alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Marzan, Respondent, v Park Avenue Enclosed Market Merchants Association, Inc., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 17, 1978, which granted plaintiff’s motion to remove this action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the Supreme Court, New York County, and to amend the complaint to increase the *ad damnum*clause from $10,000 to $500,000, reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion denied, without costs and without disbursements. In 1969, approximately 10 years ago, plaintiff allegedly sustained an injury in the enclosed market at Park Avenue and 111th Street. Just three days before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations in 1972, an action for personal injuries was brought in the Civil Court of the City of New York with a claim for $10,000. Issue was joined, and the defendant demanded a bill of particulars which was not supplied. Some six years later, in 1978, plaintiff moved to increase the *ad damnum*and remove the action to the Supreme Court, alleging a worsening of the original condition over the years, being a contusion and strain of the back, left side of the neck and left shoulder. In view of the length of time in which this matter has lain fallow, it was an abuse of discretion to grant the motion. While the order at Special Term provided for a physical examination by the defendant and required the plaintiff to now respond to the defendant’s demand for a bill of particu*850lars, which has since been served, at this late date it would be extremely difficult for the defendant to prepare to meet a claim in a very substantial amount. *(Peterson v Spartan Ind.,*64 AD2d 958.) This matter should now go forward in the Civil Court. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler and Silver-man, JJ.

Lane and Markewich, JJ.,

dissent in a memorandum by Markewich, J., as follows: The majority would reverse what was an unexceptionable act of discretion. There has been nothing whatever to show that this plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced in the slighest either by the delay in this case or by the increase in *ad damnum*and removal to Supreme Court. As to the delay itself, defendant evinced less interest in moving the case along than did plaintiff, doing nothing at all about it until , plaintiff moved, although it could have been the subject of a dispositive motion. As to the increase in *ad damnum,*plaintiff has shown a misdiagnosis by her original doctor, since deceased, and a relatively recent opinion by a successor doctor, showing permanence. Mere passage of time alone should not defeat what on its face is a legitimate claim.
|   | (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:  March 31, 2011 |   |   |                                                  |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |   | /s/ Thomas J. Meaney                                  |   |
|                                 |   |   | Thomas J. MeaneyPresident and Chief Financial Officer |   |
### §9033. Term of loans

#### (a) Term of loan

In the case of each loan commodity, a marketing assistance loan under section 9031 of this title shall have a term of 9 months beginning on the first day of the first month after the month in which the loan is made.

#### (b) Extensions prohibited

The Secretary may not extend the term of a marketing assistance loan for any loan commodity.

(Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1203, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 676.)
### §4311. Exemption from assessments

Any producer or importer whose total sales of flowers and plants do not exceed $100,000 during a twelve consecutive month period prior to the date an assessment is due and payable shall be exempt from assessments under this chapter under such conditions and procedures as may be prescribed in the order or rules and regulations issued thereunder and shall not vote in any referendum under this chapter: Provided, That the Floraboard shall have the discretion to make annual adjustments in the level of exemption to account for inflation. For the purpose of this section, a producer's or importer's total sales shall include, in those cases in which the producer or importer is an individual, sales attributable to such person's spouse, children, grandchildren, and parents; in those cases in which the producer or importer is a partnership or a member of a partnership, sales attributable to the other partners; and, in those cases in which the producer or importer is a corporation, sales attributable to any corporate subsidiaries of which such corporation owns 50 per centum or more of the stock, or if such subsidiaries are not corporations, subsidiaries which are controlled by such corporation. In addition, in determining a producer's or importer's total sales, the sales of any corporation in which such producer or importer owns 50 per centum or more of the stock shall be attributed to such producer or importer. For these purposes stock in the same corporation which is owned by such producer's or importer's spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, partners, and any corporation 50 per centum or more of whose stock is owned by the producer or importer shall be treated as owned by the producer or importer.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XVII, §1712, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1354.)
- 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

Financial AidFINANCIAL AID PROFESSIONALS

## 1989-1990

Federal Pell Grant Program 1989-1990 End of Year Report PDF (1.95M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (386K)

