alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Callahan, Appellant, *v.*State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 34105.)

Third Department,

November 8, 1963.

*Jerome B. Tobias*and *Everett Johns*for appellant.

*Louis J. Leflcowitz, Attorney-General {Edwin R. Oberwager*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

G-ibson, J.

Claimant, while an inmate of a State prison and working in the prison workshop, was injured when his hand and arm were caught between the rollers of a corrugating machine, used to process garbage cans. Claimant testified that upon completing one operation he manipulated the trip safety switch and *438reached for the processed can; that when the switch did not stop the machine, his fingers were drawn in and as another workman tried unsuccessfully to activate the trip switch, claimant’s arm was drawn in until another workman threw the shop’s main power switch. It seems to be undisputed that the machine was built in 1927 and, so far as known, had not been checked by a factory representative or civilian machinist during the intervening years. There was credible evidence that on a number of occasions prior to the time of the accident a bolt had become loose, with the result that the trip switch or safety stopping device would not work, Concededly, claimant’s instruction (by an “inmate foreman”) in the use of the machine was in a “very short time * * * the course of half an hour

At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court announced its oral decision stating, among other things, that why the machine did not stop “ may be a matter of speculation because it could be argued that the wedging of an object, an object such as a man’s arm between the drums might have been a reason for the stopping device not working. The Court must find that, there being no sufficient evidence to the contrary, the safety device, that is, the bar in and of itself was sufficient,” The trial court’s conclusion, thus stated, seems to us actually to point up the true basis of the State’s liability. Surely, the purpose of the safety device was to prevent the very thing that occurred and if the device was ineffective for that purpose it was obviously inadequate. We may have recourse to the Labor Law as establishing a standard of care by which the State may be judged (cf. *Fitzgerald*v. *State of New*York, 28 Misc 2d 283, 285). That statute provides that machinery “ shall be so placed, operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection ” to the operators. (Labor Law, § 200; and cf. Rules, Board of Standards and Appeals, Department of Labor, 12 NYCRR 19.7.) We find that the safety device was defective and inadequate, as the State knew, or should have known; and, under all the circumstances, we find that claimant established his freedom from contributory negligence. Claimant sustained permanent injuries to his right hand and should have an award therefor.

The judgment should be reversed, on the law and the facts, and judgment for $20,000 in favor of claimant directed, with costs.

Bergan, P. J., Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and judgment for $20,000 in favor of claimant directed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7298-7299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01698]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special

[[Page 7299]]

Emphasis Panel; ZDE1 EP (13) NIDCR Secondary and Genomic Data 
Analysis Application Review Meeting.
    Date: March 10, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 662, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Elizabeth M. Perruccio, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 662, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-4603, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f1f0a1d1d1a0c0c06000a022f020e06034101060741080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29594c5b5b5c4a4a40464c44694448404507474041074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01698 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 4, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1828

Lower Tribunal No. 10-5191 SP

________________

The Responsive Auto Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Oasis Diagnostic Center, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Milena 

Abreu, Judge.

The Vaccaro Law Firm, P.A., and Charles L. Vaccaro (Davie), for 

appellant.

Berger & Hicks, P.A., and Martin I. Berger and Zachary A. Hicks; Kula 

& Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D. 

Mueller, for appellee Sunset Radiology, Inc.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

The Responsive Auto Insurance Company, defendant below, appeals 

several orders of the trial court involving defendants Oasis Diagnostic Center 

and Sunset Radiology, Inc. 

As to Oasis Diagnostic, we dismiss the appeal as one taken from 

nonfinal, nonappealable orders. See Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v. 

Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (noting “the law is settled 

that an order which merely grants a motion for summary judgment and does 

not otherwise contain the traditional words of finality is not a final order 

subject to appellate review. An order granting only summary judgment 

merely establishes an entitlement to a judgment, but is not itself a 

judgment.”) (internal citations omitted). 

As to those final orders on appeal involving Sunset Radiology, we find 

no error and affirm. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (previous version of the rule, 

applicable here, provided: “The motion must state with particularity the 

grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be 

argued and must specifically identify any affidavits, answers to 

interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be 

admissible in evidence (“summary judgment evidence”) on which the movant 

relies. The movant must serve the motion at least 20 days before the time 

fixed for the hearing, and must also serve at that time a copy of any summary 
3

judgment evidence on which the movant relies that has not already been 

filed with the court. The adverse party must identify, by notice served 

pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 at least 5 days prior 

to the day of the hearing if service by mail is authorized, or delivered, 

electronically filed, or sent by e-mail no later than 5:00 p.m. 2 business days 

prior to the day of the hearing, any summary judgment evidence on which 

the adverse party relies”); Hunt v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., LLC, 307 So. 

