alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00163-CV

ELIZABETH PERRY, Appellant

V.

WICHITA FALLS HOUSING 

AUTHORITY, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (DC78-CV2020-2665)

May 12, 2022

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. We order that the trial court’s judgment is 

reversed, and we render judgment that Appellee Wichita Falls Housing Authority take 

nothing.

It is further ordered that Appellee Wichita Falls Housing Authority must pay all 

costs of this appeal.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
#### Jo-Ann E. Scott, Appellant, v Thomas Scott, Respondent.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated February 28, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see, e.g., *Mante v Mante,*34 AD2d 134, 139; *Anderson v Anderson,*58 AD2d 679, 680). Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### 1227.305 Administration of patent rights clauses.
#### § 989.29 Force structure and unit move proposals.

Unless directed otherwise, the MAJCOM plans and programs proponent will forward a copy of all EAs for force structure and unit moves to HQ USAF/A7CI for information only at the preliminary draft and preliminary final stages.

[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16869, Mar. 28, 2001; 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007]
#### 1301.707 Signatory authority.

Signatory authority for determinations and findings (D&Fs) is specified in the FAR for the associated subject matter unless otherwise noted in CAM 1301.70.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Albert Van Orman, Deceased. Elizabeth Van Orman et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Albert Van Orman, Deceased, Appellants; Hattie Bergeman et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to any party, and matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the entry of a decree in accordance with the memorandum, adjudging that the amount in the joint bank account in question belongs to the estate. Memorandum: The finding by the Surrogate that Hattie Bergeman, respondent, is the owner and entitled to possession of the bank account in question, is contrary to, and against the weight of, the evidence. We find that said bank account was the sole property of the intestate at the time of his death and that the purported transfer thereof into a joint account of himself and the respondent was invalid and ineffective, because of his lack of mental capacity at the time of such alleged transfer. The order appealed from must be reversed and judgment awarded in favor of the administrators. (Appeal from order of Genesee Surrogate’s Court adjudging respondent to be owner of the bank account in question and dismissing the proceeding.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Joseph J. Flannery et al., Respondents, v. Fred Stewart, Appellant.

—■ Order, entered on April 2, 1964, vacating an order dated November 21, 1963 which dismissed the action for failure to timely Serve the complaint, unanimously reversed, On the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to vacate denied. This action seeking a recovery of $2,500,000 for libel was commenced by Service of a summons on February 5, 1963. Defendant appeared on February 25, 1963 and demanded a complaint. Eight months having elapsed after stich demand and no complaint having been served, defendant on October 24, 1963 moved to dismiss the action. That motion was granted by Order dated November 21, 1963 with leave to move to vacate. The instant motion to vacate the dismissal was not made until March 13, 1964. The excuse offered for the failure to serve the complaint, i.e., that the plaintiff was unable to Confer with counsel by reason of the former’s business Commitments, is inadequate. Not only does the explanation fail to excuse the delay prior to the dismissal of the action but it fails to show any creditable reason for the delay of almost four months in making the instant motion to vacate. In addition, there has been no adequate demonstration of merit. (See *Keogh*v. *New York Post Corp.,*22 A D 2d 659.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 765.6 Regulations for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

The Commander, U.S. Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is responsible for prescribing and enforcing such rules and regulations as may be necessary for insuring security and for governing the navigation, movements, and anchorage of vessels in the waters of Pearl Harbor and in the entrance channel thereto.

(Sec. 1, 37 Stat. 341, 62 Stat. 799; 18 U.S.C. 2152, 33 U.S.C. 475; E.O. 8143, 4 FR 2179, 3 CFR 1943 Cum. Supp. 504)

[31 FR 16620, Dec. 29, 1966]
#### 1352.233-70 Agency protests.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1333.103(a), insert the following provision:

# Agency Protests (APR 2010)

(a) An agency protest may be filed with either: (1) The contracting officer, or (2) at a level above the contracting officer, with the appropriate agency Protest Decision Authority. *See* 64 FR 16,651 (April 6, 1999).

(b) Agency protests filed with the Contracting Officer shall be sent to the following address: [Insert Contracting Officer name and Address]

(c) Agency protests filed with the agency Protest Decision Authority shall be sent to the following address: [Insert appropriate Protest Decision Authority name and Address]

(d) A complete copy of all agency protests, including all attachments, shall be served upon the Contract Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel within one day of filing a protest with either the Contracting Officer or the Protest Decision Authority.

(e) Service upon the Contract Law Division shall be made as follows: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the General Counsel, Chief, Contract Law Division, Room 5893, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FAX: (202) 482-5858.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### 1301.670-70 Provisions and clauses.