## 1988-1989

Federal Pell Grant Program 1988-1989 End of Year Report PDF (1.84M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (393K)

## 1987-1988

Federal Pell Grant Program 1987-1988 End of Year Report PDF (1.49M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (330K)

## 1986-1987

Federal Pell Grant Program 1986-1987 End of Year Report PDF (1.56M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (334K)

## 1985-1986

Federal Pell Grant Program 1985-1986 End of Year Report PDF (1.79M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (331K)

## 1984-1985

Federal Pell Grant Program 1984-1985 End of Year Report PDF (1.82M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (335K)

## 1983-1984

Federal Pell Grant Program 1983-1984 End of Year Report PDF (1.62M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (324K)

## 1982-1983

Federal Pell Grant Program 1982-1983 End of Year Report  PDF (1.92M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (328K)

## 1981-1982

Federal Pell Grant Program 1981-1982 End of Year Report PDF (1.67M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (327K)

## 1980-1981

Federal Pell Grant Program 1980-1981 End of Year Report PDF (1.66M)Tables only in MS Excel format Zip file (314K)

For additional information contact mary.miller@ed.gov
Top

Pell Program Data | OPE Program Data | OPE Policy Page
 Printable view  Last Modified: 04/08/2011How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
Federal Student Aid*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
### §2482. How issued

A certificate of plant variety protection shall be issued in the name of the United States of America under the seal of the Plant Variety Protection Office, and shall be signed by the Secretary or have the signature of the Secretary placed thereon, and shall be recorded in the Plant Variety Protection Office.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §82, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1551; Pub. L. 103–349, §13(l), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3143.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–349 substituted "the signature of the Secretary" for "his signature".

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SECOND
QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         206,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               214,427
<PP&E>                                         307,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                 262,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          542,873
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       695,098
<OTHER-SE>                                   (794,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,116
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,101
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               417,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (398,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (398,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.007)


</TABLE>
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0230**
#### John S. Somers, Respondent, v John F. Condlin, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 83]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about November 28, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of comparative liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The law is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a presumption that the operator of the rear vehicle was negligent. Thus, the injured occupant of the front vehicle is entitled to summary judgment on liability unless the driver of the second vehicle provides a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(see Johnson v Phillips,*261 AD2d 269, 271 [1999]).

Here, the record is bereft of evidence rebutting the presumption that defendant was negligent. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrated that defendant hit plaintiff from behind while plaintiff was stopped, or very nearly stopped, on the roadway during stop-and-go traffic. Indeed, defendant conceded that he did not continuously observe plaintiff, who was driving immediately in front of him. Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record that plaintiff had acted in such a way as to cause the accident, such as by stopping suddenly or by veering in front of defendant. Since defendant failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the accident, or point to any evidence that plaintiff bore any comparative fault, the court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on this issue *(see Agramonte v City of New York,*288 AD2d 75 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
| 1.   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended January 21, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |                                        |   |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: March 7, 2011 | /s/ William L. Bridgford               |   |
|                 | William L. Bridgford, Chairman of the Board |   |
|                 | (Principal Executive Officer)               |   |
### §§521 to 535. Omitted or Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §§1–15, 46 Stat. 11, as amended, were omitted or transferred as set forth below.

Section 521, which related to declaration of policy, effective merchandising of agricultural commodities, speculation, cooperative marketing, surpluses and administration of the chapter, was transferred to section 1141 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Section 522, which related to appointment, compensation, qualifications, term of office, and expenses of Governor of Farm Credit Administration, was transferred to section 1141a of Title 12, and was repealed by act Aug. 6, 1953, ch. 335, §19, 67 Stat. 400. See section 2244 et seq. of Title 12.

Section 523, which related to designation of agricultural commodities and establishment of advisory commodity committees, was omitted.

Section 524, which related to general powers of Farm Credit Administration, was transferred to section 1141b of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 525, which related to special powers of Administration, was transferred to section 1141c of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 526, which related to authorization of a revolving fund, was transferred to section 1141d of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 527, which related to loans to cooperative associations, was transferred to section 1141e of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 528, which related to miscellaneous loan provisions, was transferred to section 1141f of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 529, which provided for recognition, upon application of advisory commodity committee, of stabilization corporations for commodities, and prescribed functions and operations in connection therewith, was transferred to section 1141g of Title 12, and was subsequently omitted from the Code as obsolete.

