alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Umanzor, Appellant, v Cesar L. Pineda et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 218]

*540In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated February 28, 2006, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants, who relied on the same evidentiary submissions, satisfied their respective prima facie burdens of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs treating chiropractor failed to proffer objective medical evidence that was contemporaneous with the subject accident *(see Felix v New York City Tr. Auth.,*32 AD3d 527, 528 [2006]; *Ramirez v Parache,*31 AD3d 415, 416 [2006]; *Bell v Rameau,*29 AD3d 839 [2006]; *Ranzie v Abdul-Massih,*28 AD3d 447, 448 [2006]; *Li v Woo Sung Yun,*27 AD3d 624, 625 [2006]), and did not indicate that he reviewed the actual MRI films from 2002 *(see Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental,*216 AD2d 266 [1995]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs examining radiologist merely acknowledged the existence of herniated discs in the plaintiffs cervical spine and failed to address the affirmed medical report of the examining radiologist of the defendants Martha A. Zelada and Jose J. Trejo, which noted the existence of a longstanding degenerative disc disease. The mere existence of a herniated or bulging disc is not evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration *(see Whitfield-Forbes v Pazmino,*36 AD3d 901 [2007]; *Mejia v DeRose,*35 AD3d 407 [2006]; *Yakubov v CG Trans Corp.,*30 AD3d 509 [2006]; *Cerisier v Thibiu,*29 AD3d 507 [2006]; *Bravo v Rehman,*28 AD3d 694 [2006]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]; *Diaz v Turner,*306 AD2d 241 [2003]). Since the plaintiff relied on no other objective medical evidence, the mere existence of herniated discs did not raise a triable issue as to whether she suffered a serious injury. Schmidt, J.E, Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
### §6813. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this chapter and the powers vested in the Secretary by this chapter, including regulations relating to the assessment of late payment charges and interest.

(Pub. L. 103–190, §14, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2289.)
EXHIBIT 32.2
          Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
           18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),  I, David
O'Neil,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         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 this report fairly presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: February 12, 2009


                                              /s/David O'Neil
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              David O'Neil
                                              Treasurer and Principal Financial
                                              Officer
1201.104 Applicability. ( a ) Applicable statutes, the FAR, 48 CFR chapter 1, and the TAR, in this chapter, apply to all acquisitions within the Department unless otherwise specifically excluded by statute, the FAR, or the TAR.
( b ) The following order of precedence applies to resolve any question of applicability concerning an acquisition regulation or a procedure found within the TAR, or the TAM which comprises the Department's internal operating procedures and guidance— ( 1 ) U.S. Statutes;
( 2 ) The FAR;
( 3 ) The TAR;
( 4 ) DOT Orders; and
( 5 ) The TAM.
( c ) The Maritime Administration may depart from the requirements of the FAR and TAR as authorized by 40 U.S.C. 113(e)(15), but shall adhere to those regulations to the maximum extent practicable. Deviations from the FAR or TAR requirements shall be documented according to Maritime Administration procedures or in each contract file, as appropriate.
( d ) The FAR, TAR, and TAM do not apply to the Federal Aviation Administration as provided by 49 U.S.C. 40110(d).
( e ) For purposes of the FAR, TAR, and TAM, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology shall have the same authority as an Operating Administration as defined in 1202.1, and the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology shall have the same authority as a Head of the Operating Administration as defined in 1202.1.
U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

-i^^- l m- y P 2

^ 1^ ' OFFIC E O FHEARING S FF D o o ,« « WASHINGTON , DC
. . rc D Z 5 ISl U 

# E r

IN TH E MATTE RO F FLEE T AVIATION , LL C Administrativ e Law Judg e J.E
. Sullivan
AGENCY' S REQUES T FO RTWO-WEE K EXTENSIO N FO RRUL E 26 m SUBMISSIO N AND TWO-WEE K POSTPONEMEN T O FRUL E 1 6 UTTGATTO N SCHEDULIN G CONFERENC E COME S NO W th e Agency , b y an dthroug h it s designate drepresentative , th e Regional Counse l for

th e Eastern Regio n an dhi s dul y designate dagents , andmove s fo r a two-wee k extensio n fo

r th e Rul e 26(f

) plannin g andsubmission , whic h i s currentl y du e Febnaar y 22 , 2011 , andatwo-wee k postponemen t

o f th e Rul e 1 6 Litigatio n Schedulin g Conference , whic h i s currentl y schedule dfor Februar y 29 , 2012
. Th e basi s fo r

this reques t

i s that th e partie s ar e engage di n seriou s settlemen t discussion s an di f

th e cas e doe s settle , i

t appear s that

i t wil l d o s o withi n abou t tw o weeks
. Agenc y counse l ha s attempte dt o contac t counse l for

