alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cosimo Mezzapella, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Santaromita, Also Known as John Santonorita, Appellant.

Appeal by each defendant from a separate judgment of the Supreme Court, *730Queens County, rendered September 27, 1962, after a jury trial, convicting Mill of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree (two counts), and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. Although the evidence as to the identification of the defendants as perpetrators of the crimes charged was sufficient as a matter of law to present an issue for determination by the jury *(People*v. *Seppi,*221 N. Y. 62, 68; *People*v. *Lee,*308 3ST. Y. 302), it was not entirely satisfactory, and it may not be said that errors committed at the trial did not affect defendants’ substantial rights. Prior to and during trial the defendant Santaromita made clear the fact that he had no alias and was not also known by another name. When his pedigree was taken the prosecutor moved to amend the indictment to read that said defendant’s true and correct name was John Santaromita. Under such circumstances it was error for the court to refer to “John Santaromita alias John Santonorita ” during the charge (.cf. *People*v. *Klulcofshy,*201 Mise. 457). The court also committed error in ruling that defendants’ counsel should not mention in his summation the fact that at the police precinct the eyewitnesses to the crime had identified a named person who was not indicted as a participant in the crime in place of defendant S-antaromita. Moreover, when the jury requested a reading of the testimony of one of the witnesses in regard to the questioning and identification at the police precinct, the court should not have curtailed the reading of said testimony. It was also improper for the prosecutor on summation to state that the two eyewitness victims of the crimes were *“*frightened and harried witnesses ”, without any justification in the record for such statement. In our opinion “ the repeated improprieties had a decided tendency to blur the issue for decision and to prejudice the jury”, thereby depriving the defendants of a fair trial *(People*v. *Carboramo,*301 N. Y. 39, 42). Justice requires a new trial, even in the absence of exceptions to some of the improprieties mentioned (Code Grim. Pro., § 527; cf. *People*v. *Lee,*4 A D 2d 770, affd. 4 N Y 2d 843). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 910.824 Special performance standards—mountaintop removal.

Part 824 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Mountaintop Removal,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations constituting mountaintop removal mining.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,979
<PP&E>                                          33,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,874
<SALES>                                        402,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               404,582
<CGS>                                          383,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    400
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.35
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          56,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,733)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               349,539<F1>
<PP&E>                                          46,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,084)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,336<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           356
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   552,849
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               480,207
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,066
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $155,025
<F2>INCLUDES NOTES PAYABLE ON REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $92,399
</FN>


</TABLE>
April 18, 1977.

M. P. No. 77-131.

#### William H. Bailey *v.*William Laurie *et al.*

*John A. O’Neill, Jr.,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Seymour Posner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

The State’s motion to revoke the petitioner’s bail is denied.

The writ of habeas corpus shall issue forthwith and this case is assigned to the calendar for Friday, April 22, 1977, at 9:30 a.m., for oral argument.

Bevilacqua, C. J., not participating.
### §8907. Information to individuals eligible to enroll

(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall make available to each individual eligible to enroll in a health benefits plan under this chapter such information, in a form acceptable to the Office after consultation with the carrier, as may be necessary to enable the individual to exercise an informed choice among the types of plans described by sections 8903 and 8903a of this title.

(b) Each enrollee in a health benefits plan shall be issued an appropriate document setting forth or summarizing the—

(1) services or benefits, including maximums, limitations, and exclusions, to which the enrollee or the enrollee and any eligible family members are entitled thereunder;

(2) procedure for obtaining benefits; and

(3) principal provisions of the plan affecting the enrollee and any eligible family members.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 605; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(a)(2), (3), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224; Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3204; Pub. L. 99–53, §2(d), June 17, 1985, 99 Stat. 94.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 3009(d). | Sept. 28, 1959, Pub. L. 86–382, §10(d), 73 Stat. 715. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–53 inserted reference to section 8903a of this title.

1984—Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5)(C), substituted "individuals eligible to enroll" for "employees" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5)(A), substituted "individual" for "employee" in two places.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5)(B)(i), substituted "enrollee" for "employee enrolled" in provisions preceding par. (1).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5)(B)(ii), substituted "enrollee or the enrollee and any eligible family members" for "employee or the employee and members of his family".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 98–615, §3(5)(B)(iii), substituted "the enrollee and any eligible family members" for "the employee or members of his family".

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–454 substituted "Office of Personnel Management" and "Office" for "Civil Service Commission" and "Commission", respectively.

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–615 effective May 7, 1985, with enumerated exceptions, and applicable to any individual who is married to an employee or annuitant on or after that date, see section 4(a)(2) of Pub. L. 98–615, as amended, set out as a note under section 8341 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1013. DANIEL CASTLEBERRY v. STEPHANIE ANNE LOCKHART et

al.

In November 2018, Daniel Castleberry attempted to file a petition for a writ of

mandamus against two individual defendants. The trial court denied filing of the

petition under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), on the ground that it showed a complete absence

of any justiciable issue of law or fact. Castleberry then filed both a direct appeal –

which has been docketed as the instant case, No. A19A1013 – and an application for

discretionary review, which we denied on the merits. See Daniel Castleberry v.

Stephanie Anne Biggers a/k/a Stephanie Anne Lockhart et al., No. A19D0245 (Jan.

10, 2019).

Because we rejected Castleberry’s challenge to the trial court order sought to

be appealed here in Case No. A19D0245, the current appeal is barred by the law of

the case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (“[A]ny

issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is

binding on this Court . . . .”) (punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga.

App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007) (“[T]he denial of an application for

discretionary appeal is an adjudication on the merits of the underlying order and acts

as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.”); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320,

320 (540 SE2d 612) (2001) (a defendant “is not entitled to another bite at the apple

by way of a second appeal”).

