alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Guiseppo D’Orio, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY O’BRIEN on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC.,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-107

Judge Gettleman

JURY DEMANDED

FED.R.CIV.P. 41(A)(1) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), pursuant to individual settlement. No answer or summary judgment 

motion has been filed, and the class has not been certified. 

This dismissal is without prejudice to any putative class member.

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Counsel for Plaintiff

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

Case: 1:12-cv-00107 Document #: 14 Filed: 05/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:49
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

Washington, DC 20202

**M E M O R A N D U M**

TO:           Addressees (See list below)

FROM:       The Assistant Secretary

Office for Civil Rights

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority to Certify Fund Availability

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation to all Principal Officers, from the Chief Financial Officer, EL/GEN/1, certified on December 3, 1998, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority to certify funds available for administering the functions and responsibilities of your office.  This authority is issued pursuant to Title 31 of the U.S. Code, which governs the money and finances of the Department.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included in the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATIONS

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes delegations EC/ECR/222 and 

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

EC/ECD-GEN/232.  I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by addressees prior to the date of certification.

___________/s/_____________

                                                                                            Russlynn Ali

ADDRESSEE List:  

OCR Enforcement Directors    

OCR Executive Officer    

OCR Regional Office Director, Boston)

OCR Regional Office Director, New York)

OCR Regional Office Director, Philadelphia)

OCR Regional Office Director Atlanta)

OCR Regional Office Director, Dallas)   ◄▬▬▬

OCR Regional Office Director, Chicago)

OCR Regional Office Director, Cleveland)

OCR Regional Office Director, Kansas City)

OCR Regional Office Director, Denver)

OCR Regional Office Director, San Francisco)

OCR Regional Office Director, Seattle)

OCR Regional Office Director, District of Columbia)

Certified Date:  11/2/2010

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EC/ECD-GEN/245
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
The Undersigned, a Director of General Re Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
(the "Corporation"), Hereby Designates each of Charles F. Barr and Robert D.
Graham as his attorney in fact to execute on his behalf, as a Director of the
Corporation, The Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Original powers of attorney
                                          in this form signed by each
                                          of the following:
 
                                          LUCY WILSON BENSON
                                          WALTER M. CABOT
                                          WILLIAM C. FERGUSON
                                          DONALD J. KIRK
                                          KAY KOPLOVITZ
                                          EDWARD H. MALONE
                                          ANDREW W. MATHIESON
                                          DAVID E. MCKINNEY
                                          STEPHEN A. ROSS
                                          WALTER F. WILLIAMS
 
Dated: February 14, 1996
### §7316. Commission procedures

#### (a) Meetings

The Commission shall meet on a regular basis (as determined by the chairperson) and at the call of the chairperson or a majority of its members.

#### (b) Quorum

A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §186, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 941.)
Order entered Ju ly 2 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 00958
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 00959
- CR
GREGORIO DIAZ LOPEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F09
- 40834
- K , F09
- 40835
- K



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS the June 27, 2013 request of the Dallas County District Clerk for an extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s records in these appeals.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, supplemental clerk’s records containing detailed itemizations of the costs assessed in the cases, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost bill s shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s records includedocuments explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County D istrict Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
### §7511. Prohibition against certain State charges

Whenever a commodity is made available without charge or credit under any nutrition program administered by the Secretary for distribution within the States to eligible recipient agencies, the State may not charge recipient agencies any amount that is in excess of the State's direct costs of storing and transporting the commodities to recipient agencies minus any amount the Secretary provides the State for the costs of storing and transporting such commodities.

(Pub. L. 98–8, title II, §208, Mar. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 36.)
### §585. Fees for inspection and certification; certificates as prima facie evidence

For inspecting and certifying the grade, quality, and/or condition of apples, the Secretary shall cause to be collected a reasonable fee which shall as nearly as may be cover the cost of the service rendered: Provided, That when cooperative arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary, or his designated representative, for carrying out the purposes of this chapter cannot be made the fees collected hereunder in such cases shall be available until expended to defray the cost of the service rendered, and in such cases the limitations on the amounts expended for the purchase and maintenance of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles shall not be applicable: Provided further, That certificates issued by the authorized agents of the United States Department of Agriculture shall be received in all courts of the United States as prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements therein contained.

(June 10, 1933, ch. 59, §5, 48 Stat. 124; Pub. L. 106–96, §1(c)(1), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1321.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–96 struck out "and/or pears" after "of apples".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all officers, agencies, and employees of Department of Agriculture transferred, with certain exceptions, 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.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2088

___________________________

Oscar David Ibanez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

___________________________

No. 18-2518

___________________________

Oscar David Ibanez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

___________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Submitted: May 30, 2019

Filed: June 4, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________
Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Salvadoran citizen Oscar Ibanez petitionsfor review of two orders of the Board

of Immigration Appeals. The first order denied him voluntary departure and

cancellation of removal; the second order denied his motion to reopen and

administratively close his removal proceedings. 

