alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§1881 to 1888. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–648, title IV, §403, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1925

Sections, act Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 878, §§1–8, 70 Stat. 934, related to:

Section 1881, declaration of purpose;

Section 1882, definitions;

Section 1883, cooperative agreements and period of assignment;

Section 1884, amended Aug. 4, 1965, Pub. L. 89–106, §6, 79 Stat. 432, Departmental employees, status, salary and leave rights, and disability or death arising out of injury;

Section 1885, travel expenses of departmental employees;

Section 1886, State employees: appointments or detail, compensation, and supervision of duties;

Section 1887, State employees: conflict of interest and disability or death arising out of injury; and

Section 1888, travel expenses of state employees. See section 3371 et seq. of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective sixty days after Jan. 5, 1971, see section 404 of Pub. L. 91–648, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3371 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
#### In the Matter of Salvatore Alaimo, Jr., an Infant, Appellant. Richard S. Peterson, Respondent.

In a proceeding against an infant pursuant to the Children’s Court Act of the State of New York, the infant appeals from a judgment of the Children’s Court, Rockland County, rendered June 15, 1961 after a hearing, which adjudicated him to be a juvenile delinquent by reason of his violation of section 1293-a of the Penal Law, relating to the larcenous taking and operation of an automobile, and which committed him to a State training school, subject to the provisions of law relating to such school. Judgment affirmed, without prejudice to an application to the Children’s Court, Rockland County, for further action not inconsistent herewith. While the judgment when made was proper, we believe that the propriety of the infant’s present commitment to the State training school at Otisville should be reconsidered in view of the fact: (1) that the judgment in the companion case *(Matter of Alaimo, Jr.,*16 A D 2d —) is being reversed; and (2) that the file papers now contain a psychiatric report, made by a physician attached to the staff of the said school, which indicates that the infant may require treatment in some other institution. In our opinion, it is necessary and desirable that the infant’s commitment should now be re-evaluated in the light of the stated new facts and of any other relevant facts which may have since developed. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Byrd, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered on or about December 13, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
§ 2002.2 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) NARA incorporates certain material by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, NARA must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. You may inspect all approved material incorporated by reference at NARA's textual research room, located at National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; Room 2000; College Park, MD 20740-6001. To arrange to inspect this approved material at NARA, contact NARA's Regulation Comments Desk (Strategy and Performance Division (SP)) by email at *regulation_comments@nara.gov* or by telephone at 301.837.3151. All approved material is available from the sources listed below. You may also inspect approved material at the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). For information on the availability of this material at the OFR, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by mail at 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, by email at *inquiries@nist.gov ,* by phone at (301) 975-NIST (6478) or Federal Relay Service (800) 877-8339 (TTY), or online at *http://nist.gov/publication-portal.cfm .* ( 1 ) FIPS PUB 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, February 2004. IBR approved for §§ 2002.14(c) and (g), and 2002.16(c).
( 2 ) FIPS PUB 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems, March 2006. IBR approved for §§ ** 2002.14(c) and (g), and 2002.16(c).
( 3 ) NIST Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, Revision 4, April 2013 (includes updates as of 01-22-2015), (NIST SP 800-53). IBR approved for §§ 2002.14(c), (e), (f), and (g), and 2002.16(c).
( 4 ) NIST Special Publication 800-88, Guidelines for Media Sanitization, Revision 1, December 2014, (NIST SP 800-88). IBR approved for § 2002.14(f).
( 5 ) NIST Special Publication 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations, June 2015 (includes updates as of January 14, 2016), (NIST SP 800-171). IBR approved for § 2002.14(h).
FORM 6-K



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION



Washington, D.C. 20549



Report of Foreign Issuer



Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of



Securities Exchange Act of 1934



For the month of March 2007



ABBEY NATIONAL PLC

(Translation of registrant's name into English)



Abbey National House, 2 Triton Square, Regents

Place, London NW1 3AN, England

(Address of principal executive offices)





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . .



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



Yes . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .















---

Abbey National plc



Abbey National plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006 and Notice of Annual General Meeting



A copy of the above documents have been submitted to the UK Listing Authority, and will shortly be available for inspection at the UK Listing Authoritys Document Viewing Facility, which is situated at:



Financial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London

E14 5HS







---















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, thereunto duly authorized.







| |                        | ABBEY NATIONAL PLC     
| | ---------------------- | -----------------------
| |                        |                        
| |                        |                        
| |                        |                        
| | Dated: 15 March 2007   | By / s / Katherine Bond
| | (Authorised Signatory) |
#### Riverside Syndicate, Inc., Appellant, v Victoria Munroe et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 452]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 17, 2006, which denied plaintiff landlord’s motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment complaint, and granted defendant tenants’ cross motion for summary judgment in their favor, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted to the extent of declaring that the stipulation of settlement executed by the parties as of March 29, 1996 in the summary proceeding entitled *Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v Victoria Munroe et al.*(Civ Ct, NY County, L&T Index No. 93325/95), and “so ordered” by the court in that proceeding on May 3, 1996 (the consent judgment), is null, void, and of no force or effect, on the ground that it violates Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.13 and is contrary to public policy, and the cross motion denied.

