alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Martin Bellone, Appellant, v. Seas Shipping Co., Inc., Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 15, 1962 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint on the merits at the end of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment affirmed, without costs. While working on defendant’s pier, plaintiff, a foreman employed by a stevedore conducting stevedoring operations on the pier, was intentionally struck and severely injured by an automobile driven by one Grillo, a disgruntled former fellow-employee with well-known violent propensities, who had eluded the defendant’s security guards. It appears that three months prior thereto, plaintiff’s assailant (Grillo) had been discharged after an altercation; that, on the day following the discharge, Grillo had threatened to “get” the plaintiff; and that the defendant, being aware of these facts and circumstances, had then assured plaintiff that Grillo would never again be permitted to come upon the pier. In our opinion, the complaint was properly dismissed. In view of the lapse of three months, and under all the other circumstances here presented, we agree with the Trial Justice that plaintiff failed to prove neglect on the part of the defendant either to take reasonable steps to bar the assailant from its pier or to otherwise act with regard to plaintiff’s safety (cf. *Schuster*v. *City of New York,*5 N Y 2d 75; *Abbott*v. *New York Pub. Lib.,*263 App. Div. 314; *Neering*v. *Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.,*383 Ill. 366). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# P&Ttable2
§ 93.403 Program income and repayments. ( a ) *Program income.* Program income must be treated as HTF funds and must be used in accordance with the requirements of this part. Program income must be deposited in the grantee's HTF local account unless the grantee permits a subgrantee to retain the program income for additional HTF projects pursuant to the written agreement required by § 93.404(b). The grantee must report the program income received as well as the use of the program income in the disbursement and information system that HUD designates for the HTF.
( b ) *Repayments.* ( 1 ) Any HTF funds invested in housing that does not meet the affordability requirements for the period specified in § 93.302 or § 93.304, as applicable, must be repaid by the grantee in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( 2 ) Any HTF funds invested in a project that is terminated before completion, either voluntarily or otherwise, must be repaid by the grantee, in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( 3 ) HUD will instruct the grantee to either repay the funds to the HTF Treasury account or the local account. Generally, if the HTF funds were disbursed from the grantee's HTF Treasury account, they must be repaid to the HTF Treasury account. If the HTF funds were disbursed from the grantee's HTF local account, they must be repaid to the local account.
( 4 ) If the grantee is no longer a grantee in the HTF program when the repayment is made, the funds must be remitted to HUD and reallocated in accordance with § 93.54 of this part.
#### Philip Purdon, Respondent-Appellant, v City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on April 4, 1977 unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Callahan, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Evans, J. P., Markewich, Lynch, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3549 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3549

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. 
                  Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 210 
West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 
as the ``William F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William F. Clinger, Jr. Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 18, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
June 2, 2015 

Mr. Phoung Nguyen 

239 Laurel Street 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Dear Mr. Nguyen: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 6, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1471), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
### §§1236b to 1237c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1236b to 1237c were omitted in view of recognition of Philippine independence.

Section 1236b, act Dec. 22, 1941, ch. 617, §1, 55 Stat. 852, related to export tax rate and temporary suspension.

Section 1236c, act Dec. 22, 1941, ch. 617, §2, 55 Stat. 852, related to reduction of export quotas and temporary suspension.

Section 1237, acts Jan. 17, 1933, ch. 11, §7, 47 Stat. 765; Mar. 24, 1934, ch. 84, §7, 48 Stat. 460, related to government relations and appointment and duties of the High Commissioner to the Philippines.

Section 1237a, acts Mar. 21, 1935, ch. 36, title I, 49 Stat. 59; May 15, 1936, ch. 404, §1, 49 Stat. 1306; July 19, 1937, ch. 511, §1, 50 Stat. 516; June 11, 1938, ch. 348, §1, 52 Stat. 669; June 28, 1939, ch. 246, §1, 53 Stat. 858; June 18, 1940, ch. 395, §1, 54 Stat. 410; June 28, 1941, ch. 259, §1, 55 Stat. 309; July 2, 1942, ch. 473, §1, 56 Stat. 510; July 12, 1943, ch. 219, §1, 57 Stat. 454, related to salaries of legal advisor and financial expert.

Section 1237b, act June 5, 1936, ch. 519, 49 Stat. 1478, related to appointment powers, and duties of the acting High Commissioner, and was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 649.