January 22, 2019
Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review in the instant appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED. See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320; Ross, 310 Ga. App. at

327-328. Castleberry’s motions for oral argument, to verify the absence of an

account summary in a federal court case, for the production of transcripts from a

Tennessee court, and for DNA testing are DENIED as MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/22/2019
§ 22.710 Assignment of grants administration offices. In accordance with the policy stated in § 22.705(b), the DoD offices (referred to in this part as “grants administration offices”) that are assigned responsibility for performing field administration services for grants and cooperative agreements are (see the “Federal Directory of Contract Administration Services (CAS) Components”[7] for specific addresses of administration offices): ( a ) Regional offices of the Office of Naval Research, for grants and cooperative agreements with: ( 1 ) Institutions of higher education and laboratories affiliated with such institutions, to the extent that such organizations are subject to the cost principles in subpart E of 2 CFR part 200.
( 2 ) Nonprofit organizations that are subject to the cost principles in subpart E of 2 CFR part 200 if their principal business with the Department of Defense is research and development.
( b ) Field offices of the Defense Contract Management Agency, for grants and cooperative agreements with all other entities, including: ( 1 ) For-profit organizations.
( 2 ) Nonprofit organizations identified in appendix VIII to 2 CFR part 200 that are subject to for-profit cost principles in 48 CFR part 31.
( 3 ) Nonprofit organizations subject to the cost principles in subpart E of 2 CFR part 200, if their principal business with the Department of Defense is other than research and development.
( 4 ) State and local governments.
[63 FR 12164, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 49466, Aug. 23, 2005; 72 FR 34989, June 26, 2007; 85 FR 51243, Aug. 19, 2020] Footnotes -
22.710
[7] The “Federal Directory of Contract Administration Services (CAS) Components” may be accessed through the Defense Contract Management Agency homepage at *http://www.dcma.mil .*
§ 26.500 How are violations of this part determined for recipients other than individuals? A recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Head of the DOD Component or his or her designee determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart B of this part; or
( b ) The number of convictions of the recipient's employees for violating criminal drug statutes in the workplace is large enough to indicate that the recipient has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
§ 22.220 Exemptions. Under 31 U.S.C. 6307, “the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may exempt an agency transaction or program” from the requirements of 31 U.S.C. chapter 63. Grants officers shall request such exemptions only in exceptional circumstances. Each request shall specify for which individual transaction or program the exemption is sought; the reasons for requesting an exemption; the anticipated consequences if the exemption is not granted; and the implications for other agency transactions and programs if the exemption is granted. The procedures for requesting exemptions shall be: ( a ) In cases where 31 U.S.C. chapter 63 would require use of a contract and an exemption from that requirement is desired: ( 1 ) The grants officer shall submit a request for exemption, through appropriate channels established by his or her DoD Component (see 32 CFR 21.320(a)), to the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DDP&AP).
( 2 ) The DDP&AP, after coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD (R&E)), shall transmit the request to OMB or notify the DoD Component that the request has been disapproved.
( b ) In other cases, the DoD Component shall submit a request for the exemption through appropriate channels to the ASD (R&E). The ASD (R&E) shall transmit the request to OMB or notify the DoD Component that the request has been disapproved.
( c ) Where an exemption is granted, documentation of the approval shall be maintained in the award file.
[63 FR 12164, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 47160, Aug. 7, 2003; 70 FR 49464, Aug. 23, 2005; 85 FR 51242, Aug. 19, 2020]
### §3349d. Notification of intent to nominate during certain recesses or adjournments

(a) The submission to the Senate, during a recess or adjournment of the Senate in excess of 15 days, of a written notification by the President of the President's intention to submit a nomination after the recess or adjournment shall be considered a nomination for purposes of sections 3345 through 3349c if such notification contains the name of the proposed nominee and the office for which the person is nominated.

(b) If the President does not submit a nomination of the person named under subsection (a) within 2 days after the end of such recess or adjournment, effective after such second day the notification considered a nomination under subsection (a) shall be treated as a withdrawn nomination for purposes of sections 3345 through 3349c.

(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, §151(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–615.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, and applicable to any office that becomes vacant after such effective date, with certain exceptions, see section 151(d) of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 3345 of this title.
§ 196.445 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *Status generally.* A recipient shall not apply any rule concerning a student's actual or potential parental, family, or marital status that treats students differently on the basis of sex.
( b ) *Pregnancy and related conditions.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.
( 2 ) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a physician that the student is physically and emotionally able to continue participation as long as such a certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician.
( 3 ) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
( 4 ) Subject to § 196.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
( 5 ) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): January 6, 2006

|MS Structured Asset Corp.                         
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

|Delaware                                        | 333-101155                | 13-4026700                        
|----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                                               
|(State or Other Jurisdiction  of Incorporation) | (Commission File  Number) | (IRS Employer  Identification No.)

|1585 Broadway, Second Floor  New York, New York  Attention: John Kehoe | 10036     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------
|                                                                      
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                               | (Zip Code)

Registrants telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

|Not Applicable                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)



---

|Section 9 |                                                                                       | Financial Statements and Exhibits
|--------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------
|          | Item 9.01
         Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits
|          |                                                                                       | Exhibit 4.1                      
|          |                                                                                       | Exhibit 5.1                      
|          |                                                                                       | Exhibit 23.1                     

---

SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: January 12, 2006

| | MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
| | -------------------------
| | (Registrant)             
|
| | By:                      
| |                          
| | Name:                    
| | Title:                   

---



EXHIBIT INDEX

|Exhibit4.1   | Trust Agreement                                                          
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 5.1  | Validity Opinion of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP                 
|Exhibit 23.1 | Consent of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (included in Exhibit 5.1)



---