alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(December 15, 1964)

#### Jack London Productions, Inc., Appellant, v. Samuel Bronston Productions, Inc., Defendant, and Samuel Bronston, Respondent.

Order, entered on October 30, 1964, denying appellant judgment creditor’s motion to punish respondent judgment debtor for contempt and for other relief and granting respondent’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, as hereinafter indicated, and as so modified, affirmed, with *$30*costs and disbursements to appellant. Interrogation of a judgment debtor concerning the amount and sources of his funds is of course proper and no adequate reason is presented for exempting respondent from such interrogation. He should therefore answer questions directed to his borrowings, the sources thereof and the disposition of the proceeds, and the examination should be resumed. Upon completion of the examination appellant may renew its motion to punish respondent for contempt. At such time, where the entire record of examination will be available, charges if any of false swearing and violation of the restraining notice may be considered. Respondent should also be required to execute appropriate instruments enabling the Sheriff to realize on respondent’s right, title and interest in the stocks of Samuel Bronston Productions, Inc., Bronston Distributions, Inc., Marco Commercial Corporation and Navalperal S. A., and in any funds on deposit for account of respondent with Banco Commercials Italiana. Respondent’s objection that his equities in the stocks will prove valueless is not well taken; and on the present record it appears that a deposit for respondent’s account with the bank above named was made, although allegedly withdrawn. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6994

LANOL JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RODRICK H. SOWERS; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, a/k/a J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 2748-RWT) Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: August 26, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lanol Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lanol Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 2019 V

Filed: October 18, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

RANDALL FENNIG

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Clifford John Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, Vienna, VA , for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On December 22, 2017 , petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillian

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a result of the influenza vaccination received on October 17, 2016 . Petition at 1

- 2 . The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 17, 2018

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in whic h he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “ petitioner suffered the Table injury of GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period , and there is not a preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner ’ s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Pr omotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon re view, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

eas e of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).vaccination. ” Id. at 6 . Respondent further agrees that “ [t]he claim also meets the

statutory severity requirements because petitioner experienced sequelae of h is GBS for

more than six months ” and therefore “ compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act

. ” Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
Proposed Regulatory Text for Issue Papers #4 and 5: Public Service Loan Forgiveness

§685.219 Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

(b) Definitions

Full-time - (1) means working in qualifying employment in one or more jobs for the greater of— 

(i) (A) At least 30 hours per week, or 

(B) At least 30 hours per week throughout a contractual or employment period of at least eight 

months in a 12-month period, such as elementary and secondary school teachers, in which case 

the borrower is deemed to have worked full time; or 

(C) The equivalent of 30 hours per week as determined by multiplying each credit hour taught 

per week by 2.5 hours worked each week, in non-tenure track employment.
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

2021 Negotiated Rulemaking 

Prison Education Programs Subcommittee (non-voting) 

U. S. Department of Education 

Aaron Washington, Office of Postsecondary Education (Subcommittee leader) 

Ronald Sann, Office of General Counsel 

Consumer Advocacy Organizations 

Belinda Wheeler, Vera Institute of Justice 

Financial Aid Administrators 

Kim Cary, Ozarks Technical Community College 

Formerly Incarcerated Students 

Stanley Andrisse, Howard University College of Medicine 

Groups that Represent Incarcerated Students 

Terrell Blount, Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network 

Postsecondary Institutions that are Prison Education Program Providers 

Terrence S. McTier, Jr., Washington University 

State Correctional Education Directors 

Marisa Britton-Bostwick, Montana Correctional Enterprises

State Higher Education Executive Officers 

Angie Paccione, Colorado Department of Higher Education

Department of Corrections Representative

Anne L. Precythe, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections
United Stotes District oe
e@ Nye tre Northam District 6F

Tense Cosa Qo BCR 383
Tunis as ia ustgt FIL ED

AUG 2 5 29.0 dQ

Tim ti ath Ruron
ac “Get fe rade ea ' Sati

or onde
rR obtain all Cov arse Tot

me Band la Von one aru
Leeiied 4 OP Cocchinks Email oe ohiai
pg +dld -+heu a Doe ee SUSIE
tne

othe Onl a 0
Cowrt Wve oe Now WG

wed _ rete ww Couct
do LL ‘Con Blo in ine ails

prow my argue +S.
‘kas pocttul ly Sula mitted by
Ue Metre Johrwon.

Hote
MCL Hazelton

esto Sls West Virginia

ia ae “Hat fn
#### SCHALL v. CITY OF NEW YORK (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Municipal Corporations—Defective Sidewalks—Slight Defects.

A city is not liable for an injury from a depression in the sidewalk which had existed for several years, was near the curb, and was 4 feet long, 11 inches wide, and 3% inches deep.

¶ 1. See Municipal Corporations, vol. 36, Cent. Dig. § 1624.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Third District.

