alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of William Lopez, Petitioner, v Peter Healy, as Acting Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 464]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner worked as a law clerk in the law library, at which time he told a correction officer that he was not doing legal work for another inmate even though certain legal papers belonging to the inmate were found on his desk and he started to compose a letter for the inmate. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with lying and providing unauthorized legal assistance. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of both charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, together with the testimony at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission that he did not have authorization to provide legal assistance to the inmate, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Chaney v Selsky,*35 AD3d 1109 [2006]; *Matter of Petrucco v Barkley,*260 AD2d 705, 705-706 [1999]). Petitioner’s testimony that the inmate inadvertently left legal papers on his desk and that petitioner merely typed the name and number of the inmate on his computer for future reference presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord,*25 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2006]; *Matter of Gayle v Bigness,*207 AD2d 940 [1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 804 [1995]). Moreover, there was no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of petitioner’s request to submit the law library’s policy and procedure manual at the hearing inasmuch as Directive No. *9794483, requiring that legal assistance be authorized, rendered it irrelevant to the charges (see *Matter of Jackson v Goord,*18 AD3d 973, 974 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 713 [2005]; *Matter of Mastropietro v Goord,*14 AD3d 914, 915 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 2800 DATE 5/8/2012

CASE

TITLE

Diana Sharp vs. Villa Scalabrini Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement [15] is granted. The instant action is hereby ordered

dismissed pursuant to settlement, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. All pending

dates and motions, if any, are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. 

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

maw

11C2800 Diana Sharp vs. Villa Scalabrini Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:11-cv-09220 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:71
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 26, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1168 Lower Tribunal No. 19-25728

________________ 

### Maximo Perez, et al. , Appellants,
vs. 

### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge. Dennis A. Donet, P.A., and Dennis A. Donet, for appellants. McGlinchey Stafford, and William L. Grimsley and Kimberly Held Israel (Jacksonville), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bradshaw-Jackson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 354 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
1 ... S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 47. 4. 

# COURT OFAPPEALS SE CONDDI S T RICTOFT EXAS

FORT W ORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 01 9- CR M E R R Y K UB I CE K AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 67 DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY TH

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h aveco ns i der ed app el l ant ’ s “M ot i on To D i sm i ss A ppe al . ” The m ot i on c o m p l i e s w i th ru l e 4 2 .2 (a ) o f th e ru l e s o f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re . Tex. R. A pp. P. 42 . 2( a) . N o deci si on of t hi s court havi ng been del i ver ed bef or e w e r ecei ved th i s m o ti o n , w e g ra n t th e m o ti o n a n d d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 4 2 .2 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E R C U R I A M PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b)DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r23, 2008
### §165a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 16, 1928, ch. 572, 45 Stat. 565, provided that the functions of the Federal Horticultural Board should devolve upon and be exercised by the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration. Said act also created an Advisory Federal Plant Quarantine Board which was abolished by act Mar. 3, 1933, ch. 203, 47 Stat. 1463. Appropriations to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of this chapter, which in prior appropriation acts had been made to the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration, were made to the Bureau of Plant Quarantine by the appropriation act of July 7, 1932, ch. 443, 47 Stat. 640, and to the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine by the appropriation act of Mar. 26, 1934, ch. 89, 48 Stat. 486, and subsequent appropriation acts.
#### In the Matter of Helen K. Boyd, Petitioner, against John Collins et al., Constituting the Board of Education of Central School District No. 1, Town of Indian Lake.

Upon reargument we adhere to our original decision, decided January 12, 1960 (10 A D 2d 584). Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
CONCLUSION

As set forth herein, TERRESTAERIAL seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 11.61 and

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Actof 2012 (FMRA), which will permit

safe operation of the DJI Phantom 3 UASs commercially, without an airworthiness

certificate, for the United States. By granting the Petition, the FAA Administrator will be

fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,

while also advancing the interests of the public, by allowing TERRESTAERIAL to safely,

efficiently, and economically operate the DJI Phantom 3 UASs commercially within the

NAS.

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, TERRESTAERIAL respectfully

requests that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of

14 C.F.R. Sections 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a),91.121,91,151(b0, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and9t.4l7(a) & (b), and permit TERRESTAERIAL to operate the DJI

Phantom 3 UASs commercially for the purpose of conducting aerial video and photography

over certain areas of the United States.

