alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Isis Gergis et al., Respondents, v Salvatore Miccio, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 253]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 5, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

A driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign controlling traffic is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and is negligent as a matter of law *(see Odumbo v Perera,*27 AD3d 709 [2006]; *Friedberg v Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc.,*22 AD3d 522, 523 [2005]; *McNamara v Fishkowitz,*18 AD3d 721, 722 [2005]; *Nolan v Mizrahi,*12 AD3d 430 [2004]; *Ishak v Guzman,*12 AD3d 409 [2004]; *Meretskaya v Logozzo,*2 AD3d 599 [2003]). A driver is required to “see that which through proper use of [his or her] senses [he or she] should have seen” *(Bongiovi v Hoffman,*18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Bolta v Lohan,*242 AD2d 356 [1997]), and a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other motorist will obey the traffic law requiring him or her to yield *(see Platt v Wolman,*29 AD3d 663 [2006]; *Dileo v Barreca,*16 AD3d 366, 367-368 [2005]; *Morgan v Hachmann,*9 AD3d 400 [2004]).

The defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff driver, who was faced with a stop sign at the intersection of a parking lot exit and Route 25, negligently entered the intersec*469tion without yielding the right-of-way, and that this was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Bongiovi v Hoffman,*supra;*Breslin v Rudden,*291 AD2d 471, 472 [2002]). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted *(see Laino v Lucchese,*35 AD3d 672 [2006]; *Platt v Wolman, supra; Moore v Bremer,*280 AD2d 729 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### § 4.28 Civil penalties.

Whenever any employee knowingly and materially violates the prohibition in Section 103, the Department may impose a civil money penalty on the employee in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR part 30.
### §601. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section, Pub. L. 91–518, title VI, §601, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1338; Pub. L. 92–316, §9, June 22, 1972, 86 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 93–146, §12, Nov. 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 553; Pub. L. 93–496, §8, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1530; Pub. L. 94–25, §10, May 26, 1975, 89 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 94–555, title I, §102(a), (b), Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2613, 2614; Pub. L. 95–421, §§2(a), (b)(1), 3, Oct. 5, 1978, 92 Stat. 923; Pub. L. 96–73, title I, §122(a), (b)(1), Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 550, 551; Pub. L. 96–254, title II, §§208, 211, May 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 414, 415; Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §§1138, 1139(a), 1185, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 652, 697; Pub. L. 97–468, title III, §302(c), Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2550; Pub. L. 99–272, title IV, §4002, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 106; Pub. L. 101–322, §2, July 6, 1990, 104 Stat. 295; Pub. L. 102–533, §7(a), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3517, related to authorization and administration of appropriations for capital expenditures, new corridor development, operating expenses, and mandatory payments.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jonathan Earl Epps, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-18-00046-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017F00133). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jonathan Earl Epps, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 28, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 3280.401 Structural load tests. Every structural assembly tested shall be capable of meeting the Proof Load Test or the Ultimate Load Test as follows: ( a ) *Proof load tests.* Every structural assembly tested must be capable of sustaining its dead load plus superimposed live loads equal to 1.75 times the required live loads for a period of 12 hours without failure. Tests must be conducted with loads applied and deflections recorded in 1 ⁄ 4 design live load increments at 10-minute intervals until 1.25 times design live load plus dead load has been reached. Additional load shall then be applied continuously until 1.75 times design live load plus dead load has been reached. Assembly failure shall be considered as design live load deflection (or residual deflection measured 12 hours after live load removal) that is greater than the limits set in § 3280.305(d), rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding. Design live load deflection criteria do not apply when the structural assembly being evaluated does not include structural framing members. An assembly to be tested shall be of the minimum quality of materials and workmanship of the production. Each test assembly, component, or subassembly shall be identified as to type and quality or grade of material. All assemblies, components, or subassemblies qualifying under this test shall be subject to a continuing qualification testing program acceptable to HUD.
( b ) *Ultimate load tests.* Ultimate load tests must be performed on a minimum of three assemblies or components to generally evaluate the structural design. Every structural assembly or component tested must be capable of sustaining its total dead load plus the design live load increased by a factor of safety of at least 2.5. A factor of safety greater than 2.5 shall be used when required by an applicable reference standard in § 3280.304(b)(1). Tests shall be conducted with loads applied and deflections recorded in 1/4 design live load increments at 10-minute intervals until 1.25 times design live load plus dead load has been reached. Additional loading shall then be applied continuously until failure occurs, or the total of the factor of safety times the design live load plus the dead load is reached. Assembly failure shall be considered as design live load deflection greater than the limits set in § 3280.305(d), rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding. Design live load deflection criteria do not apply when the structural assembly being evaluated does not include structural framing members. Assemblies to be tested shall be representative of average quality or materials and workmanship of the production. Each test assembly, component, or subassembly shall be identified as to type and quality or grade of material. All assemblies, components, or subassemblies qualifying under this test shall be subject to a periodic qualification testing program acceptable to HUD.
[40 FR 58752, Dec. 18, 1975. Redesignated at 44 FR 20679, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 58 FR 55007, Oct. 25, 1993; 70 FR 72045, Nov. 30, 2005]
#### Emily Upton Brach, appellant, v. Stephen R. Swarthout and Matteson & Conran, Inc., appellees.