Responden t

t o determin e if

there woul db e an

y objectio n t o thi s motion , bu t ha s receive dn o reply
. WHEREFORE th e Agenc y request s tha t th e dat e for

th e Rul e 26(f

) submissio n b e extende dt o Marc h 7 , 201 2 andth e dat e fo r th e Rul e 1 6 Litigatio n Schedulin g Conferenc e b e postpone dt o Marc h 14 , 201 2 o r thereabouts
. 

# : TRespectfull y submitted ,

ALFRE D R
. JOHNSON , JR
. REGIONA L COUNSE L

Zachary ivi
. Berman Attorne y Offic e o f th e Easter n Regional Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Phone : (718)553-325 8 Telefax : (718)995-569 9 Date : ^ • - • (' ^ 

# 4i4 iCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that acop y o f

th e foregoin g AGENCY' S REOUES T FO RTWO

WEE K EXTENSIO N FO RRUL E 26( 0 SUBMISSIO N Af^D TWO-WEE K POSTPONEMEN T O FRUL E 1 6 LITIGATIO N SCHEDULIN G CONFERENC E Ha s bee n sen t

vi afirs t clas s mai l an dfacsimil e t o th e following : Th e Honorabl e J.E
. Sullivan Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Telefax : (202)366-753 6 Gregory S
. Winton , Esq
. Th e Aviatio n Law Fir

m On e Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Telefax : (301)294-855 0 I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f

th e foregoin g AGENCY' S REOUES T FO RTWO

WEE K EXTENSIO N FO RRUL E 26( 0 SUBMISSIO N AND TWO-WEE K POSTPONEMEN T O FRUL E 1 6 LITIGATIO N SCHEDULIN G CONFERENC E Ha s bee n sent

vi afirs t clas s mai l t o th e following : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W1000 0 Date : FE B 2 1 201 2 Mariann aPerer o Paralega l Specialis t 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Williams, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), imposed February 24, 2006, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

MIDWEST OPERATING ENGINEERS WELFARE )

FUND; MIDWEST OPERATING ENGINEERS )

PENSION TRUST FUND; OPERATING )

ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 APPRENTICESHIP )

FUND; LOCAL 150 I.U.O.E. VACATION SAVINGS )

PLAN; MIDWEST OPERATING ENGINEERS )

RETIREMENT ENHANCEMENT FUND, and )

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING )

ENGINEERS, LOCAL 150, AFL-CIO,

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 429

)

J&S CONSTRUCTION SEWER & )

WATER, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court has received a copy of the Answer filed by J&S Construction Sewer & Water,

Inc. (“J&S”) to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brought against it by several employee benefit

funds. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of some troublesome aspects of

portions of that Answer.

In particular, J&S has flat-out denied the allegations in FAC Count I ¶ 5 that it is a party to

collective bargaining agreements identified in the FAC by the plaintiff Funds. That denial appears

to be directly contradicted by three Memoranda of Agreement that are attached to the FAC as its

Exs. C, F and I, each of which is a photocopy of such a Memorandum executed by both J&S and

the labor union referred to in the case caption. That same problem is posed by the Answer’s

outright denial of FAC Count II ¶ 5. And finally, J&S’s counsel wrongfully “denies the Plaintiffs have

stated a viable cause of action” at the conclusion of the response to each of the FAC’s two counts.
Under the circumstances this Court orders J&S and its counsel to show cause on or before

June 25, 2012 as to why the present Answer should not be stricken. Because the next scheduled 1

status hearing is not until mid-August, this Court will very likely schedule an earlier session to

address that subject.

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 12, 2012

This memorandum order has spoken only of a single paragraph in each of the FAC’s two 1

counts. But the apparent falsity of the responses to those two paragraphs may perhaps bear upon

other related denials in the Answer, a subject that will be addressed once this order to show cause

is responded to.

