alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 110–256—JUNE 30, 2008 122 STAT. 2425 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3180: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

June 23, considered and passed Senate. 

June 25, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–256 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘July 

31, 2008’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section, or in 

the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this 

Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations 

of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in 

the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2005 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–227) to 

the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Approved June 30, 2008. 

20 USC 1001 

note. 

June 30, 2008 

[S. 3180] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
1846.674 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, in solicitations and contracts when there will be separate and distinct deliverables, even if the deliverables are not separately priced. The clause is not required for— ( 1 ) Contracts awarded using simplified acquisition procedures;
( 2 ) Negotiated subsistence contracts; or
( 3 ) Contracts for which the deliverable is a scientific or technical report. Insert number of copies and distribution instructions in paragraph (a).
[80 FR 12945, Mar. 12, 2015]
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT






Board of Directors
Carnegie Financial Corporation

We have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Carnegie
Financial  Corporation  and  subsidiary  as of March 31,  2000,  and the related
consolidated  statements  of income  and cash flows for the  three-month  period
ended  March 31, 2000 and 1999,  and the  consolidated  statement  of changes in
stockholders'  equity for the  three-month  period ended March 31,  2000.  These
consolidated  financial  statements  are  the  responsibility  of the  Company's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  balance  sheet as of December 31,  1999,  and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders' equity and
cash  flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report
dated  February  25,  2000  we  expressed  an   unqualified   opinion  on  those
consolidated financial statements.



/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
Wexford, PA
April 25, 2000
#### Blythedale Children’s Hospital, Appellant, v Kristine Miller, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, George Miller, et al., Defendants, and California-Western States Life Insurance Company, Also Known as Cal-Western Life, Respondent.

In an action to recover for hospital services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 13, 1978, as, upon granting the cross motion of defendant California-Western Life Insurance Co. for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint as against that defendant. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and cross motion denied. In this case, the infant daughter of the defendant George Miller was admitted as a patient to the plaintiff’s institution. At that time Mr. Miller signed a document entitled "Authorization for Release of Medical Information, Financial Agreement and Guarantee of Account”, which stated: "For and in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered to the above named patient [the defendant Miller’s daughter], I hereby authorize payment directly to the above named hospital of any and all insurance benefits to which I may otherwise be entitled.” It also authorized plaintiff to release medical infor*791mation necessary to process a claim for benefits and it contained a covenant in which Mr. Miller agreed to be "fully and totally responsible to the hospital” for his daughter’s bills. Pursuant to this document, plaintiff submitted four claims for insurance proceeds based on the medical care it rendered to Mr. Miller’s daughter over different periods of time. These claims stated that the benefits under Mr. Miller’s policy "have been assigned.” The parties agree that, at the very least, a copy of the document accompanied the first bill. The defendant insurance company paid the first and fourth bills to the plaintiff, but paid the second and third to Mr. Miller, who failed to remit the insurance proceeds to plaintiff. In our opinion three genuine issues of fact appear on this record sufficient to preclude an award of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant insurance company. First, it is not clear whether the parties intended to treat the document in question as an assignment of insurance benefits or merely as an authorization by the insured to make direct payment of insurance benefits to the plaintiff. Second, we are unable to say, as a matter of law, whether plaintiff does or does not qualify as a "hospital”, as that term is defined by the contract of insurance. Third, there is a factual question as to whether the defendant insurance company should be equitably estopped from denying that the document in question constituted an assignment, since the claims submitted stated that there had been such an assignment and, allegedly with that knowledge, said defendant had made payment of the first and fourth claims to the plaintiff (see *Brown v Bowen,*30 NY 519, 540; 28 Am Jur 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 149). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
##### 



Page 27 of 27   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company and its
subsidiaries.
 /s/     Michael H. GoldbergMichael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)April 29, 2008 /s/ Lawrence A. BoikLawrence A. BoikVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)April 29, 2008
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to 

3 amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

4 Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts 

5 in the WMAT Settlement Fund, the Secretary of the Sen6 ate shall amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to authorize 

7 appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other pur8 poses.’’. 

Passed the Senate November 15, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

To correct the enrollment of S. 140. 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic MaterialsCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to  Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | August 1, 2008                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |   |
|   |                                  |   |
|   | /s/  Yvon Pierre Cariou               |   |
|   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                    |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation     |   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----

** **

** **
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William P. Melski, Appellant.

Motion granted and time for filing respondent’s brief extended to and including January 4, 1961.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-9: Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Protecting Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Released from Bonneville Hatchery, 1991 
Figure 11. Movement rate of Tanner Creek-released fish versus percent survival benefit (Table 5, footnote c) for midstream Columbia River releases over Tanner Creek releases of subyearling fall chinook salmon, 1989-91. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text. 

Table of Contents
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2000 and the Statement Of Income
for the year ended September 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
refenence to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,672,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,696,314<F1>
<PP&E>                                      39,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,446,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,250,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,491,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,758,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,250,069
<SALES>                                      4,514,063<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,709,768<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,753,414<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,956,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,956,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,956,354
<EPS-BASIC>                                   895.86<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   895.86<F5>
<FN>
<F1>Includes prepaid rent
<F2>Rental income
<F3>Includes dividend income
<F4>Leasehold rent, supervisory fees, legal fees and amortization of
    leasehold
<F5>Earnings per $10,000 participation unit, based on 3,300 participation
    units outstanding during the year
</FN>