Under the consent judgment, the tenants agreed to pay rent in excess of the legal regulated rent on one of the three rent stabilized (and now connected) apartments they occupy in landlord’s building, and to waive their right to challenge the unlawful rent. In exchange, the landlord agreed to waive its right to seek to recover possession of any of the three apartments on the ground that the tenants (who evidently work, have a residence, and are registered to vote in Massachusetts) do not use their apartments as primary residences. The consent judgment also provided that, in the event any of the apartments became deregulated, the rent would not be increased by more than 8% every two years, and the tenants would be offered a renewal lease every two years.

*257Because the consent judgment violates public policy by waiving benefits of the Rent Stabilization Law (notwithstanding that it does so to the tenants’ benefit in this instance), it is unenforceable *(see Drucker v Mauro,*30 AD3d 37 [2006], *appeal dismissed*7 NY3d 844 [2006]). Since the consent judgment’s main objective was illegal, it is void in its entirety *(see Rose v Elias,*177 AD2d 415, 416 [1991]). Further, given that the landlord and the tenants are in pari delicto, and the tenants (who seek to keep the consent judgment in force) have already reaped substantial benefits from it (including more than a decade of enjoyment of their renovations to the apartments), we leave the parties as we find them, and do not place any conditions on our invalidation of the consent judgment *(see Abright v Shapiro,*214 AD2d 496 [1995]). Finally, because the consent judgment is void as a matter of public policy (not due to fraud, mistake or unconscionability), the statute of limitations (which was not raised on the motion or cross motion) does not bar the instant action on the ground that it was commenced more than six years after the consent judgment was entered *(see e.g. 390*W *End Assoc. v Harel,*298 AD2d 11, 13 [2002]; *Rima 106 v Alvarez,*257 AD2d 201, 203 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.
### §473c. Rules and regulations

The Secretary of Agriculture is further authorized to make such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §3c, as added Apr. 13, 1937, ch. 75, 50 Stat. 62.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1767

STEPHEN KYPRIANIDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PASQUOTANK PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-17-2-H) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Kyprianides, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher W. Jones, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Kyprianides appeals from the district court’s orderdismissing his civil action in which he claimed gender discrimination based upon the failure of the Appellee to hire him. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. As the district judge found, Kyprianides failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). See also O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. ,517 U.S. 308, 312 (1996). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kyprianides v. Pasquotank Pub. Library, No. CA-00-17-2-H (E.D.N.C. May 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER IX—STUDIES
#### Thomas A. Stokoe *vs.*St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company.

May 31, 1889.

Papers of Client in Attorney’s Possession — What Disclosure may be Required. — An attorney is not obliged to produce a writing intrusted to him by his client, or to disclose its contents, without his consent; but he may be required to state whether he has it in his possession, for the purpose of authorizing the adverse party to give parol evidence of its contents.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Stearns county, *Searle,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The reply admitted the making of the release pleaded in the answer, and alleged, in avoidance, that it was obtained by defendant’s agent by false representations.

*O. W. Baldwin*and *L. S. Thomas,*for appellant.

*M. D. Grover*and *Reynolds é Stewart,*for respondent.

Vanderburgh, J.

The plaintiff, who was an employe of the defendant, was injured while coupling freight cars. He complains that the accident causing the injury happened without fault on his part, by reason of the unsafe coupling attachment or draw-bar left in use on one of the cars, and which was of an old and inferior kind or pattern, the defects and dangers of which he described to the jury, and contrasted with the later and improved couplers in use on other of defendant’s cars. Other experienced brakemen also testified upon. *546the same subject. We think there was evidence for the consideration of the jury on this branch of the case.

One of the defences in the case is an alleged release by plaintiff of his claim for damages, which plaintiff insists was procured by fraud, and it was material to his case to have it produced-or its contents proved on the trial. One of the defendant’s attorneys, present in court, was sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, and was asked if he had in his possession the release in question. He refused to answer, on the ground of his privilege as an attorney in the case, and the court sustained the' objection. Secondary evidence was therefore not allowed, and the action was thereupon dismissed, on defendant’s motion. The court erred in not requiring the witness to answer. The attorneys for the defendant were not bound to produce writings intrusted to them by their client, either after notice to produce them or upon demand in court, nor to give evidence of their contents; but they could not prevent the plaintiff from giving evidence of their contents, if proper notice had been served, or if, having the same in their possession, they were able to produce them on the trial; and hence the rule is well settled that an attorney may be compelled to state whether he has the required instrument in his possession, for the purpose of authorizing the adversó party to give parol evidence of its contents. *Brandt*v. *Klein,*17 John. 335; *Mitchell’s Case,*12 Abb. Pr. 249, 258; *Coveney*v. *Tannahill,*1 Hill, 33, (37 Am. Dec. 287;) 1 Greenl. Ev. § 241.