Insert clause 1352.201-72, *Contracting Officer's Representative (COR),* in all solicitations and contracts where a COR will be appointed.
Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: August 19, 2009
    /s/ Adrian MaAdrian MaChief Executive Officer
### §§53 to 56. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 53 to 56 transferred to sections 1991, 1992, former section 1993, and section 1994, respectively, of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
#### Jill Brand, an Infant, by Charles J. Brand, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant

Order, entered on March 10, 1964, denying defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order in a products liability ease, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The notice to take defendants’ oral testimony before trial on February 5, 1964, was served on January 23, 1964. Defendant-appellant had ample time to move for a protective order which would have automatically stayed the examination. (CPLR 3103, subd. [b].) However, it sought and obtained an adjournment of the examination pursuant to the notice without reservation of any right to object. “By custom and practice, adjournments of examinations before trial, like *671extensions of time to serve answers, contain or should contain reservation of rights to question the regularity or validity of a notice of examination”. *(Mossew*v. *To Market,*3 A D 2d 189, 190.) Where no reservation has been made in a stipulation for an adjournment of an examination before trial, a motion to modify the notice of examination must be denied. *(Mossew*v. *To Market, supra.)*Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
1239.7002 Policy. ( a ) Contractors and subcontractors are required to provide adequate security on all contractor information systems that will collect, use, process, store, or disseminate DOT sensitive data.
( b ) Contractors and subcontractors shall report cyber incidents directly to DOT via the DOT Security Operations Center (SOC) 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, 365 days a year (24x7x365) at phone number: 571-209-3080 (Toll Free: 866-580-1852) within two (2) hours of discovery. Subcontractors will provide to the prime contractor the incident report number automatically assigned by DOT. Lower-tier subcontractors likewise report the incident report number automatically assigned by DOT to their higher-tier subcontractor, until the prime contractor is reached.
( c ) If a cyber incident occurs, contractors and subcontractors shall submit to DOT, in accordance with the instructions contained in the clause at 1252.239-74, Safeguarding DOT Sensitive Data and Cyber Incident Reporting— ( 1 ) A cyber incident report;
( 2 ) The malicious software, if detected and isolated; and
( 3 ) The medium or media (or access to covered contractor information systems and equipment) upon request.
( d ) Notwithstanding the requirement in this subpart for the reporting of cyber incidents, if existing safeguards have ceased to function or the Government or Contractor discovers new or unanticipated threats or hazards, the discoverer shall immediately bring the situation to the attention of the other party. ( 1 ) Information shared by the contractor may include contractor attributional/proprietary information. The Government will protect against the unauthorized use or release of information that includes contractor attributional/proprietary information.
( 2 ) A cyber incident that is reported by a contractor or subcontractor shall not, by itself, be interpreted as evidence that the contractor or subcontractor has failed to provide adequate security on their covered contractor information systems, or has otherwise failed to meet the requirements of the clause at 1252.239-74, Safeguarding DOT Sensitive Data and Cyber Incident Reporting. When a cyber incident is reported, the contracting officer shall consult with the DOT component Chief Information Officer/cyber security office prior to assessing contractor compliance (*see* 1239.7003). The contracting officer shall consider such cyber incidents in the context of an overall assessment of a contractor's compliance with the requirements of the clause at 1252.239-74, Safeguarding DOT Sensitive Data and Cyber Incident Reporting.
( 3 ) Support services contractors directly supporting Government activities related to safeguarding DOT sensitive data and cyber incident reporting (*e.g.,* forensic analysis, damage assessment, or other services that require access to data from another contractor) are subject to restrictions on use and disclosure of reported information.
#### Bensam Swakeen, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 113]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 9, 2005, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s (HHC) Personnel Review Board affirmance of an administrative determination after hearing that petitioner was guilty of misconduct and should be suspended for 30 days, and granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrative determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious (CPLR 7803 [3]). There was evidence that petitioner, an operating room technician employed by HHC, was absent from work for almost two hours and submitted altered documents during the fact-finding hearing in an effort to prove his presence during an operation. The Review Board properly concluded that the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations should not be disturbed, since “credibility determinations are the province of the Hearing Officer” *(Matter of D'Augusta v Bratton,*259 AD2d 287, 288 [1999]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 1 7

- 4053

_____________________________
M ICHAEL R AY C LINES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

. January 16 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , M AKAR , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________ Michael Ray Clines , pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### 1452.227-70 Appeals of Use or Exceptions.