3d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). See also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of 

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). 

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
216.603-2 Application. ( c ) (3) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3372, establish definitization schedules for letter contracts following the requirements at 217.7404-3(a) instead of the requirements at FAR 16.603-2(c)(3).
[75 FR 32642, June 8, 2010, as amended at 87 FR 76992, Dec. 16, 2022]
');
	document.write('

- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual (Rev. Aug. 2020)**  PDF (638K)
- **School Climate and  Safety Issue Brief**School Climate and Safety Issue Brief   PDF (2.6M) (issued April 24, 2018) **ARCHIVED**
- School Climate and Safety Issue Brief   PDF (2.6M) (issued April 24, 2018) **ARCHIVED**

- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual. (Rev. Nov 2018)**  PDF (895.4K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual. (Rev. Nov 2018)**  PDF (895.4K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual. (Rev. March 2018)**  PDF (743K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processinig Manual. (V1.2 Rev. Feb 2016**  PDF (850K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual. (V1.1 Rev. Nov 2015)**  PDF (851K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Processing Manual. (Rev. Feb 2015)**  PDF (858K)
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Resolution and Investigation Manual. (Rev. January 2010)**
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Resolution and Investigation Manual. (Rev. May 2008)**
- **Office for Civil Rights Case Resolution and Investigation Manual. (Rev. May 2005)**
On September 11, 2014, OCR issued its Title IX resolution letter regarding its sexual harassment/violence compliance review of The Ohio State University and the resolution agreement obtained to resolve the review.  The review examined whether the University responded promptly and equitably to complaints, reports and any other notice of incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence, and whether any failure to respond appropriately allowed for the creation and/or continuation of a sexually hostile environment.  OCR determined that the University’s notice of nondiscrimination complies with the Title IX requirements, but that the University violated Title IX in its written grievance policies and procedures failed to comply with the requirements of Title IX.  Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation of the remaining issues in the review, the University signed the resolution agreement, in which it agreed to revise its sexual harassment/violence policies and procedures; review the handling of sexual harassment/violence complaints and reports since the 2011-12 academic year and continue to provide and expand mandatory sexual assault and harassment training to all members of the university community. The University also agreed to establish a campus focus group to provide input on strategies for ensuring that students understand their rights under Title IX, how to report possible violations, and the University’s obligation to promptly and equitably respond to Title IX complaints. The University committed to take action to ensure students and staff members are aware of Title IX’s prohibition against sexual assault and sexual harassment, including how to recognize it when it occurs, and how to report incidents; and provide timely and effective interim relief for complainants, including academic adjustments, housing changes, counseling, and health and mental services, as necessary, and document this relief in investigative files.

***Read the Press Release | Read the Resolution Letter PDF**(453K)**| Read the Resolution Agreement PDF**(362K)*

  

Top
205.502 Authority. ( a ) *Newspapers.* Heads of contracting activities are delegated authority to approve the publication of paid advertisements in newspapers.
[69 FR 63328, Nov. 1, 2004]
#### In the Matter of Marc A. Bennett, Petitioner, v. Anna M. Kross, as Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUUP, INC.Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Perfetti, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| |                                            |  |                                                                                                                                                     
| |                                            | 
| | /s/ Michael J. Perfetti                    | 
| | Michael J. Perfetti                        | 
| | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer | 
| | July 20, 2015                              |
From: Cheryl Lovell <president@adams.edu> 

Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 5:01 PM 

To: David Tandberg <DTandberg@sheeo.org>; Paccione, Angie (CO) <angie.paccione@dhe.state.co.us> 

Subject: Federal negotiation for Pell/Prision Education Programs 

Dear Drs. Paccione and Tandberg, I understand you all will be meeting next week and I wanted to take 

the opportunity to present some information we believe will be exceedingly helpful and important for 

your meeting. 

First here is a pretty good overview of where the subcommittee has ended their work. It contains a good 

list of agreed to principles and where there are disagreements. Here is the link to this summary: 

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/whats-next-for-the-reinstatement-ofpell/

Secondly, here are key points critically important to Adams State University and to our highly successful 

Prison College Program. 

