alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Santo Sorge, Appellant, v. Lawrence H. Nott, Respondent.

Order, entered on May 7, 1962, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the agreement alleged therein is unenforeible under the Statute of Frauds, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint denied. We agree with Special Term that the oral agreement between the parties was a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating the sale of a business opportunity, and hence unenforeible in the absence of a memorandum complying with the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 10). We are unable to conclude, however, that the writings on which plaintiff relies constitute insufficient compliance as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s letter to defendant of September 23, 1959 appears to contain the essential terms of the agreement between them, and it refers to a brochure, not part of the present record, which defendant had *769furnished plaintiff and which apparently further describes the producing wells mentioned in the agreement and defendant’s interest in them. Defendant’s signed reply of October 1, 1959, beginning as it does with the sentence “I received your analysis of our oil negotiations which in general covers the situation ”, is susceptible of being interpreted as an authentication by defendant of the statements in plaintiff’s letter of September 23, 1959, and if so interpreted might well suffice, in conjunction with plaintiff’s letter and the brochure, as a memorandum under the statute *(Crabtree*v. *Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.,*305 N. Y. 48). In sum, on the present record, plaintiff’s showing is sufficient to raise a triable issue (see *Papaioannou*v. *Britz,*285 App. Div. 596). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
1414.201-70 Alternate bids. ( a ) Solicitations for supplies or services (other than construction) shall specify whether alternate bids are permitted, provide instructions for submitting alternate bids and clearly indicate how alternate bids will be evaluated.
( b ) The clause set forth in 1452.236-71 may be used in non-construction contracts where additive and deductive alternate bids will be permitted.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules will hold a meeting on April 7, 2021 in San Diego, CA. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# DATES:

April 7, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Pacific).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

Authority:28 U.S.C. 2073.

Dated: January 11, 2021.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2021-00674 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FOURTH
QUARTER 1995 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            5949
<SECURITIES>                                     13090
<RECEIVABLES>                                    21812
<ALLOWANCES>                                      5966
<INVENTORY>                                       8269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 48702
<PP&E>                                           12478
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   60737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6190
<BONDS>                                           1468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         24110
<OTHER-SE>                                       28969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     60737
<SALES>                                          67342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 67342
<CGS>                                            17688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 37319
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2565
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  13118
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5116
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
### §402. No validity or enforceability

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.

(b) Determination of Applicability.—An issue as to whether this chapter applies with respect to a dispute shall be determined under Federal law. The applicability of this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement to which this chapter applies shall be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement, and irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.

(Added Pub. L. 117–90, §2(a), Mar. 3, 2022, 136 Stat. 27.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after Mar. 3, 2022, see section 3 of Pub. L. 117–90, set out as a note under section 401 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Harriet Orr, Individually and on Behalf of Her Two Infant Children, Petitioner, v Carmen Shang, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent State commissioner, dated August 19, 1977, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed the determination of the local agency, denying petitioner’s request for an additional grant of public assistance to be used for the purchase of furniture. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted, and matter remanded to the respondent State commissioner for a determination of the amount of assistance to be provided. The record shows that petitioner and her family, recipients of aid to dependent children, lost all of their furnishings when they were evicted from their apartment and their furniture was confiscated by the landlord. Petitioner did not thereby suffer a "catastrophe” within the meaning of subdivision 6 of section 131-a of the Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto (see *Matter of Nazario v New York City Comr. of Social Servs.,*37 AD2d 630; *Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28*NY2d 434). However, petitioner and her family were thereby rendered "destitute” and were entitled to "emergency assistance” pursuant to section 350-j of the Social Services Law *(Matter of Bates v Wyman,*36 AD2d 854). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §800. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, R.S. §1999, is set out as a note under section 1481 of this title.
1413.306 Standard Form 44, Purchase order-invoice-voucher. HCAs are responsible for establishing bureau procedures to control the use of the SF 44 and accounting for all purchases made using the form. Bureau procedures shall include instructions covering: ( a ) Maintenance of a list of designated individuals authorized to make purchases using the form;
( b ) Controls for issuing the form to authorized individuals; and
( c ) Review of purchase transactions using the form to assure compliance with authorized procedures.
#### 1436.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.