Section 1237c, act Aug. 11, 1937, ch. 581, §§1–3, 50 Stat. 621, 622, related to authorization to Chief Clerk and Assistant Chief Clerk of High Commissioner to administer oaths.
§ 3.125 Effect of other requirements. ( a ) *Effect of other Federal provisions.* The obligations imposed by these Title IX regulations are independent of, and do not alter, obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex imposed by Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12087, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264; sections 704 and 855 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m, 298b-2); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206); and any other Act of Congress or Federal regulation.
( b ) *Effect of State or local law or other requirements.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law or other requirement that would render any applicant or student ineligible, or limit the eligibility of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, to practice any occupation or profession.
( c ) *Effect of rules or regulations of private organizations.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any rule or regulation of any organization, club, athletic or other league, or association that would render any applicant or student ineligible to participate or limit the eligibility or participation of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity operated by a recipient and that receives Federal financial assistance.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Environmental impact statement for anearly site permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site, final report.
 
Vol. 1| Vol. 2
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:10/1811/FINAL/V.1-2
Item Number:1051-H-48 (online)
CGP System Number:001011161
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 16, 2017********
| Name                                       |   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation/Organization |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                            |
| Medtech      Holdings, Inc.                |   | Delaware                                        |
| Medtech      Products Inc.                 |   | Delaware                                        |
| Prestige      Brands Holdings, Inc.        |   | Virginia                                        |
| Prestige      Brands, Inc.                 |   | Delaware                                        |
| Prestige      Brands International, Inc.   |   | Virginia                                        |
| Prestige      Brands (UK) Limited          |   | England      and Wales                          |
| Prestige      Personal Care Holdings, Inc. |   | Delaware                                        |
| Prestige      Personal Care, Inc.          |   | Delaware                                        |
| Prestige      Services Corp.               |   | Delaware                                        |
| The      Cutex Company                     |   | Delaware                                        |
| The      Denorex Company                   |   | Delaware                                        |
| The      Spic and Span Company             |   | Delaware                                        |
| Wartner      USA B.V.                      |   | Netherlands                                     |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Shirley, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 18, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report on the issues of (1) the voluntariness of defendant’s plea of guilty and (2) defendant’s fitness to proceed at the time of sentence, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Defendant was not heard on the issues of voluntariness and fitness to proceed as required by CPL article 730. Suozzi, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### Domenick D’Agostino et al., Respondents, v. Alfred M. Gomez, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, defendant Gomez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 22, 1961, which: (1) granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue and reconsider the said defendant’s motion, made pursuant to section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution; (2) vacated and set aside the prior order of said court, dated May 29, 1959, dismissing the action; (3) denied said defendant’s original motion to dismiss; and (4) upon plaintiffs’ consents, transferred the case to the City Court of the City of New York. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the EPA Great Lakes Advisory Board is a necessary committee which is in the public's interest. Accordingly, the Advisory Board will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the Advisory Board is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator through the Great Lakes National Program Manager on matters related to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and on domestic matters related to the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Advisory Board's major objectives are to provide advice and recommendations on: Great Lakes protection and restoration activities; long term goals, objectives and priorities for Great Lakes protection and restoration; and other issues identified by the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force/Regional Working Group.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Edlynzia Barnes, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Great Lakes National Program Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W Jackson Boulevard, Chicago IL; telephone number: 312-886-6249; email address:                         *Barnes.Edlynzia@epa.gov.*

Kurt Thiede,

Regional Administrator, Great Lakes National Program Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2020-27317 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Charles J. Nyquist, administrator of the estate of Roger Edward Nyquist, deceased, appellee, v. Elmer E. Vaughn, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,388.

Action for damages for death of minor child by being struck by automobile. Judgment for administrator. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David M. Brothers, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 2, 1923.

Lannen & Hickey, for appellant. John A. Bloomingston, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### KIRMAN v. SUN PRINTING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Tillie Kirman against the Sun Printing Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
### §§741 to 744. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 741 to 744 ceased to be effective Apr. 15, 2005, pursuant to section 765d(4) of this title.

Section 741, Pub. L. 87–624, title IV, §401, Aug. 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 426, related to the common carrier status of and laws applicable to the corporation.

