alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York; Respondent, v Lester Paul Brown, Appellant.

Appeals by defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 13,1973, convicting him of murder, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence and (2) (by permission) an order of the same court, entered May 25,1976, which denied, without a hearing, his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.30, to vacate the judgment of conviction. Case remitted to Criminal Term for the making of *786findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with CPL 440.30 (subd 7) and appeals held in abeyance in the interim. In denying the defendant’s motion, the court failed to comply with CPL 440.30 (subd 7) which states: "Regardless of whether a hearing was conducted, the court, upon determining the motion, must set forth on the record its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination.” The failure of the court to comply with this provision has made intelligent review of this case impossible. Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §7201. Short title and purpose

#### (a) Short title

This chapter may be cited as the "Agricultural Market Transition Act".

#### (b) Purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter—

(1) to authorize the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and agricultural producers to support farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation and wetland protection requirements;

(2) to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available for certain crops;

(3) to improve the operation of farm programs for milk, peanuts, and sugar; and

(4) to establish a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of past and future production agriculture in the United States.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §101, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 896.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 104–127, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 896, which enacted this chapter and section 6933 of this title, amended sections 1308, 1308–1, 1308–3, 1358–1, 1358b, 1358c, 1359a, 1373, 1441, 1445j, 1508, 1516, 4504, 6401, 6402, 6413, 6414, and 6932 of this title and sections 713a–14, 714b, 714i, and 714k of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, repealed sections 1426, 1433f, 1441–2, 1444–2, 1444f, 1445b–3a, 1445c–3, 1445h, 1446e to 1446h, and 1519 of this title, enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 1373, 1446e, 1446e–1, and 1508 of this title, and repealed provisions set out as a note under section 1421 of this title. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Short Title of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–228, §1, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1516, provided that: "This Act [amending section 7212 of this title] may be cited as the 'Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 104–127, §1(a), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 888, provided that: "This Act [see Tables for classification] may be cited as the 'Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996'."

#### Severability

Pub. L. 104–127, title IX, §928, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1197, provided that: "If any provision of this Act [see Short Title note above] or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Act that can be given effect without regard to the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable."
#### Kurt Krieger, Respondent, v Insurance Company of North America et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: While riding a motorcycle plaintiff Krieger was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by defendant Grasso and insured by defendant Insurance Company of North America (INA). As a result of the accident, INA paid first-party benefits to plaintiff pursuant to the New York Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act (commonly, "No-Fault”). Certain of plaintiff’s claims for first-party benefits, however, were later rejected. Plaintiff then brought this action against Grasso for damages for personal injuries and against INA for payment of additional first-party benefits. Both defendants promptly moved for severance and separate trials of the two causes of action, asserting that *1026there were no common issues and that a single trial would unduly prejudice their rights. Special Term denied the motion. Claims should be severed where they are so unrelated that a single trial would result in undue prejudice to a party (Siegel, New York Practice [1978], § 129, p 159). Although it is probably true that most jurors are aware that defendants in negligence cases are insured, it remains a rule in New York that evidence *of*insurance is usually irrelevant and prejudicial (Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 169, p 137). The cause of action against Grasso involves the issue of negligence. The cause of action against INA involves no-fault insurance payments. The injection of the issue of insurance in the negligence case, particularly where plaintiff is demanding damages well in excess of defendant Grasso’s liability coverage, is inherently prejudicial and should be avoided *(Kelly v Yannotti,*4 NY2d *603; McDavid v Gunnigle, 50*AD2d 737; *Strauss v Bennet Bros. Corp.,*27 AD2d 528). (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—severance.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
#### Society of New York Hospital, Plaintiff, v. Martin Burstein, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Associated Hospital Service of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court, First District, in favor of the third-party plaintiff in the sum of $504.06 after a nonjury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to third-party defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. The issue in this ease is whether the third-party defendant-appellant Associated Hospital Service of New York (AHS) is obligated under its family policy issued to the third-party plaintiff to pay the hospital bill incurred by his wife. AHS denies liability by reason of the following exclusion clause in its policy: *“*article rv —'exclusions 1. Hospital Service shall not be provided for: * * * hospital admissions primarily for diagnostic X-ray or laboratory examinations or other diagnostic studies ”, The third-party plaintiff has failed to establish that the admission was not primarily for diagnostic studies and that the hospitalization accorded his wife was not barred by the exclusion provision. *(Whitlatch*v. *Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York,*149 N. Y. 45; *Sagorsky*v. *Malyon,*4 A D 2d 1016; *Klar*v. *Associated Hosp. Serv. of N. Y.,*24 Misc 2d 559; *Tasman*v. *Associated Hosp. Serv. of N. Y.,*19 Misc 2d 809.) Under the provisions of CPLR 5522, we should, on the appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury, unless we affirm, grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted. *(Malave*v. *MVAIC,*19 A D 2d 606; *Bruno*v. *Kosnac,*13 A D 2d 650; see former Civ. Prac. Act, § 584, subd. 2; McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, rule 5522, pp. 341-343; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice, par. 5522.02.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
**A r c h i v e d   I n f o r m a t i o n**