HCAs who require architect-engineer services shall use their established procedures to collect data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
#### § 552.53 Regulatory requirements.

Commanders may issue regulations governing solicitation within their commands and on their installations. These regulations will avoid discriminatory requirements which could eliminate or restrict competition. When there is a clear need to prescribe more restrictive requirements for solicitation than those in this regulation or the regulations of the major commander, these additional requirements or restrictions must first be reviewed and confirmed by The Adjutant General Center (DAAG-PSI), or by the overseas commander.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Pippin, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, upon the law and the facts, and the information dismissed, upon the law, and the defendant is discharged from custody. Coneededly, the second count of the information charging him with unlawful possession of barbiturates was not proven. And we have concluded that the record here is insufficient to support defendant’s conviction of count one of the information which charged him with the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug in .violation of section 3305 of the Public Health Law and section 1751-a of the Penal Law. The conviction on the narcotics count rests upon proof that three stapling machines and a plastic box, containing one of the machines, were found by an officer in a night table and in a dresser drawer in the bedroom of defendant’s apartment and that they contained traces or residue of powder which on chemical analysis was found to be positive for heroin. There was no proof that the powder was present on or in the exhibits in any defined quantity. It appears that it was present in such minute quantity that it was all used in the taking of necessary quantities for chemical tests by the People’s expert, so that none of the same was available for a test by an expert in behalf of the defendant. In any event, the District Attorney concedes that the heroin was present in mere traces. It appeared that the bedroom in which the articles were found was also occupied by a woman who resided with the defendant. The defendant admitted merely to an officer that “ he had used them [the articles] in relation to his business ”, which was a restaurant business. There was no satisfactory proof as to the ownership of the articles, nor was it shown when the defendant had last used the articles or had them in his physical possession. On the other hand, the woman who had the use of the apartment and who also worked in the restaurant, testified that she had brought the stapling machines from the restaurant and had placed them in the apartment and that they were used by her there. Upon the record here, in light of the foregoing, it was not established that the defendant had such possession and control of the articles as to charge him with knowledge of and responsibility for the traces of heroin found on them. Thus, his guilt of the crime charged was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. See *People*v. *Gerardi,*5 A D 2d 993; *People*v. *Hicks,*3 A D 2d 829; *People*v. *Baker,*7 A D 2d 707.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit
23(c)











Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation's Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-132574,
333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03) of our report dated February
27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2008.





/s/ Ernst
& Young LLP
 
  Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


February
27, 2009
#### Vivian Marusczak, Appellant, v. Tracey McLaughlin et al., Respondents.

Motions granted and appeals dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before April 3, 1961. Respondent’s briefs must be filed on or before April 27, 1961 if appeal is to be argued at May 1961 Term.
#### 1552.217-70 Evaluation of contract options.

As prescribed in 1517.208(a), insert the following solicitation provision in Requests for Proposals when the solicitation contains options.

# Evaluation of Contract Options (APR 1984)

For award purposes, in addition to an offeror's response to the basic requirement, the Government will evaluate its response to all options, both technical and cost. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. For this solicitation the options are as specified in section H.

(End of provision)
# 1,

-- j ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0267
BRIAN PARKER,

Petitioner,

v. RICK BARMAN, Administrator, NEXUS Treatment Center,

Respondent. 

## _TT) MAY 

## 2 1 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Self-represented Petitioner Brian Parker has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, indicating that his incarceration is illegal, and seeking to be resentenced. He provides that he "only [has] oneDWI in Montana"but that he "was charged with a felony 4th based on previous DWI convictions in Minnesota." Parker statesithat two ofhis earlier convictions—January 26, 2010 and August 7, 1995—would have "fallen off[,1" because under Minnesota law, "they fall off after 10 years." He believes that he was illegally sentenced in Richland County, and thus, he seeks resentencing to a misdemeanor. Parker is currently placed in the NEXUS Treatment Center. We secured copies ofavailable electronic documents. On December 14, 2020, in open court, the Seventh Judicial District Court, Richland County, accepted Parker's guilty plea to aggravated driving under the influence or being in actual phYsical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and committed him to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a suspended, five-year term. The court also ordered that Parker enroll and complete the AdultDUI Treatment Court. Parker's challenge comes too late. The time to object to his DUI conviction was in 2020. Parker shouldhaveraised the argument abouthispriorMinnesotaconvictions inthe District Court. Parker also did not appeal his conviction and sentence tothis Court, where 05/21/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0267he could have raised such arguments preserved for appeal. Parker is precluded from

