alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Eldridge Levy, Appellant, v Stephen Dalsheim, as Superintendent of the Ossining Correctional Facility et al., Respondents.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 31, 1978, which dismissed the petition and directed respondents to afford him a final parole revocation hearing within 15 days of the entry of the judgment. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted with prejudice, and petitioner is restored to parole under the conditions heretofore in effect. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of nine years on April 26, 1974. He was released on parole in October, 1977. On April 11, 1978 a warrant for the retaking and temporary detention of petitioner as an alleged parole violator was issued. On April 20, 1978 he was afforded a preliminary hearing which resulted in a finding of probable cause with respect to a charge that petitioner had failed to advise his parole officer of a February 24, 1978 arrest. In July, 1978 petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding seeking his release from custody due to respondents’ failure to afford him a timely final parole revocation hearing. Such hearing was scheduled for August 24, 1978 but a determination has not yet been made. On January 1, 1978 section 259-i of the Executive Law became effective (L 1977, ch 904, § 3). Section 259-i (subd 3, par [f], cl [i]) provides, in part, that: "Revocation hearings shall be scheduled to be held within ninety days of the probable cause determination.” Though there is an absence of legislative history on the question of whether the statute is to be strictly construed or to be considered merely as a guideline, the language clearly indicates that the legislative intent was to create a time period beyond which any delay was unreasonable per se. Prior to the enactment of the above statute, courts generally made *ad hoc*determinations on the "reasonableness” of the delay (see *Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole,*47 AD2d 656, affd 39 NY2d 445; *People ex rel. Serrano v Warden, N. Y. City*
      *828
      *House of Detention for Men,*47 AD2d 485; see, also, *Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US 471). The statute, however, now makes clear that a delay beyond 90 days after the probable cause determination is unreasonable per se (unless the exceptions provided for in the statute are applicable). Although the statute does not specify a remedy, it seems clear to this court that vacatur of the warrant and reinstatement of parole is the only appropriate remedy (see *Matter of Smith v Chairman of N. Y. State Bd. of Parole,*60 AD2d 775, affd 44 NY2d 982; *Matter of Piersma v Henderson,*60 AD2d 1001, affd 44 NY2d 982; *People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent,*50 AD2d 914, affd 40 NY2d 1049; *Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra).*To merely order a hearing within a specified time would render the 90-day limit a nullity. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.
§ 756.6 Negotiation. ( a ) *General.* Claims from NAFIs should be processed primarily through procedures, regulations, and statutes applicable to similar appropriated fund activity claims.
( b ) *When the NAFI is insured.* When a NAFI is insured, the insurer or the contracted third-party claims administrator (TPA) will normally conduct negotiations with claimants. The TCU Norfolk shall monitor the negotiations conducted by the insurer or TPA. Monitoring is normally limited to ascertaining that someone has been assigned to negotiate, to obtain periodic status reports, and to close files on settled claims. Any dissatisfaction with the insurer's or TPA's handling of the negotiations should be referred directly to the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) for appropriate action. If requested by the insurer or TPA, the TCU Norfolk may conduct negotiations. If TCU Norfolk negotiates a final settlement, however, request for payment will be forwarded to the insurer or TPA for payment. Concurrence by the insurer or TPA in the amount of the settlement is not necessary.
( c ) *When the NAFI is not insured.* When there is no private commercial insurer and the NAFI has made no independent arrangements for negotiations, the TCU Norfolk is responsible for conducting negotiations. When an appropriate settlement is negotiated by the Navy, the recommended award will be forwarded to the NAFI for payment from non-appropriated funds.
[72 FR 53425, Sept. 19, 2007]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Nathaniel Saunders, Respondent, v. Liberty Wholesale Meats et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded minimal benefits for temporary partial disability on the grounds that the claimant’s testimony was incredible and therefore did not constitute substantial evidence. The record demonstrates that the Referee and members of the board had serious doubts as to the veracity of the claimant and disallowed benefits for the weeks where there was testimony that the claimant was employed. The board, however, as to its finding of partial disability relied upon the medical testimony of Doctors Jahss and Klein, whose opinions were not based entirely on the complaints of the claimant but also on their examinations of the claimant. There was, therefore, testimony which the board could and apparently did accept and which, in our opinion, constituted substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
 Date: March 4, 2009
    /s/ Steven A. DavisSteven A. DavisChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
# AY 2009-10
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Promoting Research on Music and Health: Phased Innovation Award for Music. Interventions (R61/R33 Clinical Trial Optional)                    

*Date:*                         March 12, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Martina Schmidt, Ph.D.. Chief Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456,                         *schmidma@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 12, 2021.

Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00923 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRST
QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1998 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         455,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,911
<PP&E>                                         294,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 705,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          478,108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       507,293
<OTHER-SE>                                   (383,402)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   705,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (227,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (227,622)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Grinder, Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: In this habeas corpus proceeding we have reviewed the contentions of the appellant and also those raised by implication that were passed on in the prior article 78 proceeding decided in April, 1963, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term denying, without a hearing, petition by relator for a writ of habeas corpus.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

 v. : No. 748 C.D. 2021

:

Kenneth L. Trainer, Jr., :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of January, 2023, it is ordered that the above-captioned 

Memorandum Opinion, filed November 17, 2022, shall be designated OPINION and 

shall be REPORTED.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORD E R Raymond 

### J. Carey v Foley 

### & Lardner LLP DocketNo. 321207 LC No. 13-013005-CK Amy Ronayne Krau se Pre si ding Judge E li zabeth 

### L. G leicher Cynth i a Diane Stephens

Judge s The Court orders that the Plaintiff-App e ll ee's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court orders that the Defendant-Appell an t 's mot ion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's op ini o n iss ued March 15 , 20 16 , i s h e reby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order.

Gleicher J. concur s with denial of plaintiff motion for recon s iderat io n. Plaintiffs request for reconsideration center s o n th e co nte nti o n tha t Wi sco n s in l aw, rather than Mi chigan law, gove rn s hi s contract. This c hoice of law qu es ti o n was not raised o n a pp eal and in m y v iew pl aintiff h as waived this iss ue.

A tru e copy entered a nd certified b y Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Clerk, on 

# AUG 

# 0 9 2016 Date
### §§201 to 204. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(23), (24), 66 Stat. 279, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

Section 201, act May 26, 1924, ch. 190, §1, 43 Stat. 153, related to short title.

Section 202, acts May 26, 1924, ch. 190, §2, 43 Stat. 153; Feb. 25, 1925, ch. 316, 43 Stat. 976, related to immigration visas. See sections 1201 and 1351 of this title.

Section 203, acts May 26, 1924, ch. 190, §3, 43 Stat. 154; July 6, 1932, ch. 434, 47 Stat. 607; July 1, 1940, ch. 502, §1, 54 Stat. 711; Dec. 29, 1945, ch. 652, title I, §7(c), 59 Stat. 672, defined immigrant. See section 1101 of this title.

Section 204, acts May 26, 1924, ch. 190, §4, 43 Stat. 155; July 3, 1926, ch. 738, §1, 44 Stat. 812; May 29, 1928, ch. 914, §§1, 2, 45 Stat. 1009; July 3, 1930, ch. 835, §3, 46 Stat. 854; July 11, 1932, ch. 471, §1, 47 Stat. 656; May 19, 1948, ch. 311, §1, 62 Stat. 241, defined nonquota immigrant. See section 1101 of this title.
#### Adam Lyon Industries, Inc., Appellant, v Pershing Casuals, Inc., Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 2, 1977, denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and severance of the counterclaims and granting respondent’s cross motion to amend its answer, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and disbursements, to the extent of granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment in the amount of $14,600.16, with interest, and severing the counterclaims of defendant, and otherwise affirmed. The verified complaint set forth a schedule, listing each item by invoice number, date, description of goods and price. The verified answer controverted only three of the items, leaving undisputed a balance of $14,600.16 plus interest. The counterclaims *716interposed by defendant total $67,689.75 and refer to orders for "red shoe lace”, "red cord lace”, "red braid” and zippers, in which the color ran. The counterclaims are unrelated to the claims found in the complaint. CPLR 3016 (subd [f]) provides that, in an action involving the sale and delivery of goods, plaintiff may set forth and number in a verified complaint the items of its claim and the agreed price of each and thereupon defendant by its verified answer shall indicate specifically those items it disputes and the reasons therefor. The verified amended answer, insofar as it contained a general denial to the complaint, did not comply with the requirements of that section and hence was insufficient to place the $14,600.16 balance in issue *(Duban v Platt,*23 AD2d 660, affd 17 NY2d 526; *Offset Paperback Mfrs. v Banner Press,*47 AD2d 733). Defendant’s assertion that the items were not numbered should not bar summary judgment. While the schedule was not numbered in sequence, each item was set forth separately, by an invoice number and other identifying information. This numbering procedure was sufficient to enable defendant to specifically controvert each item. In fact, defendant did specifically challenge three of the items. Further, the case at bar is distinguishable from *Innis, Pearce & Co. v G. H. Poppenberg, Inc.*(213 App Div 789, 790), since in that case the items were not individually numbered but separated into three numbered groups, thus impeding specific denial. Settle order. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Lane, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 11—NATIONALITY**
### Part IV—Miscellaneous
### §7422. Amendments to orders

