alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C&U9CV cf (L\KX^\XVAl_ W?XALS

*X\\X STAX^. 0V- TXY&S

£X^S>-\ V\^-\XbV\ £tfk^am«SE&y\ c^ TXM£ To^XUcL WniTlQM

"TiE)-TV\X UfcKl&TlPtfAX XW$*X"b ^ "WL C&\ritf ^ QSXVMV^L t\\>?EPlLS

CX<\ fc^cViXYSA C^O. CV S»VAvA CCoCT^ cWa-S "sr\ v^\Kn<Xn W\\\. Ck_X^f\\ \1,0» ^5yC

""Xro^A's* (Lfce>\\V^ ~^CvS> t=L Wn*_ C^£fcc*<s\_ felt ^^X.Ua\ V\S^CLkA\ \s\ CliQ^^V. \Ju.

P^nVn^cwc oco^MlC^oA Vo W/W. Clc^A- 6V V^WicA'ki "X\v^<^ .^u^vslsnAen en ,m RECEIVED IN COURTOF^^^s COURTOFCRi^LAPPEAlS

SEP .8 20,6 SEP2620,S

Abel Acosta, Clerk AbelACOSta,Clerk
XL

vn^v'\Co*o, \^, <vSc3c'^l^<- X4 <S)^U. "XW_ "^kv\\fcc\*_r Vv_s_ \-\sA- t^£*A}^3r*fcA c^^A

XEL.

V_r\^_V _ \W. VLRiVi-cV tiK VtoVi^cAs, 6xoA-^_A yvs,. v^VW^Woojo \tfc_vr\ ^^xV»fcc\t_.<r_f

CXT\ck Q^ctLXNO. Vvr\^_ (Ac_cicA\;y^?L. V^<- V;\n<cv<\ xSr\<L. VcX%Vn^v\ x^c- V_Vs£_vvf-\<yr\C\r\ji

Ytj_<lV\^-CN«i_r . Vt-cs.<$iV-

""^Arc X V_vn;V

\!&\ prv\ sss<a X^_rt^ 1951131

^^vv^^^^ClcAcMxvjiY^^0^ XS80O
A_ CQ_rV*\VvA WvCvX cvVfUV cvcnX cC^rc^cV Cc_Cs.O(. C_V VuVJl c\V_c>\Jfc_ QccncA

V^x-0__^C_\ C\<\ V\c<V ^Vc\\a(\ Wr ^L*W_>R,\c_C\ cV~%V<yaV_ Vfc VP-\v_ cTvt_k\V\*Cv

Vii<- ^'xS^^Vxc-cxc^r-vx \A^_J\QJo-_ ,VncvQ, \^>fcx-\ Ve> r v*_,OorA \c,u W^- WwA. A^vYSCCvCU

"\^c_7<W \Q4vV5. ^AxvT^L.X^nW t_^ V\\;^ XW JLlf^ A^X

X.^x^^Vj,c^AJ\^.~\A^(LXAV \kcv=)-\-\'21 <V_*__<\^ ^v^m4\u

\CsCx_fc\rCVrc_VA *\ cn V\rs^_ ""^_sVci V VW\V c_V ^ZX*tXC_S_ \_»\^CvA:vcN^\Vr t_V Q_r'\<v\\oA

^Sl*\$^.Va <_V afcjr\o<\A \W*V \V^\fc\Vv^C}\>r\Cs. ^<^i_^'5_fNOr c_sVVcv_V CsaA tkr\ii>.e_V

^CxS_«_VA C_Uo\^_A

^V* XV_*A

«?"•"
"X>c_cxx- £_\clAl

\_-Y\<i_c\5^_v~\ i_\"""V\ <xnv_Vt_, vS&_ VcVr'Vc\v%o\Vro<r VSx'^'coc'Cj?, c_xnc_*x-v_x *-4W\Sl_\_A . X \VS_SV.

\rVW_ VW\^ ^KsX:\^cv cv_cnA V^C\c\Ck "Vr V>, V\r\\_ c^^^cv^:\txCN cX VW £_t_v_<\ v

Ql.

XV^J^fc- AoAr^_-"5_\:Cv.«>rx^ ^Arx\^ \\VX^v\r CoC\A vcS_Vv_OT\ *V. Vb <*s\_\

c_KcV\-^V_ ,=S_\-\C_Voo.k-\ V=k\V\V>i'oo .