challenging his conviction through a writ ofhabeas corpus. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. Moreover,theDistrictCourthas sincerevokedParker'ssuspended sentence. Parker admittedto theviolations inthePetitiontoRevoke in earlyNovember 2023. OnDecember 4, 2023, the District,Court revoked the 2020 sentence and committed Parker to DOC for
an unsuspended, five-year term, recommending placement in NEXUS followed by prerelease. The court awarded 63 days ofcredit for time served and 567 days ofstreet time credit. Parker cannot challengehis sentenceuponrevocation through this remedy. Section \ 46-22-101(2), MCA. He has not demonstrated illegal incarceration, and he is not entitled to resentencing to a misdemeanor. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Parker's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED as ofthis Order's date. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord; to Rick Barman, NEXUS, rbarman ccscorp.com; and to Brian Parker personally. DATED this Iaay ofMay, 2024. 

# „e

r , 4.4 0-

2
### §7761. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–79, title X, §10007(c), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 947

Section, Pub. L. 110–234, title X, §10202, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1342; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title X, §10202, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2104; Pub. L. 112–240, title VII, §701(g)(2), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2366, related to the National Clean Plant Network. See section 7721(e) of this title.
#### Suzanne S. Meltzer, Respondent, v. G. W. Wattles et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, entered on April 29, 1963, unanimously modified on the law, to the extent of granting the leave requested by plaintiff upon oral argument to serve an amended complaint wherein the title will recite that plaintiff sues as custodian for her two minor children and the body of the complaint will allege that she holds certain shares of stock in defendant Mergenthaler Linotype Company as such custodian pursuant to the provisions of article 8-A of the Personal Property Law (Uniform Gifts to Minors); and upon service of such amended complaint, otherwise affirming, without costs. In the event plaintiff does not serve such an amended complaint within 10 days after filing of the order to be settled herein, the order appealed from is unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the complaint dismissed. Generally speaking, a person holding stock in a representative or fiduciary capacity has the right to institute a stockholders’ derivative action, such as the complaint asserts herein, notwithstanding his lack of a beneficial interest. Section 266 of the Personal Property Law grants the custodian broad powers and duties in the disposition and investment of the custodial property. These powers clearly qualify such a custodian to bring this derivative stockholders’ action on behalf of and to protect the interests of the minors who own the beneficial interest in the stock. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000033565
<NAME> ESSEX GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,409
<INVENTORY>                                    172,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,985
<PP&E>                                         370,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 766,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,628
<BONDS>                                        401,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       104,036
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   766,160
<SALES>                                        974,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               975,645
<CGS>                                          813,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  813,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,094
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,594
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,594
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 536.41 Determination of liability—generally. ( a ) Under the FTCA, the United States is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission giving rise to the tort occurred (28 U.S.C. 2673 and 2674). This means that liability must rest on the existence of a tort cognizable under state law, hereinafter referred to as a state tort. A finding of state tort liability requires the litigating attorney to prove the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages as interpreted by federal case law.
( b ) The foregoing principles and requirements will be followed in regard to tort claims against the United States under other subparts, with certain exceptions noted within the individual subparts or particular tort statutes.
( c ) Interpretation will be made in accordance with FTCA case law and also maritime case law where applicable. Additionally, a noncombat activity can furnish the basis for a claim under subparts C, F, and J of this part. Noncombat activities include claims arising out of civil works, such as inverse condemnation.
( d ) Federal, not state or local, law applies to a determination as to who is a federal employee or a member of the armed forces. Under all subparts, the designation “federal employee” excludes a contractor of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 2671. See however, § 536.23(b)(4)(ii) concerning personal services contractors. For employment identification purposes apply FTCA case law in making a determination.
( e ) Federal, not state or local, law applies to an interpretation of the SOL under all subparts. Minority or incompetence does not toll the SOL. Case law developed under the FTCA will be used in other subparts in interpreting SOL questions.
( f ) Under the FTCA state or local law is used to determine scope of employment and under other subparts for guidance.