alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles W. Mead *vs.*James Billings.

May 21, 1889.

Appeal — Order Granting Hew Trial — Presumption.—Upon an appeal from an order granting a new trial to the defendant,'unless the plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the amount awarded him by a jury, the settled case did not purport to contain all of the evidence. *Held,*following *Chesley*v. *Mississippi, etc., Boom Co.,*39 Minn. 88, -which overruled *Henry*v. *Hinman,*21 Minn. 378, that under such circumstances it will not be presumed that the evidence was “manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict. ”

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hubbard county, *Sleeper,*J., presiding, granting a new trial unless plaintiff should consent that the verdict in his favor be reduced from $1,116.88 to $384.32. The action was brought to recover $1,265.37, alleged to have been paid to defendant by plaintiff as usurious interest.

*O. W. Baldwin*and *F. A. Vanderpoel,*for appellant.

*A. G. Broker,*for respondent.

*506Collins, J.

Appeal from an order granting a new trial to defendant, unless tlie plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the amount awarded him by the verdict of a jury. There is no statement in either settled ease, or in the judged certificate of its settlement, that the case, as settled, contains all of the evidence received upon the trial. The party alleging error in an order granting a new trial must show it by the record; that is, from the record before this court it must affirmatively appear that the order ought not to have been granted; and, to justify us in reversing such an order, it must be made to appear that the evidence was “manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict.” *Chesley*v. *Mississippi, etc., Boom Co.,*39 Minn. 83, (38 N. W. Rep. 769,) in which *Henry*v. *Hinman;*21 Minn. 378, was overruled. As the settled case now before us does not purport to contain all of the evidence offered and received upon the trial, error in making the order appealed from cannot be presumed

Order affirmed.

Note. A motion for reargument of this case was denied June 10, 1889.
### §346. Consolidation and co-location of offices

Not later than 1 year after November 25, 2002, the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress a plan for consolidating and co-locating—

(1) any regional offices or field offices of agencies that are transferred to the Department under this chapter, if such officers 1 are located in the same municipality; and

(2) portions of regional and field offices of other Federal agencies, to the extent such offices perform functions that are transferred to the Secretary under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VII, §706, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2220.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in pars. (1) and (2), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be "offices".
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Vasquez, Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Cayuga County Court denying and disallowing relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Efrain Alfonseca, Appellant, v Van-Tag Construction Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And Other Actions.)

[833 NYS2d 458]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion and cross motion by defendants Van-Tag Construction and Piermont Ironworks for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Owners, contractors and their agents can be liable under Labor Law § 200 (1) only if they had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, so as to be able to avoid or correct the unsafe condition *(see e.g. Lombardi v Stout,*80 *267NY2d 290 [1992]). The language of the respective construction contracts does not subject these defendants to liability here *(see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136 [2002]), and plaintiff failed to show other means by which Van-Tag or Piermont had the requisite control to establish liability. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
[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).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Variable stars in the SmallMagellanic Cloud**
 
Hi-Res PDF | Lo-ResPDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:9
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001057251
 
May 16, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9913 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9913

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-
             generated content in political advertisements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2024

  Mr. Clyde (for himself, Mr. Baird, Ms. Hageman, Ms. Tenney, and Mr. 
   LaMalfa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-
             generated content in political advertisements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES 
              REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED 
              CONTENT IN POLITICAL TV AND RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``rule'' has the meaning 
given the term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code.
    (b) Prohibition.--The Federal Communications Commission may not--
            (1) finalize or enforce the proposed rule adopted under the 
        Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled ``In the Matter of 
        Disclosure and Transparency of Artificial Intelligence-
        Generated Content in Political Advertisements'' (FCC 24-74; MB 
        Docket No. 24-211), adopted July 10, 2024; or
            (2) promulgate or enforce any rule that is substantially 
        similar to the proposed rule described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, David Keleher, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynamics ResearchCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:November 9, 2005         /s/ David Keleher   David Keleher   Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,318,290
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     59,346
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         767,051
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       799,657
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,944,344
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      497,762
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             30,171
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 527,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    222,028<F1>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,060,713
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     10,726
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   755
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,122,189
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,944,344
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      541,739
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,210
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     441,233
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     458,443
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         83,296
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              11,590
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  94,886
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        46,918<F2>
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,968
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,726
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   46,242
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       257,728
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       38,893
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       (115,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Includes $11,420 of Preference Stock.
<F2>Includes $6,281 of Monthly Income Preferred Securities Dividend
Requirements.
</FN>


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



    <ARTICLE>        5

    <S>                            <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
    <PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-2000
    <PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-2000
    <CASH>                             600,621
    <SECURITIES>                             0
    <RECEIVABLES>                    3,507,965
    <ALLOWANCES>                        21,966
    <INVENTORY>                        454,898
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                 4,573,673
    <PP&E>                           3,550,891
    <DEPRECIATION>                   1,292,379
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                   7,286,938
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,458,364
    <BONDS>                                  0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
    <PREFERRED>                              0
    <COMMON>                            30,008
    <OTHER-SE>                       4,838,996
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     7,286,938
    <SALES>                          9,504,181
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                 9,504,181
    <CGS>                            5,809,275
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                    5,809,275
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                 2,292,426
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                    21,966
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  70,492
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                  1,374,169
    <INCOME-TAX>                       445,490
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
    <DISCONTINUED>                           0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
    <CHANGES>                                0
    <NET-INCOME>                       928,679
    <EPS-BASIC>                          .31
    <EPS-DILUTED>                          .29


</TABLE>
#### § 903.778 Permit applications—Minimum requirements for legal, financial, compliance, and related information.

