alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shirley Fastenberg v. Essbee Estates Inc.

Motion to dispense with printing and for an enlargement of time denied, with leave to renew after a proper substitution of attorneys has been accomplished. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### 1801.104 Applicability.

The NFS applies to all acquisitions as defined in FAR part 2 except those expressly excluded by the FAR or this chapter.
Appeal Nos. 73-50, 73-61.

#### John J. Norton *v.*Nicola Paolino. James O’Malley *v.*Charles F. Jackson.

*Nugent & Nugent, J. Joseph Nugent, Jr.,*for appellant James O’Malley. *Roberts & Willey Incorporated, David W. Carroll,*for appellee The Travelers Insurance Company.

Petition of appellant James O’Malley to reargue is denied. Roberts, C. J. and Paolino, J. not participating. (Original Opinion reported in 113 R. I. 728.)
#### 225.7011 Restriction on carbon, alloy, and armor steel plate.
#### RICHARDS v. YOUNG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Husband and Wife—Necessities—Medical Treatment—Wife’s Individ ual Liability.

A married woman is not personally liable for medical services rendered to her and her child at her own request, in the absence of special agreement making her so, though Laws 1896, p. 220, c. 272, permits actions against a married woman, the same as if she were single, in respect to “her” contracts,

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action by George A. Richards against Louis McAllister Young. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ. .

Thomas Davis Day, Jr., for appellant.

Robertson Honey, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. The action is to recover for medical services rendered by plaintiff to *266the defendant. The defendant went to plaintiff’s office, and requested treatment for herself and • child. This was given b)r the -plaintiff. Mother and child were respectively the wife and daughter of one Alexander C. Young, which fact plaintiff knew. Nothing was said regarding the payment for this treatment, .and it is conceded that defendant “knew that physicians, do not give their services free of charge.” It is conceded that there was no express contract made by the defendant binding on or intending to bind her separate estate, nor is it shown that she is possessed of any. Plaintiff had a judgment.

This case is similar to Hazard v. Potts, 40 Misc. Rep. 365, 82 N. Y. Supp. 246, where the court held that a married woman is not liable for medical services rendered to her husband and his family, unless in the first instance she pledged her personal credit to pay for such services. Although in that case the evidence showed that the services charged for were rendered upon request of different members of defendant’s family, it was held that, even if defendant had requested the rendition of any of them, such request would not have raised any implied provision on her part to pay for the same. Crane v. Baudouine, 55 N. Y. 256. Chapter 272, p. 220, Laws 1896, § 21, permits the bringing of actions against a married woman, the same as if she were single, “in respect to her contracts.” In the case at bar the plaintiff shows neither an express nor implied contract on the part of the defendant. In Mayer v. Lithauer, 28 Misc. Rep. 171, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1064, there was evidence that the wife had made herself directly liable, and therefore that case is not in point.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Clara and Bernard Restaurant Inc., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license annulled on the facts and the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to petitioner, and matter remanded to respondent for issuance of license. The premises in question are located at 246 West 48th Street and have been licensed since 1946. From that date until 1960 the licensees have been either Odelia Ricea, individually, or Odelia Rieca in partnership with another. During all of this period the premises were conducted in an orderly manner and there were only two violations against the premises -— and those of minor character. *872Odelia Ricea is one of the principals of the petitioner corporation. The other principal is her husband, Bernard Ricca. He has a long record as a licensee of other premises, which record shows no violations. For a substantial period he operated premises at 230 West 48th Street, in the immediate vicinity of the premises involved here. When he took over those premises, the place had a bad record of disorderly management, but during his tenure respondent had no complaint about the operation. In 1960, Odelia Ricca sold the business to Benrose Rest., Inc. During the Benrose operation the premises were conducted in a disorderly manner, resulting in cancellation of the license in September, 1963. Benrose defaulted on its notes for the purchase price and on a chattel mortgage on the fixtures, both held by Odelia Ricca, and she acquired the fixtures by foreclosure. During the period of Benrose’s operation Bernard Ricea was the owner of the building. Respondent denied petitioner’s application for a license, made in December, 1963, on the ground that this was a sensitive neighborhood and that Bernard Ricea as landlord of the building, had knowledge of the disorderly operation and failed to take any steps to correct it. We do not deem either of these grounds substantial. Granting that the neighborhood is sensitive, both principiáis have demonstrated as well as that can be done an ability to cope with the problems inherent in a sensitive neighborhood to the satisfaction of the respondent. The mere fact that as landlord Bernard Ricea failed to take any steps against his tenant is of no moment. The same facts which respondent relies on to show his knowledge were equally known to respondent. There can be no doubt that any activity on his part could not be as effective as that within the power of respondent and that correction of the situation was the primary responsibility of respondent rather than the landlord. There is no claim that the landlord in any way influenced the management or abetted in the disorderly operation. Under these circumstances the denial of a license to the petitioner is arbitrary. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 2. Edgartown Harbor, the boundary of the study area (red       line), and local physiographic features. 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig2.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:30:19 EDT
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01825]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of 
Upcoming Virtual Public Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is issuing this 
notice to cancel the February 18, 2021, public meeting scheduled to be 
held via teleconference, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The Federal 
Register notice announcing this virtual public meeting was published 
Wednesday, January 13, 2021, at 86 FR 2709.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Allen, 202-606-2858, or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7404150d59181115021159041b181d170d341b04195a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b3b2a3266272e2a3d2e663b24272228320b243b26652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2021-01825 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-49-P