The provisions of this subchapter applicable to an order shall be applicable to any amendment to an order, except that section 7417 of this title shall not apply to an amendment.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §523, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1047.)
### §7718. Certification for exports

The Secretary may certify as to the freedom of plants, plant products, or biological control organisms from plant pests or noxious weeds, or the exposure of plants, plant products, or biological control organisms to plant pests or noxious weeds, according to the phytosanitary or other requirements of the countries to which the plants, plant products, or biological control organisms may be exported.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §418, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 448.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
First Amend to Employment Agreement/A. deCardenas



 







EXHIBIT 10.2




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This AGREEMENT is entered into as of March 31, 2006 (the “Effective Date”), by and between
MASTEC, INC. (the “Company”) and ALBERTO DE CARDENAS (the “Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
November 16, 2006 (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement in order to comply with the
recently promulgated deferred compensation rules.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:



     1. A new paragraph p is hereby added to Section 12 of the Agreement to read as follows:



          “o. Compliance with Section 409A: To the extent the Employee would otherwise be
entitled to any payment (whether pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise) during the six months
beginning on termination of employment, that would be subject to the additional tax imposed under
Section 409A of the Code (“Section 409A”), (i) the payment will not be made and (ii) the payment,
with interest at the rate being paid by the Company on its senior credit facility (the “Senior
Credit Interest Rate”) determined as of the date of termination of the Employee’s employment, will
be paid to the Employee on the earlier of the six-month anniversary of the Employee’s date of
termination of employment or the Employee’s death or disability (within the meaning of Section
409A). Similarly, to the extent the Employee otherwise would be entitled to any benefit (other
than a payment) during the six months beginning on termination of employment that would be subject
to the Section 409A additional tax, the benefit will be delayed and will begin being provided
(together, if applicable, with an adjustment to compensate the Employee for the delay) on the
earlier of the six-month anniversary of the date of termination, death or disability (within the
meaning of Section 409A). It is the Company’s intention that the benefits and rights to which the
Employee could become entitled in connection with termination of employment comply with Section
409A. If the Employee or the Company believes, at any time, that any of such benefit or right does
not comply, it will promptly advise the other and will negotiate reasonably and in good faith to
amend the terms of such arrangement such that it complies.”



     2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this Amendment.



     EXECUTED as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MASTEC, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Austin J. Shanfelter
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Austin J. Shanfelter 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	EMPLOYEE

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Alberto de Cardenas
 	 
	 	 	ALBERTO DE CARDENAS
|   | 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. |

|               |   |                                    |   |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 10, 2011 | By:    |  /s/  Greggory Schneider |   |
|               |   | Greggory Schneider                      |   |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer                 |   |
|               |   |                                    |   |
Appeal No. 75-74.

#### Michael Berger, *d.b.a.*Newport School of Hairdressing *v.*State Board of Hairdressing.

*Joseph A. Bevilacqua,*for plaintiff. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for defendant.

Petitions to extend time for transmission of record and to extend time for filing brief are granted, and the time is extended to April 30, 1975, in which plaintiff may file brief.
#### 1529.303 Application of State and local taxes to Government contractors and subcontractors.

Contractors are responsible for determining the availability of State and local tax exemptions and obtaining such exemptions, if available, unless the Contracting Officer determines under FAR 31.205-41(b)(3) that the administrative burden outweighs the corresponding benefit. Contractors are responsible for ensuring that subcontractors also seek and obtain such exemptions, if available.