Part 778 of this chapter, *Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information,* applies to any person who submits an application for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laurence R. Seymour, Appellant.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for a writ of error *coram nobis.*The basis for the writ alleged that the indictment did not bear the signature of the foreman of the Grand Jury. Prom the record it appears that on the application for the writ the court assigned counsel to represent the petitioner and, after hearing him and the District Attorney, denied the application, which included a request that the petitioner be present in person. It would appear that at the hearing on the application mentioned above, a certified copy of the indictment was offered which showed the required signature. Ordinarily such proceedings take place after granting a motion and the assignment of counsel and whether the prisoner should be present is a discretionary matter with the court. In any event, the matter sought to be reviewed was not the proper subject for *comm nobis. (People*v. *Fortson,*7 A D 2d 139.) The petitioner after being convicted appealed to this court (282 App. Div. 982) which affirmed the jury verdict and determined that the petitioner herein had a fair trial. The alleged errors were all apparent on the face of the record and we assume were the subject, at least in part, of his original appeal to this court. The relief sought is not the basis for a writ of error *coram nobis. (People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196, 198.) Order unanimously affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Frederick Arthur Collins, Jr., v. Lucia B. Collins.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Terezakis v Commission**

**(Case T-380/04)**

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits – Partial access

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(3) and 4(1) to (6))
(see paras 38-46, 53-67, 69-73, 85-105, 153-155, 163)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2004 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Terezakis. |
#### § 269.1 Scope and purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish a mechanism for the regular adjustment for inflation of civil monetary penalties under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Applicable civil monetary penalties must be adjusted in conformity with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, April 26, 1996, and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, November 2, 2015, in order to improve the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and to promote compliance with the law.

[81 FR 33391, May 26, 2016]
#### Mario Del Boca et al., Appellants, v. Claire Conroy et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order entered on November 20, 1959, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motions for a preference pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Trial Term Rules, unanimously reversed, on the law *922and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motions for a preference granted, with $10 costs. Some of the injuries claimed in this consolidated action warrant a granting of the preference. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3

[May 17, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-11175 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### SUBCHAPTER I—PLANT PROTECTION
### SUBCHAPTER III—NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT
§ 34.25 Intellectual property developed or produced under awards. ( a ) *Patents.* Grants and cooperative agreements with: ( 1 ) Small business concerns shall comply with 35 U.S.C. Chapter 18, as implemented by 37 CFR part 401, which applies to inventions made under grants and cooperative agreements with small business concerns for research and development. 37 CFR 401.14 provides a standard clause that is required in such grants and cooperative agreements in most cases, 37 CFR 401.3 specifies when the clause shall be included, and 37 CFR 401.5 specifies how the clause may be modified and tailored.
( 2 ) For-profit organizations other than small business concerns shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 210(c) and Executive Order 12591 (3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 220) (which codifies a Presidential Memorandum on Government Patent Policy, dated February 18, 1983). ( i ) The Executive order states that, as a matter of policy, grants and cooperative agreements should grant to all for-profit organizations, regardless of size, title to patents made in whole or in part with Federal funds, in exchange for royalty-free use by or on behalf of the Government (i.e., it extends the applicability of 35 U.S.C. Chapter 18, to the extent permitted by law, to for-profit organizations other than small business concerns).
( ii ) 35 U.S.C. 210(c) states that 35 U.S.C. Chapter 18 is not intended to limit agencies' authority to agree to the disposition of rights in inventions in accordance with the Presidential memorandum codified by the Executive order. It also states that such grants and cooperative agreements shall provide for Government license rights required by 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4) and march-in rights required by 35 U.S.C. 203.
( b ) *Copyright, data and software rights.* Requirements concerning data and software rights are as follows: ( 1 ) The recipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed under an award. DoD Components reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
( 2 ) Unless waived by the DoD Component making the award, the Federal Government has the right to: ( i ) Obtain, reproduce, publish or otherwise use for Federal Government purposes the data first produced under an award.
( ii ) Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal purposes.
### §9205. Procedures

(a) Appeals.—The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall by rule establish procedures providing for an appeal from any adverse action taken under section 9204 by not later than 30 days after the date of the action.

(b) Applicability of Other Laws.—An adverse action taken under section 9204 (including a determination in an appeal from such an action under subsection (a) of this section) shall not be subject to—

(1) the procedures under chapter 75; or

(2) except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, appeal or judicial review.

(Added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title XI, §1122(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1607.)