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

|  | 1. | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2014, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  February 6, 2015 | By:    | /s/ Joseph B. Armes                   |  |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--|
|                         |   | Joseph B. Armes                       |  |
|                         |   | Chairman of the Board                 |  |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

                        Virtual hearing.                         *Note:*                         Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will conduct the hearing virtually. If you would like to access the hearing, see the instructions below.                    

# STATUS:

                        This hearing will be open to the public. To access the virtual hearing, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the hearing page.                    

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

*Audit Hearing:*                         Grassroots Victory Political Action Committee.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-01695 Filed 1-22-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Re: Avenal (#08-SJ-01): Other EPA permits & Avenal working draft 

Shirley Rivera to: GRubenstein, Jim Rexroad, Tracey Gilliland 12/01/2008 04:28 PM

Cc: Gerardo Rios, Katherine Hoag

hmmm ....? works better with the attachment.

- Shirl

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

Shirley F. Rivera 

T: (415) 972-3966 | F: (415) 947-3579 | Rivera.Shirley@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR-3) | 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105

Shirley Rivera All, Attached is a "working draft" of the approac... 12/01/2008 04:19:48 PM

From: Shirley Rivera/R9/USEPA/US

To: Jim Rexroad <Jim.Rexroad@macquarie.com>, Tracey Gilliland 

<Tracey.Gilliland@macquarie.com>, GRubenstein@SierraResearch.com

Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Katherine Hoag/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/01/2008 04:19 PM

Subject: Avenal (#08-SJ-01): Other EPA permits & Avenal

All,

Attached is a "working draft" of the approach for permit language development. As perviously mentioned, 

EPA Region 9's 2 recent natural gas-fired combined-cycle projects (PSD permits) include:

Colusa: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-R09-OAR-2008

-0436

Victorville II (VII): 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-R09-OAR-2008

-0406

You can see a few things for Avenal:

l "hybrid" of the Colusa & VII permit language content

l reference to "cross-check with FDOC" is to determine how our condition may look similar (or not) 

to FDOC type language (esp. the SU/SD related conditions)

l there are some additional "follow-up with team" and "acid rain" references

l for compliance demonstration, I need still to check-in with other regions on Subpart KKKK related 

conditions

With respect to the "cross-check with FDOC", I did end up looking through the FDOC and supporting 

evaluation. And given you all also have reviewed/commented on the FDOC, I believe it should be a 

resource for reconfirming ad including similar compliance demonstration methods.

At this point, I have not yet started the AAQIR, however, again, a similar approach (e.g., review of Colusa 

& VII AAQIRs) will be taken. 
Thank you for your patience in receipt of this information.

- Shirl

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

Shirley F. Rivera 

T: (415) 972-3966 | F: (415) 947-3579 | Rivera.Shirley@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR-3) | 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105
Exhibit 23.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47185) pertaining to the 1982 Employee
Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1992 Stock Option Plan and the 1997 Directors Stock
Option Plan;
    
    Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-76767, Form S-8 No. 333-71878 and Form S-8
No. 333-130589) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74787) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Incentive
Plan (formerly the 1998 Cimaron Communications Corporation Stock Incentive Plan);
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-41572) pertaining to the YuniNetworks, Inc.
1999 Equity Incentive Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-48914) pertaining to the MMC Networks, Inc.
1993 Stock Plan, the MMC Networks, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan, the MMC Networks, Inc. 1997
Director Option Plan and the MMC Networks, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92507) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option
Plan;
    
    Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-35408, Form S-8 No. 333-48912, Form S-8 No.
333-53282, and Form S-8 No. 333-99623) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-57202) pertaining to the Raleigh Technology
Corp. Equity Compensation Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-110075) pertaining to the JNI Corporation 2000
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the JNI Corporation Amended and Restated 1999 Stock
Option Plan, the Jaycor Networks, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the 1992
Stock Option Plan, as amended;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114327) pertaining to the 3ware, Inc. 2002
Stock Plan, as amended, and the 3ware, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-140052) pertaining to the Quake Technologies,
Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan 2000 and
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147297) pertaining to Amended and Restated
1992 Equity Incentive Plan
  San Jose, California
May 21, 2008
    /S/ Ernst & Young LLP
**January 9, 2013**

**Mr. Michael O’Donnell Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards** 

**Room 621**

**Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW**  **Washington, DC 20591 mike.o’donnell@faa.gov** 

**RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period for Clarification of Wildlife Hazard Management Require** **ments for Non Certificated Federally Obligated Airports in the Na**  **tional Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) , Docket No. FAA-2012-** 

**1306**

**Dear Mr. O’Donnell:**

**I respectfully request you reconsider the comment p eriod end date for Notice 2012-29591 for the simple**  **reason that you are asking for comments on a publication that is german**  **e to the just released DRAFT FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33C,**  **Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Near Airports which comment period closes January 31, 2013. Not**  **ice 2012-29591 needs to be reviewed based on approved** 

**approved approved Advisory circulars; otherwise, we are maki**  **ng recommendations based on suppositions, instead of factual documentation. At such time, that FAA A**  **dvisory Circular 150/5200-33C is approved – it woul d then be appropriate**  **to consider the implications of Notice 2012-29591.**

**In addition to the extension request, I would also like to point out that Notice 2012-29591 does not i**  **nclude any sort of cost estimate or benefit analysis. It is understood tha**  **t aviation is held to an exponentially higher stand ard with respect to safety,**  **than any other human endeavor. However, our decisi on to invest tens of millions of dollars in reports**  **; should be able to demonstrate a reduction in property loss and a redu**  **ction in injuries or fatalities to the general popu lation. We do not have**  **that information upon which to make a determination**

**.**

**If the above comments are not enough to encourage a reconsideration of the comment period until such t**  **ime there is sufficient information; I would like to suggest tha**  **t WHSV’s not be required as a grant assurance, unle ss a significant**  **significant triggering event**  **triggering event occurs on the airport. This would be quite similar to the triggering event considera**  **tion already implemented for Part 139 airports:** 

**(1) An aircraft experiences multiple wildlife strik es;** 

**(2) An aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife. As used in this paragraph, sub**  **stantial damage means damage or structural failure incurred by an a**  **ircraft that adversely affects the structural stren gth, performance,**  **or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement**  **of the affected**

**component;**

**(3) An aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife.** 

**Thank you for your time and consideration of this r equest.** 

**Sincerely,**

**Robert P Hom**
**Airport Manager**
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 932 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 932

   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any 
   estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint 
  Committee on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the 
                  public debt, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2017

  Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Paul, and Mr. 
 Lee) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                     to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any 
   estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint 
  Committee on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the 
                  public debt, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Budgetary Accuracy in Scoring 
Interest Costs Act of 2017'' or the ``BASIC Act''.

SEC. 2. CBO AND JCT ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERVICING COSTS.

    (a) In General.--The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
section 402 the following:

              ``estimates to include debt servicing costs

    ``Sec. 403. Any estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402, and any estimate prepared by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, shall include, to the extent practicable, the 
costs (if any) of servicing the public debt.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 402 the 
following:

``403. Estimates to include debt servicing costs.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Karl Pfliehinger, Respondent, v. H. C. Bohack and Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by carrier and employer from an award of disability compensation. Appellants raise the issues of accident and causal relation. Claimant sustained an accidental injury to his right leg while working for the same employer on May 28, 1945. He was disabled for about eight weeks and compensation was awarded and paid, and the case was closed on May 20, 1946. Claimant went back to work and continued to work although he felt pain in his back and right leg and numbness in his legs. Claimant testified that he sustained a second accident on December 23,1956, when he slipped on some rubbish on the floor of the employer’s warehouse and fell backward on his back and injured his back. He testified that he reported this accident to his foreman. This is disputed. There is medical evidence in the record that claimant had a pre-existing arachnoiditis which was aggravated and activated by the accident of December 23, 1956, causing his disability. Appellants attack claimant’s credibility and attack the medical testimony because it is based on the truth of claimant’s testimony. They characterize the testimony of one doctor as “ unconvincing ”. However, it is in the record and apparently was convincing to the -board. Of course the question of claimant’s credibility and the determination of disputed questions of fact were exclusively within the province of the board. We may not say as a matter of law that the evidence supporting the award is not substantial. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.