Consolidated actions by Sarah Schall and Rudolph Schall against the city of New York. From a judgment for plaintiffs, and an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, it appeals. Reversed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODWARD, JENKS, and HOOKER, JJ.

George L. Rives, for appellant.

Altkrug & Kahn, for respondent.

JENKS, J.

These are actions against a municipal corporation for negligence in the care of a street. The woman complains that, while walking thereon in the daytime, she fell and was injured by falling or slipping into a depression in the sidewalk which was about 15 feet wide. The testimony for the plaintiff shows that the depression, which was near the curb, was 4 feet long, 11 inches wide, 31⁄2 inches *738deep, and had existed for several years. I think that Hamilton v. City of Buffalo, 173 N. Y. 72, 65 N. E. 944, must control.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.
#### 1419.202-70 Acquisition screening and Small Business Specialist recommendations.

The Director of the OSDBU is responsible for issuing policy for use of the DI Form 1886 and determining the content of Form DI-1886 “Acquisition Screening and Review Form.”
Borden Institute Home

About the Textbooks

Published Volumes

Ordering Information

Author Information

Related Websites

Contact Information

Search

Published Volumes

# Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare 

### **Contents**

Front Matter
    - History of Biological Weapons: From Poisoned Darts to Intentional Epidemics   	      James W. Martin, George W. Christopher, and Edward M. Eitzen, Jr.
    - Food, Waterborne, and Agricultural Diseases             Zygmunt F. Dembek and Edwin L. Anderson
    - Epidemiology of Biowarfare and Bioterrorism   	      Zygmunt F. Dembek, Julie A. Pavlin, and Mark G. Kortepeter
    - Anthrax  		    Bret K. Purcell, Patricia L. Worsham, and Arthur M. Friedlander
    - Plague  		  Patricia L. Worsham, Thomas W. McGovern, Nicholas J. Vietri, and Arthur M. Friedlander
    - Glanders  	      Bridget Carr Gregory and David M. Waag
    - Melioidosis  	      Nicholas J. Vietri and David Deshazer
    - Tularemia  	      Matthew J. Hepburn, Arthur M. Friedlander, and Zygmunt F. Dembek
    - Brucellosis  	      Bret K. Purcell, David L. Hoover, and Arthur M. Friedlander
    - Q Fever  	      David M. Waag
    - Smallpox and Related Orthopoxviruses  	      Peter B. Jahrling, John W. Huggins, M. Sofi Ibrahim, James V. Lawler, and James W. Martin
    - Alphavirus Encephalitides  	      Keith E. Steele, Douglas S. Reed, Pamela J. Glass, Mary Kate Hart, George V. Ludwig, William D. Pratt, Michael D. Parker, and Jonathan F. Smith
    - Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers  	      Peter B. Jahrling, Aileen M. Marty, and Thomas W. Geisbert
    - Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B and Related Toxins  	      Robert G. Ulrich, Catherine L. Wilhelmsen, and Teresa Krakauer
    - Ricin  	      Mark A. Poli, Chad Roy, Kermit D. Huebner, David R. Franz, and Nancy K. Jaax
    - Botulinum Toxin  	      Zygmunt F. Dembek, Leonard A. Smith, and Janice M. Rusnak
    - Additional Toxins of Clinical Concern  	      Kermit D. Huebner, Robert W. Wannemacher, Jr., Bradley G. Stiles, Michel R. Popoff, and Mark A. Poli
    - Laboratory Identification of Biological Threats  	      Erik A. Henchal, George V. Ludwig, Chris A. Whitehouse, and John M. Scherer
    - Consequence Management: The National and Local Response  	      Kermit D. Huebner and James W. Martin
    - Medical Management of Potential Biological Casualties: A Stepwise Approach  	      Theodore J. Cieslak and George W. Christopher
    - Medical Countermeasures  	      Janice M. Rusnak, Ellen F. Boudreau, Matthew J. Hepburn, James W. Martin, and Sina Bavari
    - Biosafety  	      Catherine L. Wilhelmsen and Robert J. Hawley
    - Biosurety  	      Gretchen L. Demmin
    - Ethical and Legal Dilemmas in Biodefense Research  	      Jeffrey E. Stephenson and Arthur O. Anderson
    - Emerging Infectious Diseases and Future Threats  	      Chris A. Whitehouse, Alan L. Schmaljohn, and Zygmunt F. Dembek

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Index

Download Adobe Reader to view PDF documents.

External Links DisclaimerPrivacy & Security Notice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
JULY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,469
<PP&E>                                          52,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,525
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,068
<SALES>                                         29,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                       512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,390
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,887
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.16


</TABLE>
Appeal No. 74-254.

#### Town of Foster *v.*Prescott H. Lamphere.

Motion of defendant for extension of time to file his brief is granted. He shall file his brief by June 15, 1975. No *960further extensions of time shall be granted to the defendant, and, if he fails to comply with this mandate, his appeal shall be dismissed.