Dated: August 7,2015

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. VON TSCHARNER

GENEVA S 1X4, LLC, DBA TERRE STAERIAL IMAGING SERVICES

PRESIDENT

5211 South Race Street

Greenwood Village, CO 80121

303.859.7232

Appendices:

DII Phantom 3 Professional Manual

DJI Phantom 3 Safety Guidelines

28
Case: 1:12-cv-00362 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/18/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00362 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/18/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00362 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/18/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1
### §588. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(June 10, 1933, ch. 59, §8, 48 Stat. 124.)
September 27, 2012 

Mr. Doug A. Lee 

Northrop Grumman Technical Services 

4067 Enterprise Way 

Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 

Dear Mr. Lee: 

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

§ 91.203(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 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 September 17, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Northrop Grumman 

Technical Services into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-1023), 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 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. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. 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/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure 
3 

Project No.: AFS-12-554-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:09/2112Doc# 34987 

ARM-1/100/105:AFS-200
1217.7001 Clauses. ( a ) The clause at 1252.217-70, Guarantee, shall be used where general guarantee provisions are deemed desirable by the contracting officer. ( 1 ) When inspection and acceptance tests will afford full protection to the Government in ascertaining conformance to specifications and the absence of defects and deficiencies, no guarantee clause for that purpose shall be included in the contract.
( 2 ) The customary guarantee period, to be inserted in the first sentence of the clause at 1252.217-70, Guarantee, is 60 days. In certain instances, it may be advisable for the contracting officer to include a contract clause for a guarantee period longer than 60 days. These instances are as follows— ( i ) If, as a result of a full inquiry, the contracting officer determines that there will be no increased costs as a result of a longer guarantee period, the contracting officer may substitute guarantee longer than the usual 60 days; or
( ii ) When the contracting officer's inquiry discloses that increased costs will result or are expected to result from a longer guarantee period, the contracting officer shall submit a letter to the Chief of the Contracting Office, requesting approval for use of guarantee period in excess of 60 days. The letter must contain sufficient facts to justify the use of a longer guarantee period. Upon approval, the contracting officer may insert a longer period in the first sentence of the clause at 1252.217-70, Guarantee.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the following clauses in solicitations and contracts for vessel repair, alteration or conversion: ( 1 ) 1252.217-71, Delivery and Shifting of Vessel.
( 2 ) 1252.217-72, Performance.
( 3 ) 1252.217-73, Inspection and Manner of Doing Work.
( 4 ) 1252.217-74, Subcontracts.
( 5 ) 1252.217-76, Liability and Insurance.
( 6 ) 1252.217-77, Title.
( 7 ) 1252.217-78, Discharge of Liens.
( 8 ) 1252.217-79, Delays.
( 9 ) 1252.217-80, Department of Labor Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repair.
( c ) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1252.217-75, Lay Days, in sealed bid fixed-price solicitations and contracts for vessel repair, alteration, or conversion which are to be performed within the United States, the District of Columbia, and all territories and possessions of the United States. The contracting officer may also insert the clause at 1252.217-75, Lay Days, in negotiated solicitations and contracts to be performed outside the United States.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 267]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ267.110]
Public Law 110-267
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
11151 Valley Boulevard in El Monte, California, as the ``Marisol Heredia 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 15, 2008 -  [H.R. 4185]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MARISOL HEREDIA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11151 Valley Boulevard in El Monte, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Marisol Heredia Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Marisol 
Heredia Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 15, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4185:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Apr. 23, considered and passed House.
            June 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### 1304.805 Storage, handling, and disposal of contract files.
1239.7000 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart applies to contracts and subcontracts requiring contractors and subcontractors to safeguard DOT sensitive data that resides in or transits through covered contractor information systems by applying specified network security requirements. It also requires reporting of cyber incidents.
( b ) This subpart does not abrogate any other requirements regarding contractor physical, personnel, information, technical, or general administrative security operations governing the protection of unclassified information, nor does it affect requirements of the National Industrial Security Program.
EXHIBIT 32 (b)

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and Subsidiaries (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                             
| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | (2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                        |     |                                       
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------
|Date:
 October 14, 2011 | By: | /s/ Barry
 Weiner                     
|                        |     |                                       
|                        |     | Barry Weiner                          
|                        |     | Chief
 Financial Officer and Principal
|                        |     | Accounting
 Officer                   

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Act
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Order entered March 31, 2020

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01162

- CR

STACY DAVIDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Ju dic ial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 80297

- 2019

O RDER

Before the Court is the State ’ s March 30, 2020 motion for extension of t ime

to file its brief. We GRANT the moti o n and ORDER the State ’ s brief received

that same da y filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
### §441. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–36, title I, §111, May 23, 1957, 71 Stat. 35

