alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Constance Ovid, Respondent, v Edward J. Schafer et al., Appellants, and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, dated June 6, 1978, denying motion of defendants Schafer to change the venue to Kings County, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment in favor of defendants, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, to grant the motion of defendants Schafer to change venue to Kings County and otherwise affirmed. This action finds its wellspring in a now-questioned settlement of an action in Kings County between plaintiff and defendant Edward J. Schafer. Unlike the other defendants, defendant American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) had no interest at stake in the Kings County action. The sole reason advanced by plaintiff for laying the venue of this action in New York County is that AT&T has been made a defendant and that is its county of residence. We find, however, that AT&T is not a necessary party. The only relief sought against it, enjoining it from transferring on its books any stock of the defendants Schafer, is as well accomplished by the relief sought against the defendants Schafer enjoining them from transferring their AT& T stock. AT&T’s interest, although affected, will not be affected inequitably *(Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler,*24 NY2d 120,125). The inclusion of an unnecessary party should not be the sole basis of venue (cf. CPLR 1003). In denying a change of venue Special Term also found that the moving defendants had failed to serve the prior written notice on the plaintiff required by CPLR 511 (subds [a], [b]) but we find no evidence in the record to support this finding. Special Term properly found the complaint, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, to state a cause of action and properly *742denied summary judgment as issue had not then been joined. Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Evans, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.

Silverman, J., concurs in a memorandum, as follows:

On the oral argument it became clear that the primary purpose of the present litigation was to establish the predicate for restoring the case to the Trial Calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County. Obviously that court should control its own calendar without interference from a court in this Department. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the whole controversy be transferred to the Supreme Court, Kings County.
13.302-2 Unpriced purchase orders. ( a ) An unpriced purchase order is an order for supplies or services, the price of which is not established at the time of issuance of the order.
( b ) An unpriced purchase order may be used only when— ( 1 ) It is impractical to obtain pricing in advance of issuance of the purchase order; and
( 2 ) The purchase is for— ( i ) Repairs to equipment requiring disassembly to determine the nature and extent of repairs;
( ii ) Material available from only one source and for which cost cannot readily be established; or
( iii ) Supplies or services for which prices are known to be competitive, but exact prices are not known (e.g., miscellaneous repair parts, maintenance agreements).
( c ) Unpriced purchase orders may be issued on paper or electronically. A realistic monetary limitation, either for each line item or for the total order, shall be placed on each unpriced purchase order. The monetary limitation shall be an obligation subject to adjustment when the firm price is established. The contracting office shall follow up on each order to ensure timely pricing. The contracting officer or the contracting officer's designated representative shall review the invoice price and, if reasonable (see 13.106-3(a)), process the invoice for payment.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 201O-NM-141-AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a"significant regulatory action"? YES ()explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
### §2484. Correction of Plant Variety Protection Office mistake

Whenever a mistake in a certificate of plant variety protection incurred through the fault of the Plant Variety Protection Office is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, the Secretary may issue, without charge, a corrected certificate of plant variety protection, stating the fact and nature of such mistake. Such certificate of plant variety protection shall have the same effect and operation in law as if the same had been originally issued in such corrected form.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §84, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1552; Pub. L. 96–574, §15, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–574 substituted provisions relating to correction of Plant Variety Protection Office mistake for provisions relating to certificate of correction of Plant Variety Protection Office mistake.
719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 | SEATTLE, WA 98104 | P 206.394.3700

SENT VIA EMAIL

March 22, 2016

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 12308, filed pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1758

Dear Sir/Madam:

Parametrix, Inc. (Parametrix) previously has been granted Exemption numbered 12308 (hereinafter the

Exemption) for the purpose of aerial data collection. Parametrix hereby requests an amendment to the

Exemption to allow an additional model of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully complies with the

conditions of the Exemption.

Parametrix wishes to operate the DJI Matrice 100 UAS under the same terms and conditions contained in

the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and

Procedures Manual for the DJI Matrice 100. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance

with the terms of the previously granted Exemption.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request for an amendment of our Exemption

The name and address of the applicant is:

Parametrix, Inc.