Gen. No. 27,967.

Complaint for return of certain leases and for appointment of a receiver. Decree for defendants. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and cause remanded.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Frederick Mayer, for appellant. MeNab, Holmes & Long, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §10320. Records of seamen

The Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring vessel owners to maintain records of seamen on matters of engagement, discharge, and service. A vessel owner shall make these records available to the seaman and the Coast Guard on request.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 569; Pub. L. 103–206, title IV, §411, Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2437.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 10320 | .............................................. |

Section 10320 authorizes the Secretary to provide for the maintenance of records of the engagement, discharge, or service of seamen.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–206 amended heading and text of section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Secretary may prescribe regulations for reporting by a master of matters about the engagement, discharge, or service of seamen that may be needed in keeping central records of seamen."

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §626. Enforcement of lien against entered but unpatented land

The lien described in section 622 of this title upon land covered by unpatented entries may be enforced upon said unpatented lands by the sale thereof in the same manner and under the same proceeding whereby said assessments are enforced against lands held under private ownership: Provided, That in the case of entered unpatented lands the title or interest which such irrigation district may convey by tax sale, tax deed, or as a result of any tax proceeding shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: If such unpatented land be withdrawn under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), known as the reclamation Act, or subject to the provisions of said Act, then the interest which the district may convey by such tax proceedings or tax deed shall be subject to a prior lien reserved to the United States for all the unpaid charges authorized by the said Act, but the holder of such tax deed or tax title resulting from such district tax shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges in the land included in such tax title or tax deed of an assignee under the provisions of section 441 of this title, and upon submission to the United States land office of the district in which the land is located of satisfactory proof of such tax title, the name of the holder thereof shall be indorsed upon the records of such land office as entitled to the rights of one holding a complete and valid assignment under section 441 of this title and such person may at any time thereafter receive patent upon submitting satisfactory proof of the reclamation and irrigation required by Act June 17, 1902, and Acts amendatory thereto, and making the payments required by said Acts.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 319, §2, 39 Stat. 507.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 17, 1902, referred to in text, is popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to chapter 12 (§371 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.
NO. C 09-02069 RS

ORDER

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 04/22/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND WELFARE 

FUND, its JOINT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

and DOUG CHRISTOPHER as Trustee; 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA APPRENTICE & 

JOURNEYMAN TRAINING TRUST 

FUND, and DOUG CHRISTOPHER as 

Trustee; 

RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING 

PENSION FUND, its BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, and STEVE HAVENS as 

Trustee; 

CENTRAL COAST COUNTIES FLOOR 

COVERING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, 

its BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and STEVE 

HAVENS as Trustee; 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 of the 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS 

AND ALLIED TRADES, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

No. C 09-02069 RS 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

WITHOUT HEARING 

Case 3:09-cv-02069-RS Document 41 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 

ORDER

2 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

MORTENSEN’S CARPETS, INC., a 

California Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

 Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, docket [34] in the above-captioned case, is currently 

scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States 

Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to 

rule on the motion without a hearing. In order for the defendant to have a full opportunity to appear 

and litigate this action, plaintiffs’ request will be denied. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/22/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-02069-RS Document 41 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unifrax Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers' knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
             expressed in the Report.