Section, act Sept. 22, 1951, ch. 409, 65 Stat. 335, related to prevention of entry of mollusks. See chapter 7B of this title.
### **CHAPTER 8A—RUBBER AND OTHER CRITICAL AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
171.
Program for development of guayule and other rubber-bearing plants.
172.
Authorization of Secretary to appoint employees; delegation of powers; cooperation with other agencies; allotment of funds; leases of facilities and disposal of water.
173.
Authorization of appropriations.
174.
Omitted.
175.
Lease or sublease of unsuitable lands; disposal of water supply.
176.
Sale of guayule shrub to Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—CRITICAL AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS

178.
Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
178a.
Definitions.
178b.
Joint Commission on Research and Development of Critical Agricultural Materials.
178c.
Research and development program by Secretary of Agriculture.
178d.
Research and development program by Secretary of Commerce.
178e.
Cooperative projects with Mexico, Australia, and Israel.
178f.
Assistance from States and public agencies; contracts and agreements.
178g.
Powers of Secretary of Agriculture.
178h.
Powers of Secretary of Commerce.
178i.
Coordination of activities with Federal agencies.
178j.
Laws governing inventions under this subchapter.
178k.
Disposition of byproducts and strategic and industrially important products.
178 l.
Rules and regulations.
178m.
Report to President and Congress.
178n.
Administration and funding.
# 2012 Congressional Action
§ 537.1 Statutory authority for non-maritime claims. ( a ) *The Federal Claims Collection Act.* The Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA), is set forth at 31 U.S.C. 3711-3720E, as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982, Public Law 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749 (October 1982), Public Law 101-552, 104 Stat. 2746 (November 1990).
( b ) *Federal Medical Care Recovery Act.* The Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) is set forth at 42 U.S.C. 2651-53, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-202, section 1075, 110 Stat. 2422.
( c ) *Title 10 United States Code Section 1095.* 10 U.S.C. 1095, Public Law 101-510, section 713, 107 Stat. 1547, 1689 (1993), as amended by Public Law 103-160, 104 Stat. 1485 (November 1990).
Note to § 537.1 :
All of these statutes may be viewed on the USARCS Web site, *https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/85256F33005C2B92/(JAGCNETDocID)/HOME?OPENDOCUMENT .* Select the link “Claims Resources.”
13.303-2 Establishment of BPAs. ( a ) The following are circumstances under which contracting officers may establish BPAs: ( 1 ) There is a wide variety of items in a broad class of supplies or services that are generally purchased, but the exact items, quantities, and delivery requirements are not known in advance and may vary considerably.
( 2 ) There is a need to provide commercial sources of supply for one or more offices or projects in a given area that do not have or need authority to purchase otherwise.
( 3 ) The use of this procedure would avoid the writing of numerous purchase orders.
( 4 ) There is no existing requirements contract for the same supply or service that the contracting activity is required to use.
( b ) After determining a BPA would be advantageous, contracting officers shall— ( 1 ) Establish the parameters to limit purchases to individual items or commodity groups or classes, or permit the supplier to furnish unlimited supplies or services; and
( 2 ) Consider suppliers whose past performance has shown them to be dependable, who offer quality supplies or services at consistently lower prices, and who have provided numerous purchases at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.
( c ) BPAs may be established with— ( 1 ) More than one supplier for supplies or services of the same type to provide maximum practicable competition;
( 2 ) A single firm from which numerous individual purchases at or below the simplified acquisition threshold will likely be made in a given period; or
( 3 ) Federal Supply Schedule contractors, if not inconsistent with the terms of the applicable schedule contract.
( d ) BPAs should be prepared without a purchase requisition and only after contacting suppliers to make the necessary arrangements for— ( 1 ) Securing maximum discounts;
( 2 ) Documenting individual purchase transactions;
( 3 ) Periodic billings; and
( 4 ) Incorporating other necessary details.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 7, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: June 26, 2014, Meeting with Massachusetts State Staff Regarding Proposed 

Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 26, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. Discussion covered 

Massachusetts’ state goal calculations, focusing on renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

ATTENDEES (all by phone)

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: 

Nancy Seidman

Will Space

Seth Federspiel

Bill Lamkin

Marilyn Levenson

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources:

Alissa Whiteman

Bram Claeys

Tina Halfpenny

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities:

Justin Brant

EPA: 

Joe Bryson

Jenny Noonan

Brian Fisher

Denise Mulholland

Michael Cohen

Cynthia Greene

Shutsu Wong

Dave Conroy

Bob McConnell