*Leo T. Connors,*Town Solicitor, for plaintiff. *Quentin J. Geary,*for defend'ant.
S. 899 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that the requirements that new 

Federal employees who are veterans with service-connected disabilities are provided leave for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disabilities 

apply to certain employees of the Veterans Health Administration. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Providing Healthcare 

Transition Improvement Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DISABLED VETERAN LEAVE FOR HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS IN VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6329(d)(1) of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) the term ‘employee’ has the meaning given such term 

in section 2105, and includes— 

‘‘(A) an officer or employee of the United States Postal 

Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission; and 

‘‘(B) notwithstanding subsection (a) of section 7421 of 

title 38, an individual occupying a position listed in subsection (b) of such section;’’. 

(b) APPLICABILITY.—With respect to a position listed in section 

7421(b) of title 38, United States Code, the amendment made by 

subsection (a) shall apply to any individual appointed to such a 

position on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
Hello,

My concern is high concentrations of road salt altering the chemical 

composition of the streams. I have been measuring the conductivity of the 

Scioto River and its tributaries in central Ohio since December of 2009.

Outside of wintertime, the streams normally read 400 - 600 microsimens per 

square centimeter (the bedrock is limestone, which gives off calcium). I 

obtained readings of 1430, 1560, and 1830 in January of 2010. In 

correspondence with people studying mine waste pollution, I've learned that 

levels around 2000 and above approach toxicity for aquatic life. It is 

unclear how much injury occurs at lower levers, short of death but 

nevertheless an impairment.

I am not aware of any standards for freshwater stream conductivity limits, 

nor any standards or rules regarding how municpalities or property managers 

may apply salts and other substances like fertilizer used as sidewalk salt. 

If this parameter is not currently regulated, it should be, and at the 

federal level instead of relying on local governments to adopt differing 

standards, or no standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Alex Silbajoris

Chair, Friends of the Scioto River
----

|   | By:         | /s/ ARTHUR      D. LEVINSON                           |   |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: | Arthur      D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   | Date:       | February      19, 2009                                     |   |

|   | By:         | /s/ DAVID      A. EBERSMAN                                                                       |   |
|--------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: | David      A. EbersmanExecutive      Vice President and   Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|   | Date:       | February      19, 2009                                                                                |   |

----
#### Jones *vs.*The State of Georgia.

On the trial of a defendant charged with the offense of shooting at’ another, it is error to charge that if defendant pointed a pistol at another and fired, it would be unnecessary to show that it was' loaded with ball or shot, but the presumption of law would be that it was so loaded. See 45 *Ga.,*477.

Warner, Chief Justice.
(November 18, 1963)

#### Charles Baron, Appellant, v. Frank Giambino, Defendant, and Xavier Lo Monaco, Doing Business as Nina Gowns, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1962, which granted defendant Lo Monaco’s motion for discovery and inspection of the business records of a corporation, Moledsky Transportation Corporation, which is not a party to the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The discovery and inspection shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such time and place as the parties may mutually agree by written stipulation. In his bill of particulars, plaintiff stated he was in business for *himself.*In his pretrial examination plaintiff stated that he was the *owner*of the trucking business (Moledsky Transportation Corporation) and that *his*books reflected *his*loss of earnings from the accident in question. It is because of these admissions that we conclude that these books, for purposes of discovery and inspection, should be considered as plaintiff’s, even though technically they are in the name of *his*corporation. The statutory and case rule, that discovery and inspection are available only as against parties to the action (Civ. Prae. Act, § 324; CPLR, rule 3120; *Golding*v. *Golddng,*7 A D 2d 1027), therefore remains unaffected. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
NDIL (02/12) Notice of Correction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Date: Case No.: 

Case Title: Judge: 

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

One of the following errors/deficiencies has been identified in document # :

The document is on the incorrect case.

Note: If this is a motion, the docket clerk has termed the motion from the incorrect case.

The document is on the correct case but the case number and title do not match. 

The incorrect document [pdf] was linked to the entry

The incorrect file date was entered.

The incorrect event was used. The title of the document does not match the text of the entry.

The entry is a duplicate of entry [ ] . 

Other: 

Corrective action taken by the Clerk:

The text of the entry has been edited and the pdf replaced with a pdf that states “Entered in

Error”. 

The following notation has been added to the text of the entry (Linked document has the

incorrect case title or Linked document has the incorrect case number.) 

The correct document [pdf] has been linked to the entry.

The file date has been corrected.

The text of the entry has been edited. 

The text of the entry has been edited to read “Duplicate filing of document number [ ].

Other: 

Corrective action required by the filer:

Counsel must re-file the document

Other: Provide brief explanation.

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

By: ______________________________

Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 1180 Filed: 04/02/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:48012