After careful review, this court denies the petitions for review. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 10.1
 EMS Technologies, Inc.660 Engineering DrivePO Box 7700Norcross, GA 30091-7700Tel: (770) 263-9200www.ems-t.com
  
  ,
 Compensation:
  Incentive Compensation:
 Benefits:




---



##### 



Vacation Pay:
 Stock Options:
  Retirement & Stock Purchase Plans:
  Non-Competition:
 Other Agreements:




---



##### 



EMS Technologies, Inc.
 /s/ Paul B. DomorskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 Accepted By:
    
    /s/ Don T. Scartz
    
    Date:
    
    May 2, 2008
#### Beverly R. Urso, Respondent, v Pasquale R. Maritato, Appellant.

—Appeal from so much of an order of the County Court of Albany County, entered August 4, 1977, which denied the cross motion of the defendant for summary judgment against the plaintiff. Plaintiff in this action seeks to recover $1,500 based upon a promissory note from the defendant to the plaintiff, payable on or before July 1, 1976, which payment has been refused. Defendant’s answer raised the affirmative defense of usury. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and leave to amend her complaint while defendant cross-moved for summary judgment. Both parties were denied summary judgment and plaintiff was granted leave to amend her complaint. Defendant appeals from that portion of the order which denied his cross motion for summary judgment. It is fundamental that summary judgment should not be granted when there appears to be a material and triable issue of fact (CPLR 3212, subd [b]; *Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 404; *Habinc v McTaggart,*54 AD2d 799). In the instant case, the record before us reveals that there is a question of fact concerning the actual amount of money loaned by plaintiff to defendant. The promissory note recites that defendant received $1,500, and this is also alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. However, defendant’s affidavit contends that he only borrowed $1,200. Since the amount of money loaned is crucial in computing *1044the interest rate charged and determining whether the transaction was usurious, summary judgment was correctly denied to defendant. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §5928. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–185, title III, §302(c), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 563

Section, Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1675, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3777; Pub. L. 102–237, title IV, §407(14), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1865; Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §838, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1169, related to national centers for agricultural product quality research.
### NUMBER 13
- 1 4 - 00 59 7 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ AGUA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT , A ppellant ,

v. CARMELO ALVAREZ JR. , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 8

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No.
8 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CCD

- 0136

- H . Appellant has filed a n
amended motion to dismiss the appeal on gro unds it no longer wishes to pursue the appeal

. The certificate of conference reflects that appellant was unable to confer with2

appellee because appellant does not have a valid phone number or electronic mail address or facsimile number for appellee.
The C ourt, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellant.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs agai nst the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
PER CURIAM
D elivered a nd filed the 5th day of March , 20 15

.
### **CHAPTER 70—ANIMAL CANCER RESEARCH**

Sec.
3901.
Congressional findings.
3902.
Research program on cancer in animals and birds.
3903.
Annual program review to achieve coordination with National Cancer Institute program.
3904.
Authorization of appropriations; restriction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners X 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317900
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS X
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          15,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         12,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,498)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,509
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    92.02<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522443

________________________________ In the Matter of TERRY LAWS, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 20, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Terry Laws, Beacon, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with unauthorized exchange and possession of gang-related material after a correction officer observed petitioner pass something to a fellow inmate which, following a frisk of both inmates, proved to be informational materials regarding membership in a specified gang. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges and, other than a modification of the penalty imposed, that determination was-2- 522443

affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, gang-related material and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Canty v Prack, 122 AD3d 1054, 1054 [2014]; Matter of Kimbrough v Fischer, 96 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2012]; Matter of James v Poole, 52 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 710 [2008]). Although petitioner and the other inmate involved denied that petitioner passed anything when they shook hands, the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he saw the other inmate place something in hisright front pocket after the handshake, which is where the gangrelated material was found during the frisk. In any event, any conflicts or inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Canty v Prack, 122 AD3d at 1055; Matter of Gioe v Selsky, 269 AD2d 644, 645 [2000]). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000764403
<NAME> E'TOWN CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  547,471,843
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 14,085,059
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      28,246,483
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    43,646,370
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             633,449,755
<COMMON>                                   143,386,229
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  (3,844,809)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         42,865,159
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             182,406,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,000,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       193,499,701
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                          57,500,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   30,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             188,013,475
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              633,449,755
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   28,172,528
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         1,990,035
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  19,205,478
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  21,195,513
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      6,977,015
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             864,787
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               7,841,802
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,184,600
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,657,202
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    203,250
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                4,453,952
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     3,926,680
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    3,450,718
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       4,917,536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
#### 1219.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
### §2563. Injunction

The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this subchapter may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right hereunder on such terms as the court deems reasonable.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §123, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1556.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPotential flow analysis of glaze ice accretions on an airfoilThe results of an analytical/experimental study of the flow fields about an airfoil with leading edge glaze ice accretion shapes are presented. Tests were conducted in the Icing Research Tunnel to measure surface pressure distributions and boundary layer separation reattachment characteristics on a general aviation wing section to which was affixed wooden ice shapes which approximated typical glaze ice accretions. Comparisons were made with predicted pressure distributions using current airfoil analysis codes as well as the Bristow mixed analysis/design airfoil panel code. The Bristow code was also used to predict the separation reattachment dividing streamline by inputting the appropriate experimental surface pressure distribution.Document ID19840008078Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsZaguli, R. J.*(Ohio State Univ. Columbus, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:168282NASA-CR-168282Accession Number84N16146Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-45-02CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-28Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840008078.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024