

Andrew Delaski; Caskey, John; Michael Rivest; Brian Coffey; Chris Bolduc; Caitlin

Johnson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Wes Patterson

Subject: Data Center Transformer Definition

Colleagues,

Hope you all had a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving break.  Attached for your

review is Mr. Tendulkar's first draft of a definition and technical specification

for Data Centers.  He phoned to ask me to transmit it to the group as he is

experiencing email difficulties.

This is for discussion purposes. Mr. Tendulkar emphasized that he takes no pride

of authorship in this, particularly inasmuch as English is not his first

language, and both substantive and editorial suggestions are welcome and

encouraged.

I will post the document to the Sharepoint site this evening. I realize people

are traveling soon, but hopefully we can have a brief discussion to identify any

major issues prior to the meeting.

This document is being circulated to the people who on my notes expressed an

interest in this issue at our meeting, and I will circulate the draft as it

stands tomorrow evening to the larger group.

Best wishes,

Richard Parker

Facilitator
### §4741. Declaration of purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to strengthen the training and development of State and local government employees and officials, particularly in professional, administrative, and technical fields.

(Pub. L. 91–648, title III, §301, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1916.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALTZ ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HEWITT ASSOCIATES,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-4626 VRW (BZ)

SECOND DISCOVERY ORDER

It is ORDERED that Documents 13 and 28 be produced

by Wednesday, January 20, 2010. The Court regards the

discussion to be of a business nature and there is nothing

before the Court that suggests that Power was seeking legal

advice from Ostling on December 10, 2007.

Dated: January 15, 2010

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\MALTZ V. HEWITT\Second Disc Order BZ.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04626-VRW Document 105 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 203.330 Definition of delinquency and requirement for notice of delinquency to HUD. ( a ) A mortgage account is delinquent any time a payment is due and not paid.
( b ) Once each month on a day prescribed by HUD, the mortgagee shall report to HUD all mortgages insured under this part that were delinquent on the last day of the month, or that were reported as delinquent the previous month. The report shall be made in a manner prescribed by HUD.
[71 FR 16234, Mar. 31, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Part 706

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 706 appear at 84 FR 37751, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 706.5 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant, and Anthony Spero, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 27, 1977, denying petitioner-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion granted to the extent of remanding for a hearing on whether a report of the underlying alleged accident was made to police and when, and whether respondent-respondent made all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the offending vehicle. The papers in opposition to the application state no more than the hearsay allegation that some unknown person had called police. (See Insurance Law, § 608, subd [b]; *Matter of O’Rouke v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp.,*29 AD2d 938.) Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.193 Responsibilities of 203(k) consultants on the list. All consultants included on the list are responsible for: ( a ) Obtaining and reading the HUD handbook on the 203(k) Program (4240.4) and any updates to the handbook.
( b ) Complying with the HUD handbook on the 203(k) Program (4240.4), and any updates to the handbook, when performing any consultant function under the 203(k) Program.
( c ) Obtaining and reading all Mortgagee Letters and other instructions issued by HUD relating to the 203(k) Program.
( d ) Complying with all Mortgagee Letters and other instructions issued by HUD relating to the 203(k) Program, when undertaking any consultant function under the 203(k) Program.
( e ) Complying with HUD's request for documentation relating to any 203(k) project on which the consultant has worked.
( f ) Complying with HUD's monitoring requirements relating to the 203(k) Program.
[67 FR 52381, Aug. 9, 2002]
### DuPont Chambers Works Trailer L-1 Deepwater, NJ 08023 \..01\.. \..UIIUVI IIIUIIIUCI 

# 360213
I

# LETTER 

# OF TRANSMITTAL

To: Document Control Office Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics EPA East, Room 6428 US Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 From: Thomas P. McGee, 3rd Date: May 12, 2014 Re: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0012 Director, Chemical Control Division Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics EPA East, Room 4146 US Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

1. Second Semester 2013 Semi-Annual NJPDES-DGW Report, 04/2014 2. PFOA Monitoring Program Groundwater Results, 04/2014Apri110, 2014 LindaRange NJDepartment ofEnvironmental Protection CHMM, Site Manager Bureau ofCase Management 401 East State Street Mail Code 401-0SF Trenton, NJ 08625-0028 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Chestnut Run Plaza 715-240 974Centre Road P.O. Box 2915 Wilmington, DE 19805

DuPont Chambers Works Complex NJPDES-DGW Permit No. NJ0083429 PFOA Monitoring Program Groundwater Results DearMs. Range: Asrequired bythe NJPDES-DGW PermitNo. NJ0083429, DuPont samples groundwater semiannually from 36 wells across the site for analysis ofPerfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and other perfluorinated compounds. DuPont sampledthe wells in January and February 2014 in accordance withthe sampling and analysis plan (SAP). The well locations are shown with results in Figure 1. PFOA was detected atvarying concentrations ranging from not detected [ND (0.0010)] at well AA25-M01C to 500 j..tg/L atwell G09-M01A (see Table 1). The highest concentrations are locatedtoward the center ofthe site where groundwater is contained by the Interceptor Well System. Table 2 lists the otherperfluorinated compounds. PFOAwas detected at concentrations ranging from .52 to 15 j..tg/L in the B (shallow) aquifer along the westernportion ofthe site where a component ofgroundwater flow is towards the Delaware River (see Figure 1). This occurrence is not expectedto adversely affectthe river based onprevious studies ofothercompounds detected in groundwater in the area. Ifyouhave any questions, please contactme at 302.999.6197. Very truly yours,

AndrewS. Hartten ProjectDirector Corporate Remediation

- NJ
cc: Edward Lutz, DuPont (database link) Sin-Kie Tjho, EPA Region 2 File:507141

E.l. du Pont de Nemours and Company
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2902 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2902

                For the relief of Diana Gecaj Engstrom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

  Mr. Evans introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Diana Gecaj Engstrom.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR DIANA GECAJ ENGSTROM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Diana Gecaj Engstrom shall 
be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Diana Gecaj Engstrom enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Diana Gecaj Engstrom, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Diana Gecaj 
Engstrom shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §3797dd–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §3002, as added Pub. L. 110–199, title I, §114(2), Apr. 9, 2008, 122 Stat. 677, which authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, was omitted as obsolete and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–391, title V, §502(c)(1), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5228.