AsC_ vC0J3yV_i\i^V VVxCcV v_vfc\_. X\vV\V\_\ <cxW_ cV \W_ V.&\_\rV<

fuVwo, c_vcx tp\_i V^VV's^cx

RECEIVED IN

COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

SEP 26 2018

Abe!Acosta,Cferk

~\_s£* Q_> <_vScAc Vvb Z^fc. er

^^ V-\WV -x^cs v^xnn
MN AAAS

ADVANCING SCIENCE, SERVING SOCIETY

Judge Richard A. Posner

US Circuit Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
219 S. Dearborn Street,

Room 2788F

Chicago, IL 60604

Invoice
Invoice Date: December 12, 2012
Invoice No.: 52-4396-1R

Description

Per the Letter of Agreement signed 11/7/12 relating to the services to be provided by AAAS for the
recommendation of an expert(s) in the Brandeis patent litigations as provided through the
Court Appointed Scientific Experts (CASE) project staff.

Initial payment due $ 4,000.00

Amount Due AAAS
E.I.N. 53-0196568

Certifying Official:
Se jzfj2ff2
Colleen Struss Date

Director of Finance

Please include a copy of this invoice with your payment and remit to Tanisha Lewis at the address below.
If you have questions regarding the invoice please contact Tanisha Lewis at 202-326-8978.

Office of Finance and Administration

American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel: 202 326 6699
www.aaas.org
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0083

STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v.

GREENFIELDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants State 

of Montana’s, et al., (“State”) unopposed motion for a 14-day extension 

of time of the stay of this appeal, and good cause appearing, the State 

and the other parties are granted an extension of time to and including

October 15, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file their joint 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Mont. R. App. P 16(5) and accompanying 

stipulation.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 1 2021

10/01/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0083
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & GuidanceELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
| Editor's Picks                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |
|                                                                                     | |							 1 |							2 |							3 |							4 |							5 | |  |
|                                                                                     |
| 1 - 10 of 268 Shown			Articles per page  				10 | 				25  | 				50 |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                RESOURCES, INC.
                                  PP&L, INC.

                              1998 ANNUAL REPORT
                   TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                 ON FORM 10-K

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                               -----------------

         The undersigned directors of PP&L Resources, Inc. and PP&L, Inc., both
Pennsylvania corporations, which are to file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, their 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K, do hereby
appoint William F. Hecht, John R. Biggar and Robert J. Grey their true and
lawful attorney, and each of them their true and lawful attorney, with power to
act without the other and with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to
execute for them and in their names said Form 10-K Report and any and all
amendments thereto, whether said amendments add to, delete from or otherwise
alter said Form 10-K Report, or add or withdraw any exhibits or schedules to be
filed therewith and any and all instruments in connection therewith. The
undersigned hereby grant to said attorneys and each of them full power and
authority to do and perform in the name of and on behalf of the undersigned, and
in any and all capacities, any act and thing whatsoever required or necessary to
be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as
the undersigned might do, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of said
attorneys and each of them.
<PAGE>
 
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands and
seals this 26th day of February, 1999.


/s/ Frederick M. Bernthal     L.S.       /s/ Stuart Heydt           L.S.
------------------------------          ----------------------------
Frederick M. Bernthal                        Stuart Heydt



/s/ E. Allen Deaver          L.S.        /s/ Frank A. Long          L.S.  
-----------------------------           ----------------------------
E. Allen Deaver                              Frank A. Long



/s/ William J. Flood          L.S.       /s/ Norman Robertson       L.S.
------------------------------          ----------------------------
William J. Flood                             Norman Robertson



/s/ Elmer D. Gates            L.S.       /s/ Marilyn Ware           L.S.
------------------------------          ----------------------------
Elmer D. Gates                               Marilyn Ware



/s/ William F. Hecht          L.S.
------------------------------    
William F. Hecht
### §1737. Tracking system for stolen passports

#### (a) Entering stolen passport identification numbers in the interoperable data system

#### (1) In general

Beginning with implementation under section 1722 of this title of the law enforcement and intelligence data system, not later than 72 hours after receiving notification of the loss or theft of a United States or foreign passport, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall enter into such system the corresponding identification number for the lost or stolen passport.