1. The 25% enrollment threshold is very problematic for a small institution like Adams State. There is no 

legitimate rationale for this threshold and it has, by the way, been inconsistently enforced. For example, 

we understand Ashland University has almost 80% of their enrollment coming from incarcerated 

students. Apparently the former DOE staff provided them with a waiver to this threshold requirement. 

Absent some solid rationale for the 25% it needs to be removed or at least increased to 50% or so. Also, 

if a threshold is set it needs to be evenly enforced. 

2. Print based programs must be included. They were not in the 2nd Chance Pell Program without any 

justification for excluding them from eligibility. I could speak for days why print based programs are 

highly successful but will save us all from these details at this time. The bottom line is there is no 

sufficient justification for not allowing print based programs to be eligible. By the way, we hear from 

colleagues at the Vera institute and from others in the know, there are certain key individuals in 

leadership positions at DOE who do not like print based programs and are wanting to put barriers 

against allowing them to be eligible. 

3. Only allowing Pell funding at the 50% level is limiting at best. While some money is better than none it 

only leads to frustration of these students who would normally be eligible for the full Pell amount but 

cannot because they are incarcerated. 

I am happy to provide more details if you think helpful. 

I really appreciate your work to represent our higher education community on this important negotiated 

rulemaking process. 

Please have a great weekend and good luck with your meetings next week. 

Cheryl D. Lovell, Ph.D. 

President
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (No. 333-106408) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.:333-08181, 333-61011, 333-87041, and 333-58742) of Maxtor Corporation of our report dated March 9,2004, except for Note 2, as to which the date is February 18, 2005 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
#### Thomas J. Kirchoff, Respondent, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

In an action to recover benefits under a Family Major Medical Expense policy issued by the defendant, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, entered January 11, 1963 upon the opinion and decision of the court after a nonjury trial based upon a stipulation of facts, in favor of plaintiff, for $501.58, representing a recovery by him of $410.32, plus interest and costs. Judgment modified on the law and on the facts by reducing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery from $410.32 •to $210.32. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the opinions of the Comity Court which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. On July 24, 1961 plaintiff’s wife gave birth to an infant who had a congenital hernia. A physician discovered the hernia during postnatal examination and recommended deferral of treatment in the interests of the infant’s health. The mother and infant were discharged from the hospital on July 29, 1961. The total medical expense of confinement was $474.90. On September 18, 1961 a herniotomy was performed on the infant at a total medical expense of $288. Under the $250 deductible clause contained in the policy in question defendant agreed to pay plaintiff, for the items listed, 80% of any medical expense in excess of $250. Concerning such deductible amount, section 5 of the policy provides that the: “ deductible amount shall apply separately to each Insured Family Member, and to each accident or sickness, except that only one deductible amount shall apply * * * to all charges incurred as a result of childbirth, including charges incurred for the infant, until and including the fourteenth day after the date of such birth.” The policy further provides that every medical expense charge “ shall be deemed to be incurred as of the date of the service or purchase giving rise to the charge.” The determining factor, therefore, is the performance of the herniotomy more than 14 days after the infant’s birth, and not the discovery of the hernia within that period. We construe the pertinent policy provisions to mean that separate deductions of $250 apply (1) to the $474.90 medical expense of the confinement, and (2) to the $288 medical expense of the herniotomy, thus reducing these amounts to $224.90 and $38 respectively. Defendant’s liability *639under the policy is limited to 80% of the latter, or $179.92 and $30.40 respectively, the sums which defendant originally tendered to plaintiff but which plaintiff rejected. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 57 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 57

 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
    late President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2018

   Mr. Blunt (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
    late President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--A commemorative document in memory of the late 
President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, shall be 
printed as a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding, 
under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) Contents.--The document shall consist of the eulogies and 
encomiums for George Herbert Walker Bush, as expressed in the Senate 
and the House of Representatives, together with the texts of each of 
the following:
            (1) The state funeral ceremony at the United States Capitol 
        Rotunda.
            (2) The national funeral service held at the Washington 
        National Cathedral, Washington, District of Columbia.
            (3) The memorial service held at St. Martin's Episcopal 
        Church, Houston, Texas.
            (4) The interment ceremony at the George Herbert Walker 
        Bush Presidential Library Center, College Station, Texas.

SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

    In addition to the usual number of copies printed, there shall be 
printed the lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative document, of which 
        22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of 
        Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the 
        Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies of the commemorative document 
        that does not exceed a production and printing cost of 
        $1,000,000, with distribution of the copies to be allocated in 
        the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```