| Protecting Studentsfrom Harassmentand Hate CrimeA Guide for Schools
 
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil RightsNational Association of Attorneys GeneralEndorsed by the National School Boards Association:*"Research indicates that creating a supportive school climate is the most important step in preventing harassment. A school can have policies and procedures, but these alone will not prevent harassment. This is the kind of good preventive work the field needs to help ensure that schools provide a safe and welcome environment for all students."*
 
January 1999 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

-###- [Letter from the Secretary of Education]
### §2119. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–366, §1, July 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 991

Section, Pub. L. 91–524, title VI, §610, Nov. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1378; Pub. L. 93–86, §1(23), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 235, related to cotton development programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and funding for such programs.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–366, §1, July 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 991, provided that this section is repealed effective Oct. 1, 1977.
- Mineral Resources
    - Online Spatial Data
    - Alaska Resource Data File

### Alaska Resource Data File by common geographic areas

Choose an area, then click Records for data within that area, or choose a file format to download the data.
    - Geographic areas
    - Records

        - DOI Privacy Policy
        - Legal
        - Accessibility
        - Site Map
        - Contact USGS

----

        - U.S. Department of the Interior
        - DOI Inspector General
        - White House
        - E-gov
        - No Fear Act
        - FOIA

        - Follow
        - *Twitter*
        - *Facebook*
        - *Google+*
        - *GitHub*
        - *Flickr*
        - *YouTube*
        - *Instagram*
#### In the Matter of Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Jay Kramer et al.

Motion for leave to appeal *nunc pro tunc*as of March 24, 1964 denied as unnecessary since the appeal lies as a matter of right from a final order in an article 78 proceeding. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ATTORNEYS ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED PURSUANT TO RULE 111(b), Pa.R.C.L.E. : : : : NO. 44 IN C

**O R D E R**

**PER CURIA M:** 

AND NOW , this 6th day of August , 201 4 , it is hereby ORDERED that the attorneys named on the attached list are administratively suspended pursuant to Rule 111(b), Pa.R.C.L.E.; and it is further ORDERED that the said suspension shall be effective thirty days after the date of this Order pursuant to Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
### §1735. Restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism

#### (a) In general

No nonimmigrant visa under section 1101(a)(15) of this title shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

#### (b) State sponsor of international terrorism defined

#### (1) In general

In this section, the term "state sponsor of international terrorism" means any country the government of which has been determined by the Secretary of State under any of the laws specified in paragraph (2) to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

#### (2) Laws under which determinations were made

The laws specified in this paragraph are the following:

(A) Section 4605(j)(1)(A) of title 50 (or successor statute).1

(B) Section 2780(d) of title 22.

(C) Section 2371(a) of title 22.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title III, §306, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 555.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4605(j)(1)(A) of title 50, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), was repealed by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XVII, §1766(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2232. Provisions similar to those in former section 4605(j)(1)(A) of title 50 can be found in section 4813(c)(1)(A)(i) of title 50, as enacted by Pub. L. 115–232.

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Inspector General 

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, and Personnel Manual Instruction 451-1, dated 

May 26, 2006, Sections V. C. and D., and your authority pursuant to Section 6(d) of the 

Inspector General Act, as amended, I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in 

function, or to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority to approve 

special act awards and time-off awards for Senior Executive Service (SES) employees of 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This includes the authority to approve special act 

awards up to $10,000 for SES employees of OIG.

II. CONDITIONS

OIG shall follow the principles I have established for approving special act and time-off 

awards including that special act awards are not to be based upon an employee’s 

performance rating of record or a particular appraisal cycle, but rather are to be based 

upon a special act or service in the public interest in connection with or related to official 

employment. Additionally, time-off awards are to be used to provide immediate 

recognition to an employee who performs particular tasks, assignments, or other job 

responsibilities in an exemplary manner or makes a suggestion which directly contributes 

to economy in, or the effectiveness of, government operations.