#### (2) Entry of information on previously lost or stolen passports

To the extent practicable, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall enter into such system the corresponding identification numbers for the United States and foreign passports lost or stolen prior to the implementation of such system.

#### (b) Transition period

Until such time as the law enforcement and intelligence data system described in section 1722 of this title is fully implemented, the Attorney General shall enter the data described in subsection (a) into an existing data system being used to determine the admissibility or deportability of aliens.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title III, §308, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 556.)

#### **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.
### §1531. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

(1) the term "alien terrorist" means any alien described in section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title;

(2) the term "classified information" has the same meaning as in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);

(3) the term "national security" has the same meaning as in section 1(b) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);

(4) the term "removal court" means the court described in section 1532 of this title;

(5) the term "removal hearing" means the hearing described in section 1534 of this title;

(6) the term "removal proceeding" means a proceeding under this subchapter; and

(7) the term "special attorney" means an attorney who is on the panel established under section 1532(e) of this title.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title V, §501, as added Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, §401(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1258; amended Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §§308(g)(1), 354(a)(5), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–622, 3009–643.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, referred to in pars. (2) and (3), is section 1 of Pub. L. 96–456, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2025, which is set out in the Appendix to Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Amendments

1996—Par. (1). Pub. L. 104–208, §308(g)(1), substituted "section 1227(a)(4)(B)" for "section 1251(a)(4)(B)".

Par. (7). Pub. L. 104–208, §354(a)(5), added par. (7).

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by section 308(g)(1) of Pub. L. 104–208 effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Amendment by section 354(a)(5) of Pub. L. 104–208 effective as if included in the enactment of subtitle A of title IV of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–132, see section 358 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1182 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Subchapter effective Apr. 24, 1996, and applicable to all aliens without regard to date of entry or attempted entry into United States, see section 401(f) of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 1326 of this title.
#### 1028.307 Insurance under cost-reimbursement contracts.
#### Maria Mercado, Appellant, v The Institute for Urban Family Health, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 87]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered January 10, 2006, which, inter aha, granted plaintiff’s motion insofar as it sought renewal, but upon renewal adhered to the prior order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action to recover the extraordinary expenses of caring for a child with Down’s Syndrome. The contention, now reiterated by defendant, that such expenses may not be recovered from a tortfeasor when they are covered by government aid programs, was specifically rejected by this Court in *Germosen v Gupta*(237 AD2d 121 [1997]), where we held that “[t]he availability of Medicaid should not operate to preclude recovery against the tortfeasor any more than the availability of health insurance under similar circumstances.” We noted as well that “such cost should not be borne as a public expense *410where judgment may be recovered against the culpable party” *(id.).*Defendant misconstrues *Germosen*to permit recovery only where some extraordinary expenses are not covered by government aid. Moreover, even if defendant’s construction of *Germosen*were correct, summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for extraordinary expenses would still be inappropriate given the admissible evidence showing that the services, treatments and equipment that are and will be necessary for plaintiffs daughter’s care are not completely covered by available government programs.

We have considered, and reject, defendant’s arguments to the effect that plaintiffs appeal is not properly before us. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles Park
Communities, Ltd. Year-End 1995 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317969
<NAME> ANGELES PARK COMMUNITIES, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         180,512
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       5,798,225
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,221,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,084,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      4,951,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,119,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,084,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,913,629
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,289,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             565,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                623,901
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            623,901
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (43,003)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   580,898
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    38.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### George D. Del Vecchio, Respondent-Appellant, v. County of Cayuga, Appellant-Respondent. Joan M. Del Vecchio, Respondent-Appellant, v. County of Cayuga, Appellant-Respondent. Deborah Del Vecchio, an Infant, by George Del Vecchio, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent-Appellant, v. County of Cayuga, Appellant-Respondent. Cheryl Del Vecchio, an Infant, by George Del Vecchio, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. County of Cayuga, Appellant. Cynthia Del Vecchio, an Infant, by George Del Vecchio, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. County of Cayuga, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to the infant plaintiffs, Deborah, Cheryl, and Cynthia Del Vecchio. All concur’, except Henry, J., who dissents and votes to reverse the judgment against appellant County of Cayuga and to grant a new trial, on the ground that the court erroneously charged provisions of subdivision 17 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (now § 375, subd. 17). (Appeal by defendant from certain parts of a judgment of Cayuga Trial Term in favor of certain plaintiffs, in a negligence action; appeal by plaintiffs George D. Del Vecchio and Joan M. Del Vecchio from certain parts of the same judgment in favor of defendant for no cause of action; appeal by plaintiff Deborah Del Vecchio from that part of judgment which reduces her verdict; appeal by plaintiffs George Del Vecchio and Joan Del Vecchio from order denying motions for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
#### Mario R. Cacchione v. Westchester Country Club et al.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted only insofar as to extend the appellant’s time to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including May 1, 1962, with notice of argument for the June 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The order of this court entered on February 27, 1962 is modified accordingly. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
“Report”), I, Anthony L. Havens, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(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.