2
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-00047 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:634
#### MURRAY, Respondent, v. RAYNOR et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by George W. Murray, as trustee, etc., against Henry Raynor and others.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal’ granted, with costs, unless the appellants file with the clerk of this court within five days a written stipulation consenting that the fund in the possession of the plaintiff may be distributed in accordance with the terms of the judgment, notwithstanding the appeal, and unless the appellant shall also perfect their appeal, so that the case may be placed in regular order upon the calendar of the court for January, 1904. Upon compliance with these conditions, the motion will be denied, without costs.
Fiscal Year 2013 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

FY 2013 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4400030 Barrington School District 91,332

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 469,145

4400090 Burrillville School District 581,557

4400120 Central Falls School District 2,541,134

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 407,201

4400210 Coventry School District 623,495

4400240 Cranston School District 2,522,649

4400270 Cumberland School District 481,330

4400300 East Greenwich School District 86,328

4400330 East Providence School District 1,305,702

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 192,809

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 56,852

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 95,910

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 80,222

4400510 Jamestown School District 125,918

4400540 Johnston School District 732,304

4400570 Lincoln School District 408,217

4400600 Little Compton School District 39,603

4400630 Middletown School District 278,237

4400660 Narragansett School District 162,560

4400690 New Shoreham School District 16,251

4400720 Newport School District 832,240

4400750 North Kingstown School District 481,330

4400780 North Providence School District 754,966

4400810 North Smithfield School District 179,955

4400840 Pawtucket School District 4,498,739

4400870 Portsmouth School District 170,848

4400900 Providence School District 21,320,522

4400960 Scituate School District 187,861

4400990 Smithfield School District 175,675

4401020 South Kingstown School District 363,613

4401050 Tiverton School District 202,077

4401110 Warwick School District 1,432,777

4401140 West Warwick School District 946,944

4401170 Westerly School District 461,716

4401200 Woonsocket School District 3,884,931

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2013 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Functional Statements > Office               of the General Counsel

## Primary Delegations of Authority 

                - Authority to perform the functions as Department Claims Officer under the following statutes:                        - The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2671 et seq: 
                  - The Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 204 et seq, 31 U.S.C. Secs 3701, 3721; 
                  - 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584, authorizing a waiver of claims arising out of erroneous payment of pay to employees of the        Department.
                  - 31 U.S.C., governing the settlement of claims 
                - Designation as the Department’s Federalism Official with the responsibility to ensure implementation of E.O. 12612 or any Executive Order that is the successor in function to E.O. 12612
                - Authority to serve as “agency designee” for the purposes of 5 C.F.R. 2635.403(b), 2635.502(a),(c), (d), and (e), 2635.605(b), and 2635.606(b)
                - Authority to serve as "agency designee” under 5 C.F.R. 2635.204(g) (2), (3) and (6)
                - Authority to review and approve agency settlement involving resolution of any Departmental litigation matter involving monetary distribution

The Secretary has also delegated to all Principal  Officers certain administrative authorities subject to specified reservations. 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10926

Conference Calendar

FREDERICK DEWAYNE MALONE

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DR ALAN BYRD

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-488

Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frederick Dewayne Malone,Texas prisoner # 0699305, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Malone argues

that the defendant demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs because the defendant treated his skin condition with only a shot and one

bar of soap. Malone alleges that he should have also received lotion and

dandruff shampoo. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10926

2

Malone fails to allege facts to support a claim of deliberate indifference to

a serious medical need as is required in order to proceed under the Eighth

Amendment and § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.

1991). Malone’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, it is dismissed

as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Malone’s

complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of Malone’s appeal count as two

strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Malone is cautioned that if he accumulates three

strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly  Report of Emerson Radio Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Geoffrey P. Jurick, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 consolidated financial condition and result of operations of
     the Company.


Dated: November 8, 2002


                                                     /s/ Geoffrey P. Jurick
                                                         Geoffrey P. Jurick
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
Fiscal Year 2015 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

FY 2015 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4300030 Puerto Rico 418,494,540

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2015 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
No. 718.

#### Camp Bird, Limited, *v.*Frank W. Howbert, as Collector of Internal Revenue, etc.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. William V. Hodges*for petitioner.

*The Solicitor General*and *Mr. W. C. Herron*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
### §3810. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title IX, §914(b)(1), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1186

Section, Pub. L. 96–468, §11, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2233, authorized Secretary to appoint and consult with advisory committees concerning matters within scope of this chapter.