III. RESERVATIONS

None.

IV. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

V. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations 

Control Officer. It supersedes all previous delegations of this specific authority.

______________/s/________________

Margaret Spellings

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 9/16/2008

Certified Date: 10/9/2008

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

Control Number: EA/EF/176
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elliot Shapiro, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered September 16, 1976, convicting him of (1) promoting prostitution in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts [Indictment No. 74-00117]), (2) sodomy in the second degree (Indictment No. 74-00118) and (3) sodomy in the third degree (11 counts [Indictment No. 74-00143]), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review (1) the granting of the People’s motion to consolidate Indictment No. 74-00143 with the other indictments, (2) the denial of defendant’s subsequent motion to sever that indictment, and (3) the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by (1) reducing the maximum term of imprisonment on the conviction for promoting prostitution in the first degree (Indictment No. 74-00117), from 12 years to 7 years, and (2) deleting therefrom the provision that the sentences imposed under Indictment No. 74-00143 are to run consecutive to the sentences imposed under Indictment No. 74-00118 and substituting therefor a provision that the sentences shall run concurrent to each other. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the sentence imposed upon the conviction for promoting prostitution was excessive to the extent indicated herein. The orders sought to be reviewed were properly made. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
15.205 Issuing solicitations. ( a ) The contracting officer shall issue solicitations to potential sources in accordance with the policies and procedures in 5.102, 19.202-4, and part 6.
( b ) A master solicitation, as described in 14.203-3, may also be used for negotiated acquisitions.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Alan B. LevanName:
    
    Alan B. LevanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 31, 2009
14910-I3-P] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 

### q I 10 14 CFR Part 39 [Dock~t No. FAA-2010-0439; Directorate Identifier 201O-NM-029-AD; Amendme 

# \lDYS1 'LO-0'2 39-*****; AD 2010-**-**] 

## J
. RlN 212ll-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2BI6 (CL-604 Variants (Including CL-605 Marketing Variant)) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule.
r"mALSlSJG,..rUA~ SUl\1MARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products lis d above. This ADresults from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: Following five reported cases 0[* •••••• balance washer screw failure on similar ADGs [air-driven generators]/ram airturbines installed on other aircraft types, investigation by Hamilton Sundstrand determined that a specific batch ofthe screws had ametallographic non-conformity that increased their susceptibility tobrittle fracture. 

## *** Failure ofa balance washer screw can result in loss ofthe related balance washer, with consequent turbine imbalance. Such imbalance could potentially result inADG structural failure (including blade failure), loss ofADG electrical power and structural damage to the aircraft and, if deployment was activated by adual engine shutdown, could also result in loss ofhydraulic power for the flight controls [and consequent reduced ability ofthe flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing ofthe airplane]. DATE

",~TU~

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY •.U.S.Gf'O:' ~1118·Olmo 101
Case: 1:12-cv-00418 Document #: 28 Filed: 08/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:123
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.120 National Capital Region (NCR).

The District of Columbia; Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities and towns included within the outer boundaries of the foregoing counties.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:12-cv-09431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

NOTICE OF MOTION 

To: See attached certificate of service. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned counsel shall appear before the Honorable 

Charles P. Kocoras, or any judge sitting in his stead, in Courtroom 2325 of the United States 

Courthouse for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, and then and there present Plaintiff Levins’s Unopposed Motion for 

Leave to File Documents Under Seal, a true and accurate copy of which has been filed and 

served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.
2

Respectfully submitted, 

FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

Dated: April 21, 2016 By: s/ J. Dominick Larry

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jay Edelson 

jedelson@edelson.com 

Benjamin H. Richman 

brichman@edelson.com 

J. Dominick Larry 

nlarry@edelson.com 

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: 312.589.6370 

Fax: 312.589.6378 

Rafey S. Balabanian 

rbalabanian@edelson.com 

EDELSON PC

329 Bryant Street, Suite 2C 

San Francisco, California 94107 

Tel: 415.234.5342 

Fax: 415.373.9435 
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 21, 2016, I served the above and foregoing by causing a true 

and accurate copy of such paper to be filed and transmitted to all counsel of record via the 

Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

s/ J. Dominick Larry
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00003

- CV

In re Lana Stevens

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied , and the temporary stay imposed by

th is Cou rt is lifted

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) , .10(b).

_______________________ ___________________

C hari L. Kelly , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kel ly and Smith

Filed: August 31, 2022