Order reversed.
### §3801. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

The Congress hereby finds and declares that—

(1) raw garbage is one of the primary media through which numerous infectious or communicable diseases of swine are transmitted;

(2) if certain exotic animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, hog cholera, and swine vesicular diseases, gain entrance into the United States, such diseases may be spread through the medium of raw or improperly treated garbage which is fed to swine;

(3) African swine fever, which is potentially the most dangerous and destructive of all communicable swine diseases, has been confirmed in several countries of the Western Hemisphere, including the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Cuba;

(4) swine in the United States have no resistance to any of such exotic diseases and in the case of African swine fever there is a particular danger because there are no effective vaccines to this deadly disease;

(5) all articles and animals which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce, and regulation by the Secretary and cooperation by the States and other jurisdictions as contemplated by this chapter are necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce, to effectively regulate such commerce, and to protect the health and welfare of the people of the United States;

(6) the interstate and foreign commerce in swine and swine products and producers and consumers of pork products could be severely injured economically if any exotic animal diseases, particularly African swine fever, enter this country;

(7) it is impossible to assure that all garbage fed to swine is properly treated to kill disease organisms unless such treatment is closely regulated;

(8) therefore, in order to protect the commerce of the United States and the health and welfare of the people of this country, it is necessary to regulate the treatment of garbage to be fed to swine and the feeding thereof in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 96–468, §2, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2229.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 96–468, §1, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2229, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Swine Health Protection Act'."
#### § 67.3 Definitions.

*Accredited educational institution.* An educational institution accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary of Education.

*Qualifying educational institution.* An educational institution that is accredited, or an unaccredited educational institution that the Secretary of Defense designates pursuant to § 67.6(a) and § 67.6(b).

*Unaccredited educational institution.* An educational institution not accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary of Education.
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM 6-K**

**REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

Dated August 8, 2006 

Commission File Number: 001-14666 

MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V. 

(Translation of registrant’s name into English) 

15th Floor, Hofplein 20 

3032 AC Rotterdam 

The Netherlands 

(Address of principal executive offices) 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. 

Form 20-F  x    Form 40-F  o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):             

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):             

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

Yes  o    No  x

If “Yes” marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On August 8, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1. This report on Form 6-K is hereby incorporated by reference into Mittal Steel Company N.V.’s registration statement on Form F-4 (File No. 333-132642) and into the amended and restated prospectus dated June 29, 2006, as supplemented by the prospectus supplement dated July 7, 2006.

 

**Exhibit List**

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit No.**

  

**Description**

  

 

Exhibit 99.1

  

Press release dated August 8, 2006 announcing terms of mandatory sell-out for remaining Arcelor shares. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**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, thereunto duly authorized. 

Date: August 8, 2006 

 

 

 

 

 

 By:

/s/ Henk Scheffer

 

 

Name: Henk Scheffer

 

 

Title: Company Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit Index**

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit No.**

  

**Description**

  

 

Exhibit 99.1

  

Press release dated August 8, 2006 announcing terms of mandatory sell-out for remaining Arcelor shares.
### §1639o. Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Hemp

The term "hemp" means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

#### (2) Indian tribe

The term "Indian tribe" has the meaning given the term in section 5304 of title 25.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture.

#### (4) State

The term "State" means—

(A) a State;

(B) the District of Columbia;

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.

#### (5) State department of agriculture

The term "State department of agriculture" means the agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture in the State.

#### (6) Tribal government

The term "Tribal government" means the governing body of an Indian tribe.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §297A, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title X, §10113, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4908.)

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

#### Interstate Commerce

Pub. L. 115–334, title X, §10114, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4914, provided that:

"(a) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this title [enacting this subchapter and sections 1627c and 6521a of this title, amending sections 136a, 1622b, 1632a, 1632b, 2204h, 2207b, 2276, 2401, 2402, 2541, 2568, 3003, 5925c, 6502, 6514, 6515, 6518, 6519, 6521–6523, and 7655a of this title and section 714i of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, repealing sections 3005 and 3006 of this title, enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1627c, 1639o, 6503, and 6521a of this title, and amending provisions set out as a note under section 1621 of this title] or an amendment made by this title prohibits the interstate commerce of hemp (as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 [7 U.S.C. 1639o] (as added by section 10113)) or hemp products.

"(b) Transportation of Hemp and Hemp Products.—No State or Indian Tribe shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products produced in accordance with subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 [7 U.S.C. 1639o et seq.] (as added by section 10113) through the State or the territory of the Indian Tribe, as applicable."
No. 7999.

#### The Murdock-West Co. *v.*Logan et al.

(Decided October 13, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Washington county.

*Messrs. MeConiea & Dmggins*and *Mr. C. C. Middleswart,*for plaintiff in error.

*539
      *Messrs. A. D. Follett; A. L. Weil*and *G. M. Thorp,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Price and Crew* JJ., concur.

Burket, C. J., and Davis, J., dissent.