Section 530, which related to clearing house associations, was omitted.

Section 531, which related to insurance against loss through price decline, was omitted.

Section 532, which related to appropriation for administrative expenses, was omitted.

Section 533, which related to avoidance of duplication, cooperation with other governmental establishments, obtaining information and data, cooperation with States, Territories, and agencies or subdivisions thereof, indication of research problems, and transfer of offices and functions, etc. was transferred to section 1141h of Title 12.

Section 534, which related to examination of books and accounts, was transferred to section 1141i of Title 12, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 115–334.

Section 535, which related to miscellaneous provisions, was transferred to section 1141j of Title 12.
#### Chevron Oil Company et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of Shelton

*Daniel D. McDonald,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*William J. Curran,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
No. 709.

#### Walter F. Britton, Trustee, etc., *v.*Union Investment Company.

March 15, 1920.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for *581the Eighth Circuit denied.

*Mr. Harrison L. Schmitt*ior petitioner.

*Mr. William A. Lancaster*and *Mr. David F. Simpson*for respondent.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

SPA Rental, LLC, DBA MSI Aviation, Complainant,


### v. Somerset- Pulaski County AirportBoard, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ORDER FAA DocketNo. 16-13-02

On November 6, 2015, counsel for Respondent, Somerset- Pulaski County Airport Board, filed a motion pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19, requesting an extension oftime to December 18,2015,to respond to Complainant's appeal ofthe Director's Determination, FAA Docket No. 16-13-02, dated September 1, 2015. Counsel advised that Respondent needs additional time to respond due to other commitments. Complainant does not appear to oppose this motion. Part 16 is intended to expedite the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. See Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Extensions oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.11(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Respondent is hereby granted an extension oftime in whichto file a reply to the appeal pursuantto CFR 

### § 16.33(d). Respondent's Reply to the Appeal is now due on December 18, 2015.

ct Director Date Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on November



# ~~~~015, I caused to be emailed and placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:
Counsel for Complainant Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402 your _lawyer@sbcglobal.net Counsel for Respondent Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 rowsley@stites.com bbreetz@stites.com Copies hand-delivered to: FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAAAirport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis, AC0-100 

# (vi
. I



# L~~l1/1. **/~_/** ClaudiaRoberts Office ofAirport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis
J~,~ED ST,ql,S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

a WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

z •~1~~► 

# _

0
44 PROS,G

~ \ 

### P!OV 2 2 2010

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. J. R. Stroble Manager, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

Dear Mr. Stroble:

On July 29, 2010, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested, as a Tier l(T 1) change, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve the addition of 30-gallon containers of Fuel Examination Waste (FEW) to the previously approved remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) debris waste stream known as AERHDM at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). EPA has reviewed the information provided and approves the addition of these FEW containers to the ANL Waste Stream AERHDM. As a result, ANL may dispose of these FEW waste containers as the AERHDM waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This approval also allows future addition of waste to this stream with a waste pedigree (radiological and physical contents) similar to the waste approved in this letter. Any other additional S3000 waste must be approved by EPA using the Tier 1 process. The enclosed report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-140) supports EPA's approval decision based on the information reviewed. If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani ,loglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.

Sincerely,

Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Enclosure

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Christine Gelles, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM Ed Ziemianski, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO QA Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP Allison Pangle, CTAC Porf Martinez, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED
### §724. Logistics

The Administrator shall develop an efficient, transparent, and flexible logistics system for procurement and delivery of goods and services necessary for an effective and timely response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters and for real-time visibility of items at each point throughout the logistics system.

(Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §636, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1422.)
Exhibit
      23(e)








CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form S-3 (Nos. 333-128219, 333-116477, 333-106200 and 333-106200-01,
        333-132574, 333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03) of PPL Energy
        Supply, LLC of our report dated February 24, 2006, except for Note 10 which
        is
        as of December 13, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements
        and
        financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.
  
 
 
 /s/
        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania
 February
        26, 2007