Date:  August
13, 2010





/s/
      Anthony L. HavensAnthony
      L. HavensChief
      Executive Officer
#### Santos Martinez, Respondent, v. Adelphi Hospital, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of lumbar punctures performed at defendant hospital, the hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 18, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant and which directed a new trial. Order affirmed, without costs. While we affirm the order, we do not do so for the reason stated by the learned Trial Justice, namely: that the evidence preponderated so greatly on plaintiff’s behalf that no conclusion other than one in plaintiff’s favor could be reached. We affirm, rather, on the sole ground that, even though no exception was noted, it was improper, in the course of the charge, to instruct the jury that: “If you as members of the jury are in doubt as to the exact way in which plaintiff contracted this disease, of course you must find for the defendant” (cf. *Bunce*v. *City of New York,*261 App. Div. 838; *Goodman*v. *Gilligan,*280 App. Div. 767). After the jury had been deliberating for more than two hours, they returned to the courtroom for further instruction with respect to the following question: “Tour Honor, did you in your charge to the jury state that if there is doubt in any juror’s mind as to malpractice on the part of the Adelphi Hospital, their vote must be in favor of the defendant?”. To this the court responded by reading so much of the original erroneous charge as is quoted above. Again, no exception was taken. The jurors, after deliberating for more than six hours, finally found for the defendant by a 10 to 2 verdict. Where, as here, the issue of liability is a close one, the plaintiff will be afforded a new trial in the interests of justice on the sole ground of erroneous instructions to the jury, even though no exception was taken *(Juskow*v. *Tow. Ulanow Swintego Jana Chrziciela,*4 A D 2d 1003; *Zeffiro*v. *Porfido,*265 App. Div. 185). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 16, 2018

NO. 03

- 18

- 00445

- CV

Appellants, Texas Association of Business; National Federation of Independent Business, American Staffing Association; Lea dingEdge Personnel, Ltd.; Staff Force, Inc.; HT Staffing Ltd. d/b/a The HT Group; The Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc., d/b/a Burnett Specialists; Society for Human Resource Management; Texas State Council of The Society for Human Resource Management; Austin Human Resource Management Association; Strickland School, LLC; and The State of Texas//Cross

- Appellants, City of Austin, Texas; and Spencer Cronk, City Manager of The City of Austin

v.

Appellees, City of Austin, Texas; Steve Adler, Mayor of The Ci ty of Austin; and Spencer Cronk, City Manager of The City of Austin//Cross

- Appellees, Texas Association of Business; National Federation of Independent Business, American Staffing Association; Leading Edge Personnel, Ltd.; Staff Force, Inc.; HT Staffing Lt d. d/b/a The HT Group; The Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc., d/b/a Burnett Specialists; Society for Human Resource Management; Texas State Council of The Society for Human Resource Management; Austin Human Resource Management Association; Strickland Sc hool, LLC; and The State of Texas

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

T his is an appeal from orders signed by the district court on July 2, 2018. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in one of the

court’s orders. Therefore, the Court reverses that part of the district court’s order denyi ng the

City’s plea to the jurisdiction with respect to the Private Parties’ warrantless

- search claim,remands that claim to the district court to give the Private Parties the opportunity to replead, and

affirms the remainder of the order denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. The Court affirms

the district court’s denial of the City’s motion to strike the State’s intervention. The Court

reverses the district court’s order denying the Private Parties’ and the State’s application for a

temporary injun ction and remands this case to the district court with the instruction that it grant

the requested temporary injunction and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Cou rt and in the court

below.