Date: November 8, 2002             By: /s/ William P. Kelly
      ----------------                 ----------------------------------------
                                           William P. Kelly
                                   President & Chief Executive Officer


                                   By: /s/ Mark D. Roos
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Mark D. Roos
                                   Sr. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.



                                       21
#### § 87.410 Enforcement.

The head of each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the provisions herein are vigorously implemented and enforced in that agency.
#### § 203.15 Certification of appraisal amount.

An application with respect to insurance of mortgages must be accompanied by an agreement satisfactory to the Commissioner, executed by the seller, builder or such other person as may be required by the Commissioner, whereby the person agrees that before any sale of the dwelling, the person will deliver to the purchaser of the property a written statement, in a form satisfactory to the Commissioner, setting forth the amount of the appraised value of the property as determined by the Commissioner.

[58 FR 41001, July 30, 1993]
### §497. Action to recover operation charge and penalty

In the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior suit or action may be brought for the amounts of operation or maintenance charges in default and penalties in like manner as provided in section 481 of this title.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §6, 38 Stat. 688.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of third sentence of section 6 of act Aug. 13, 1914. First and second sentences of such section 6 are classified to sections 479, 493, 494, 495, and 496 of this title, respectively.
### §§615 to 615e. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 615, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §1, 70 Stat. 28, authorized construction, operation, and maintenance of Washita River Basin Project, Oklahoma.

Section 615a, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §2, 70 Stat. 28, related to allocation of construction costs, adjustments, and repayment of construction costs.

Section 615b, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §3, 70 Stat. 30, required construction in units or stages.

Section 615c, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §4, 70 Stat. 30, related to construction, operation, and maintenance of public parks and recreational facilities on lands adjacent to Washita project.

Section 615d, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §5, 70 Stat. 30, related to expenditures for Foss and Fort Cobb Reservoirs.

Section 615e, act Feb. 25, 1956, ch. 71, §6, 70 Stat. 30, related to authorization of appropriations for this project.

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

#### Foss Reservoir Master Conservancy District; Feasibility Study; Revision of Repayment Contract

Pub. L. 90–311, May 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 124, directed Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies in areas serving Foss Reservoir Master Conservancy District to determine alternative water sources and methods of alleviating problems associated with poor quality and supply of water stored in Foss Reservoir, provided for assistance to Foss Reservoir Master Conservancy District in developing an adequate interim water supply, and authorized Secretary to use any available funds to carry out this Act.
**GAO-07-1265T**                      Published: Sep 27, 2007. Publicly Released: Sep 27, 2007.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

The Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs asked GAO to discuss its recent work on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) program. GAO reported on this subject in September 2006, focusing on (1) VA's estimates of the number of homeless veterans and transitional housing beds, (2) the extent of collaboration involved in the provision of GPD and related services, and (3) VA's assessment of program performance.

## Full Report

Highlights

Full Report (16 pages)

Accessible Text 

## GAO Contacts

### 

Dan Bertoni
bertonid@gao.gov

(202) 512-2834

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Veterans

Data collectionEligibility determinationsstate relationsHomelessnessHousingHousing programsPerformance appraisalProgram evaluationState programsVeteransVeterans benefitsProgram goals or objectives
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,951,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  523,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,680
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,644,269
<PP&E>                                       1,982,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                 975,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,046,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,491,130
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,715
<COMMON>                                         6,177
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,452,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,046,083
<SALES>                                        644,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               644,362
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,101,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               909,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,804
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,366,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,366,656)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)



</TABLE>