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                         230,357
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  437,747
<ALLOWANCES>                   78,736
<INVENTORY>                    2,115,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,867,857
<PP&E>                         2,319,711
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,111,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 10,619,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,934,259
<BONDS>                        2,024,776
<COMMON>                       125,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    3,925
<OTHER-SE>                     6,531,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   10,619,530
<SALES>                        3,096,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               3,096,562
<CGS>                          2,458,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  2,589,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               41,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             41,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                410,575
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            465,914
<DISCONTINUED>                 (55,339)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   410,575
<EPS-BASIC>                  .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .04


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Armond McCloud, Petitioner, v Charles S. Hirsch, Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 917]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, the Chief Medical Examiner of Kings County, to provide the petitioner with a certain autopsy report, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding *(see*CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [b]). Rivera, J.P, Skelos, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNA MARQUEZ GARCIA; ABIMAEL 

EMIGDIO MARQUEZ; CARLOS 

EMIGDIO MARQUEZ; JOSUE 

MARQUEZ GARCIA,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-688

Agency Nos.

A208-587-540

A208-587-541

A208-587-542

A208-587-543

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 19, 2023**

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: NGUYEN, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Lead Petitioner Reyna Marquez Garcia; her adult son, Abimael Emigdio 

Marquez; and her two minor children (collectively, “petitioners”) petition for 

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

and affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual 

findings for substantial evidence, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 

632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly rejected petitioners’ applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal.1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding 

that petitioners did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future

persecution because their claim is based only on generalized criminal violence 

in Mexico and fails to establish an individualized risk of harm. Petitioners did 

not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because they 

did not suffer mistreatment in Mexico, did not identify any specific groups or 

individuals that might harm them in the future, and acknowledged that their fear 

of future harm is based on generalized violence in Mexico. See Singh v. INS, 

134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]o establish a well-founded fear, 

petitioner cannot simply prove that there exists a generalized or random 

possibility of persecution; she must show that she is at particular risk—that her

predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow 

citizens.”) (cleaned up and citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED.

1 The IJ also denied petitioners’ CAT claim, but petitioners did not challenge 

that determination before the BIA, nor do they challenge it in this court.
Exhibit 3.51


                   Amendment to Bylaws of Public Storage, Inc.
               Adopted by the Board of Directors on March 11, 2004



         WHEREAS: The Board of Directors of this corporation  considers it to be
in the best interests of the  corporation  to decrease the authorized  number of
directors of the corporation from eleven (11) to ten (10); and

         WHEREAS:  The  corporation's  Bylaws  permit the Board of  Directors to
designate the number of directors of the  corporation  provided that such number
is within the range of not less than eight (8) or more than fifteen (15).

         NOW, THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED:  That the second sentence of Section 3
of Article IV of the corporation's Bylaws is hereby amended to read as follows:

            "The  exact  number of  directors  shall be ten (10)  until  changed
      within the limits  specified  above,  by a bylaw  amending this section 3,
      duly adopted by the board of directors or by the shareholders."
#### 1852.223-72 Safety and health (short form).

As prescribed in 1823.7001(f), insert the following clause:

# Safety and Health (Short Form) (JUL 2015)

(a) Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness; damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA is committed to protecting the safety and health of the public, our team members, and those assets that the Nation entrusts to the Agency.

(b) The Contractor shall have a documented, comprehensive and effective health and safety program with a proactive process to identify, assess, and control hazards and take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures consistent with standard industry practice in performing this contract.

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c) in subcontracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold where work will be conducted completely or partly on Federally-controlled facilities.

(End of clause)

[80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
#### Julius M. Heuthe, Respondent, v. Providence Washington Insurance Company, Appellant. Julius Heuthe, Respondent, v. Queen Insurance Company of America, Appellant.

Motion, by order to show cause, for an order staying the trial of these consolidated actions denied.
#### Vincenza Dimino, Appellant, v Frank Dimino, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 353]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 2, 2000, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krauss, J.), dated December 6, 2005, which, upon denying that branch of her motion which was to reject a referee’s report (Platt, J.H.O), dated April 27, 2005, made after a hearing, confirmed the report and denied those branches of her motion which were to hold the defendant in contempt of court for violating certain provisions of the judgment of divorce, to set aside certain portions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, and for an award of attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*800The Supreme Court properly confirmed the referee’s report as the findings in the report, recommending denial of those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to hold the defendant in contempt, to set aside portions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement, and for an award of attorney’s fees, based on her failure to sustain her burden of proof, are amply supported by the record *(see Slater v Links at N. Hills,*262 AD2d 299 [1999]; *Frater v Lavine,*229 AD2d 564 [1996]).

The plaintiff did not meet her burden to hold the defendant in civil contempt (see *McCain v Dinkins,*84 NY2d 216, 227 [1994]; *Rienzi v Rienzi,*23 AD3d 447, 449 [2005]). She failed to establish that the defendant willfully violated the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce, thereby prejudicing her rights (see *Rienzi v Rienzi, supra; Vujovic v Vujovic,*16 AD3d 490, 491 [2005]; *RuppElmasri v Elmasri,*305 AD2d 394, 395 [2003]).

The plaintiff also failed to meet her burden to set aside certain portions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see *Brennan-Duffy v Duffy,*22 AD3d 699 [2005]; *Jacobs v Jacobs,*234 AD2d 425 [1996]). She failed to establish that the stipulation of settlement was the result of fraud or overreaching, or that its terms were unconscionable (see *Rubin v Rubin,*33 AD3d 983, 985-986 [2006]; *Chambers v McIntyre, 5*AD3d 344, 345 [2004]; *Jacobs v Jacobs, supra).*

The plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees was properly denied (see *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; *Matter of Lewis v Redhead,*19 AD3d 495 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.