As prescribed in 1427.303(d)(1), insert the following clause:

# Appeals of Use of Exceptions (JUL 1996)

If the Contractor appeals the Contracting Officer determination to use one of the exceptions described in FAR 27.303(d)(1), such appeal shall be made by written notice specifically identifying the basis for the appeal within 30 working days from the receipt of the determination. Such appeal shall be mailed to the Associate Solicitor for General Law, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240, who is designated as the appeals official.

(End of clause)
#### Louis Fromma, Respondent, v. 1562 Ocean Realty Company, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 6, 1962, which denied its motion, made pursuant to rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
1315.606 Agency procedures. ( a ) The operating unit contracting office is designated as the point of contact for receipt of unsolicited proposals. Persons within DOC (*e.g.* technical personnel) who receive unsolicited proposals shall forward all documents to their cognizant contracting office.
( b ) Within ten working days after receipt by the contracting office of an unsolicited proposal, the contracting office shall review the proposal and determine whether the proposal meets the content and marking requirements of FAR 15.6. If the proposal does not meet these requirements, it shall be returned to the submitter, giving the reasons for noncompliance.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 697 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the mileage threshold 

for deduction in determining adjusted gross income of certain expenses 

of members of reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2017 

Mr. DAINES introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the 

mileage threshold for deduction in determining adjusted 

gross income of certain expenses of members of reserve 

components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Relief for Guard 

5 and Reserve Training Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 697 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF MILEAGE THRESHOLD FOR DEDUC2 TION IN DETERMINING ADJUSTED GROSS IN3 COME. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

5 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘100 miles’’ and inserting ‘‘50 

8 miles’’, and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘for any period’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘for any period (without regard to whether such pe11 riod includes an overnight stay)’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2016. 

15 SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM 2 PERCENT FLOOR ON MIS16 CELLANEOUS ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 67 of the 

18 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

19 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

20 (11), 

21 (2) by striking the period at the end of para22 graph (12) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and 

23 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

24 paragraph: 

25 ‘‘(13) the deductions allowed by section 162 

26 which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 697 IS

1 taxpayer in connection with the performance of serv2 ices by such taxpayer as a member of a reserve com3 ponent of the Armed Forces of the United States for 

4 any period (without regard to whether such period 

5 includes an overnight stay) during which such indi6 vidual is more than 50 miles away from home in 

7 connection with such services.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Joe Kenler, Respondent, v. John M. Murtagh, Chief City Magistrate, et al., Appellants.

Motion by the City of New York to serve and file a brief as *amicus curice*in support of appellants’ position, granted. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 516.49 Expert witnesses. ( a ) *General rule.* Present DA personnel will not provide, with or without compensation, opinion or expert testimony either in private litigation or in litigation in which the United States has an interest for a party other than the United States. Former DA personnel will not provide, with or without compensation, opinion or expert testimony concerning official information, subjects, or activities either in private litigation or in litigation in which the United States has an interest for a party other than the United States. (See figure G-3, appendix G of this part). An SJA or legal adviser is authorized to deny a request for expert testimony, which decision may be appealed to Litigation Division.
( b ) *Exception to the general prohibition.* If a requester can show exceptional need or unique circumstances, and the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to the interests of the United States, Litigation Division may grant special written authorization for present or former DA personnel to testify as expert or opinion witnesses at no expense to the United States. In no event may present or former DA personnel furnish expert or opinion testimony in a case in which the United States has an interest for a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the United States.
( c ) *Exception for AMEDD personnel.* Members of the Army medical department or other qualified specialists may testify in private litigation with the following limitations (See figure G-4, appendix G, of this part): ( 1 ) The litigation involves patients they have treated, investigations they have made, laboratory tests they have conducted, or other actions taken in the regular course of their duties.
( 2 ) They limit their testimony to factual matters such as the following: their observations of the patient or other operative facts; the treatment prescribed or corrective action taken; course of recovery or steps required for repair of damage suffered; and, contemplated future treatment.
( 3 ) Their testimony may not extend to expert or opinion testimony, to hypothetical questions, or to a prognosis.
( d ) *Court-ordered expert or opinion testimony.* If a court or other appropriate authority orders expert or opinion testimony, the witness will immediately notify Litigation Division. If Litigation Division determines it will not challenge the subpoena or order, the witness will comply with the subpoena or order. If directed by Litigation Division, however, the witness will respectfully decline to comply with the subpoena or order. (See *United States ex. rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951)).
( e ) *Expert witness fees.* All fees tendered to present DA personnel as an expert or opinion witness, to the extent they exceed actual travel, meals, and lodging expenses of the witness, will be remitted to the Treasurer of the United States.