Section 742, Pub. L. 87–624, title IV, §402, Aug. 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 426, related to foreign business negotiations of the corporation and required notice to the Department of State.

Section 743, Pub. L. 87–624, title IV, §403, Aug. 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 426, related to sanctions imposed upon the corporation for violations of provisions of this chapter.

Section 744, Pub. L. 87–624, title IV, §404, Aug. 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 426; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §304(b)(4), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4297; Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2051(a), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 729, related to annual reports to the President and Congress by the corporation.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.531 When does my casing pressure request approval become invalid? A casing pressure request becomes invalid when: ( a ) The casing or riser pressure increases by 200 psig over the approved casing pressure request pressure;
( b ) The approved term ends;
( c ) The well is worked-over, side-tracked, redrilled, recompleted, or acid stimulated;
( d ) A different casing or riser on the same well requires a casing pressure request; or
( e ) A well has more than one casing operating under a casing pressure request and one of the casing pressure requests become invalid, then all casing pressure requests for that well become invalid.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 77 FR 50894, Aug. 22, 2012]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                                    AMENDMENT
           TO INTERNET APPLICATIONS DIVISION (IAD) RESELLER AGREEMENT
                            AND OUTSOURCING ADDENDUM

This Amendment ("Amendment") entered into as of June 12, 2002, supplements and
amends the terms of the Internet Applications Division (IAD) Reseller Agreement
("the Reseller Agreement") and the Outsourcing Addendum (for IAD Subscription
Services) to the IAD Reseller Agreement ("the Outsourcing Addendum") dated March
22, 1999, between Sybase, Inc. ("Sybase") and Rainmaker Systems, Inc.
("Rainmaker"). As used herein, the term "Agreement" shall collectively refer to
the Reseller Agreement, the Outsourcing Addendum and all Addenda, Amendment(s),
Schedule(s) and Attachment(s) thereto. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. In the event of a
conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and conditions of
this Amendment shall prevail.

Rainmaker and Sybase agree as follows:

     1.   A new Section 18 is added to the Reseller Agreement to read as
          follows:

          "18. Lead Response Timeframes. Except as otherwise noted within
          this section, Rainmaker shall respond to Program or Subscription
          Service leads that Sybase provides to Rainmaker a) via email,
          electronic, and verbal within [ ] business days; b) via business reply
          cards, business reply envelopes, faxes, and trade show cards within [
          ] business days; or c) via product evaluation, downloads, Tech Wave,
          or other large trade shows within [ ]."

     2.   Section 5(a) of the Outsourcing Addendum is amended to change the
          Quarterly Revenue Targets therein as follows:

          April 2002 - June 2002             $        [ ]
          July 2002 - September 2002         $        [ ]
          October 2002 - December 2002       $        [ ]
          January 2003 - March 2003          $        [ ]

     3.   Section 2 of Amendment No. 1 is amended to add the following Program:
          EAServer

Except as amended above, the Agreement shall remain in unchanged and full force
and effect.

SYBASE, INC. ("Sybase")                   RAINMAKER SYSTEMS, INC. ("Rainmaker")

By:      /s/ Glen Germanowski             By:      /s/ M. Hernandez

Name:    Glen Germanowski                 Name:    Martin Hernandez

Title:   VP/Associate General Counsel     Title:   COO

Date:    6/18/02                          Date:    June 12, 2002



Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit. The copy
filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality request.
Omissions are designated by brackets "[ ]." A complete version of this exhibit
has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
§ 903.17 What is the process for obtaining public comment on the plans? ( a ) The PHA's board of directors or similar governing body must conduct a public hearing to discuss the PHA plan (either the 5-Year Plan and/or Annual Plan, as applicable) and invite public comment on the plan(s). The hearing must be conducted at a location that is convenient to the residents served by the PHA.
( b ) Not later than 45 days before the public hearing is to take place, the PHA must: ( 1 ) Make the proposed PHA plan(s), the required attachments and documents related to the plans, and all information relevant to the public hearing to be conducted, available for inspection by the public at the principal office of the PHA during normal business hours; and
( 2 ) Publish a notice informing the public that the information is available for review and inspection, and that a public hearing will take place on the plan, and the date, time and location of the hearing.
( c ) PHAs shall conduct reasonable outreach activities to encourage broad public participation in the PHA plans.