Attn: Steven K Aisaka

719 Second Avenue, Suite 200

Seattle, WA 98104

Ph.: 253

‐ 501

‐ 5206

Email: saisaka@parametrix.com

Regards,

Steven K. Aisaka, PE, SE, JD

Director of Risk Management

Parametrix, Inc.ATTACHMENT A

– OPERATIONS MANUAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation,

et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−09308

Honorable James F.

Holderman

PMC Joint Venture L.P. 2003−1, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, March 24, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James F. Holderman: Status hearing held.

Status hearing set for 5/12/2015 at 11:00 a.m. The parties are encouraged to discuss

settlement. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (mgh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 1178 Filed: 03/24/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:48009
# A

Adult_Education_State_Grants

Byrd_Honors_Scholarships

Chapter_2_State_and_Local_Programs

Consumer_and_Homemaking_Education

Douglas_Teacher_Scholarships

Eisenhower_Mathematics_and_Science_Education_State_Grants

ESEA_Title_I__Grants_to_Local_Educational_Agencies

Federal_Pell_Grants

Federal_Perkins_Loans__Capital_Contributions

Federal_Supplemental_Educational_Opportunity_Grants

Federal_Work_Study

Grand_Total

Immigrant_Education

Impact_Aid__Basic_Support_Payments

Independent_Living_State_Grants

Indian_Education__Grants_to_Local_Educational_Agencies

Leveraging_Educational_Assistance_Partnership

Safe_and_Drug_Free_Schools_State_Grants

Special_Education__Grants_for_Infants_and_Families

Special_Education__Grants_to_States

Special_Education__Preschool_Grants

State_Literacy_Resource_Centers

State_Postsecondary_Review_Progam

Supported_Employment_State_Grants

Vocational_Education_Community_Based_Organizations

Vocational_Education_State_Councils

Vocational_Education_State_Grants

Vocational_Rehabilitation_State_Grants

Refugee_Education
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00136

- CR Tania Georgina MENDOZA , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- CR

- 0068W Honorable Sid L. Harle , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011
DISMISSED
On March 1, 2011 , this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record on or before March 31, 2011

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 11 0 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not respond. The record does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary , the trial court certification in the04

- 11

- 00136

- CR

- 2

- record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recom mended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### §7416a. Confirmation of authority of Secretary of Agriculture to collect State commodity assessments

#### (a) Collection from marketing assistance loans

The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect commodity assessments from the proceeds of a marketing assistance loan for a producer if the assessment is required to be paid by the producer or the first purchaser of a commodity pursuant to a State law or pursuant to an authority administered by the Secretary. This collection authority does not extend to a State tax or other revenue collection activity by a State.

#### (b) Collection pursuant to agreement

The collection of an assessment under subsection (a) shall be made as specified in an agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the State requesting the collection.

#### (c) Prohibition on charging certain fees

The Secretary may not charge any fees or related costs for the collection of commodity assessments pursuant to this section.

(Pub. L. 108–470, §1, Dec. 21, 2004, 118 Stat. 3894; Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1616, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1021; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1616, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

Section was not enacted as part of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–246, §1616(1), substituted "shall" for "may".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–246, §1616(2), added subsec. (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
§ 935.105 Trial. ( a ) If the accused pleads not guilty, he is entitled to a trial on the charges in accordance with procedures prescribed in the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the U.S. District Courts (18 U.S.C.), except as otherwise provided for in this part, to the extent the Court considers practicable and necessary to the ends of justice. There is no trial by jury.
( b ) All persons shall give their testimony under oath or affirmation. The Chief Judge shall prescribe the oath and affirmation that may be administered by any Judge or the Clerk of the Court.
( c ) Upon completion of the trial, the Court shall enter a judgment consisting of a finding or findings and sentence or sentences, or discharge of the accused.
( d ) The Court may suspend any sentence imposed, may order the revocation of any Island automobile permit in motor vehicle cases, and may place the accused on probation. It may delay sentencing pending the receipt of any presentencing report ordered by it.
#### Daniel M. Ross et al., Respondents, v. Triboro Drive It Yourself, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Motion by appellants for a stay of assessment of damages, pending appeal, granted, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must he served and filed on or before March 13, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATE

Certification 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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen L. Gurba, Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Stephen L. GurbaStephen L. GurbaPrincipal Executive OfficerJanuary 27, 2011
### **CHAPTER 13—IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION

Sec.
1551.
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
1552.
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization; office.
1553.
Assistant Commissioners and one District Director; compensation and salary grade.
1554.
Special immigrant inspectors at Washington.
1555.
Immigration Service expenses.
1556.
Transferred.
1557.
Prevention of transportation in foreign commerce of alien women and girls under international agreement; Commissioner designated as authority to receive and preserve information.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

1571.
Purposes.
1572.
Definitions.
1573.
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Account.
1574.
Reports to Congress.
No. 686.

#### Ada Griffith *v.*United States.

March 8, 1920.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court *578of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

*Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach*for petitioner.

*Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart*and *Mr. H. S. Ridgely*for the United States.
### §2204–5. Authorization of appropriations for cooperative research projects

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 2204–1 to 2204–5 of this title.

(Apr. 4, 1940, ch. 75, §5, 54 Stat. 82.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 450g of this title prior to editorial reclassification as this section, and to section 516e of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
1.702 General. ( a ) A D&F shall ordinarily be for an individual contract action. Unless otherwise prohibited, class D&F's may be executed for classes of contract action (see 1.703). The approval granted by a D&F is restricted to the proposed contract action(s) reasonably described in that D&F. D&F's may provided for a reasonable degree of flexibility. Furthermore, in their application, reasonable variations in estimated quantities or prices are permitted, unless the D&F specifies otherwise.
( b ) When an option is anticipated, the D&F shall state the approximate quantity to be awarded initially and the extent of the increase to be permitted by the option.
12.101 Policy. The head of the agency shall— ( a ) Conduct market research to determine whether commercial products, commercial services, or nondevelopmental items are available that could meet the agency's requirements;
( b ) Acquire commercial products, commercial services, or nondevelopmental items when they are available to meet the needs of the agency; and
( c ) Require prime contractors and subcontractors at all tiers to incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, commercial products, commercial services, or nondevelopmental items as components of items supplied to the agency.
[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 67623, Oct. 23, 2020; 86 FR 61021, Nov. 4, 2021]
### §507. Limitation on use of statistical information

The information furnished under the provisions of this chapter shall be used only for the statistical purposes for which it is supplied. No publication shall be made by the Secretary of Agriculture whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment can be identified, nor shall the Secretary of Agriculture permit anyone other than the sworn employees of the Department of Agriculture to examine the individual reports.

(Jan. 14, 1929, ch. 69, §7, 45 Stat. 1080.)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Vincent Santangelo, Appellant, against B. John Tutuska, as Sheriff of the County of Erie, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Whlliams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,284,530
<SECURITIES>                                 6,653,634
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,712,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,504,069
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,773,401
<PP&E>                                      12,651,942
<DEPRECIATION>                              (9,488,811)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,017,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,237,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       504,979
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,017,325
<SALES>                                      8,747,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,747,908
<CGS>                                        7,271,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,271,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,370,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                508,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                   159,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            349,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   349,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
### §1030. Consolidation of agricultural credit and service offices

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Governor of the Farm Credit Administration are directed, wherever practicable, to make suitable arrangements whereby all field offices under their supervision or direction extending agricultural credit or furnishing agricultural services to farmers to utilize the same or adjacent offices to the end that eligible farmers in each locality will be enabled to obtain their agricultural credit and services at one central point.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 964, §7, 60 Stat. 1079.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Farmers' Home Administration Act of 1946, and not as part of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act which constitutes a major part of this chapter.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exceptions From Transfer of Functions

Functions of Corporations of Department of Agriculture, boards of directors and officers of such corporations; Advisory Board of the Commodity Credit Corporation; and Farm Credit Administration or any agency, officer, or entity of, under, or subject to supervision of the said Administration were excepted from functions of officers, agencies, and employees transferred to Secretary of Agriculture by 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.