alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Hammer, Appellant, v Turner Construction Corporation et al., Respondents. State Insurance Fund, Nonparty Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 633]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated May 3, 2006, which denied his motion to reduce the amount of a workers’ compensation lien held by the nonparty State Insurance Fund.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the plaintiff James Hammer settled his personal injury action against the defendants for the sum of $225,000, he proposed to the nonparty State Insurance Fund (hereinafter the SIF) that it accept one third of the settlement, less disbursements, in satisfaction of its $190,329.84 workers’ compensation lien. The SIF declined, seeking, instead, the sum of $128,813.08 in satisfaction of its lien, which represented a reduction of 34.95% for its equitable proportionate share of the plaintiffs litigation costs. The plaintiff moved in the Supreme Court to reduce the amount of the workers’ compensation lien held by the SIF.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 “requires that the [workers’ compensation] carrier pay for the benefits it receives as a result of a claimant’s efforts in a third-party action by contributing its equitable share of the litigation expenses, including counsel fees, incurred by the claimant” *(Burns v Varriale,*34 AD3d 59, 61 [2006]; *see Matter of Theresa M.C. v Utilities Mut. Ins. Co.,*207 AD2d 481, 482 [1994]). “The carrier must . . . contribute the costs of litigation in proportion to the benefit it has received” *(Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund,*60 NY2d 131, 140 [1983]).

Here, the SIF, in reducing its lien, deducted its equitable proportional share of the litigation costs, including disbursements and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for a further reduction of the lien amount *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29; *Matter of Kelly, supra*at 140).

*706The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
# C_2017120EN.01001401.xml

| 13.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/14

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 120/06)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuance of euro coins are authorised to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, one of these being that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : The Republic of San Marino

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 750th anniversary of the birth of Giotto

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : On the left a detail from the clock tower of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, one of Giotto’s architectural works; vertically, the words SAN MARINO, GIOTTO and the dates 1267-2017; on the right a detail from the portrait of Giotto and the abbreviation of the artist Luciana De Simoni (LDS); on the bottom, the letter R, indicating the ‘Zecca’ (mint) of Rome.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : March 2017

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
2419.811-2 Competitive. ( a ) If the award is to be made under the Partnership Agreement cited in 2419.800, competitive contracts for 8(a) firms shall be prepared in accordance with the same standards as 8(a) sole-source contracts as set forth in 2419.811-1.
( b ) If the acquisition is conducted under the Partnership Agreement cited in 2419.800, the process for obtaining signatures shall be as specified in 2419.811-1(e).
[77 FR 73529, Dec. 10, 2012]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                                          
|Alan Vituli Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer May 7, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH S. MeGREAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
y. ) Case No. 12 C 5135
)
THE VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, ) Judge Joan H. Lefkow
TIMOTHY MCCARTHY, PATRICK )
DUGGAN AND JAMES BIANCHI, ) Magistrate Sidney I. Schenkier
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Joseph S. MeGreal, Pro Se Michael J. Wall
11532 South LaVergne Avenue Rothschild, Barry, & Myers, LLP
Alsip, linois 60803-3921 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3025

Chicago, Illinois 60606

John P. DeRose

John P. DeRose & Associates

15 Spinning Wheel Drive, Suite 428
Hinsdale, Hlinois 60521

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the Bill of Costs for the Village of Orland Park
and Patrick Duggan, a copy of which is attached and served upon you.

/s/ Allen Wall
Allen Wall
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 984-6400
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Allen Wail, an attorney, state that J caused an exact of this Notice of Filing together with
all attachments to be served on Joseph S. McGreal, at the above-listed addressed, by U.S. Mail, first-
class postage prepaid, at 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 on July 7, 2017, at or
before 5:00 p.m., and the other above-listed individuals were served through the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division’s CM/ECF Document Filing
System.

/sf Allen Wall
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 56 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 56

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection relating to ``Payday, Vehicle, Title, and Certain 
                     High-Cost Installment Loans''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2018

 Mr. Graham introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection relating to ``Payday, Vehicle, Title, and Certain 
                     High-Cost Installment Loans''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Payday, Vehicle, Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans'' 
(82 Fed. Reg. 54472 (November 17, 2017)), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### 232.706 Contract clauses.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00022- CR

Manuel More no, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

FROM THE DI STRICT COU RT OF TRAVIS COUN TY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRI CT NO. D-1-DC -10-300666 , HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T
P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s co u rt -appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief concluding that the instant a ppeal is f rivolous a nd without merit. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has cer tified to t h e C ourt that he provided copies of the motion and brief t o ap p ell ant, advised appellant of his rig ht to examine the appellate
rec ord and file a pro se response , and s u p p l ied appellant with a form motion for pro se acc ess to the appellate rec ord. See Kelly v. State , No. PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at *4 (Tex. Crim. App. J u n e 2 5 , 2 014). Appellant has timely filed the motion reque sting acc ess to the appellate
rec ord with this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is g ranted

. W e h er eb y direct the cler k of the trial court to provide a copy of the repor ter’s rec ord and cler

k’s rec ord to appellant, and to providewritten verific ation to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was

provided, on or before August 15, 20 1 4
. S ee id

. Appellant has six ty day s from the date he
rec eives the r ecor d to file his appellant’s br ief. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.1.

I t is ordere d on August 5, 2014
.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Do Not Publish
#### 1823.570 Drug- and alcohol-free workforce.

This section sets sets forth NASA requirements for mandatory drug and alcohol testing of certain contractor personnel under section 203, National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2473, 72 Stat. 429; and Civil Space Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619.

[61 FR 55757, Oct. 29, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 69 FR 21765, Apr. 22, 2004]
NO. 06-15-00030

LETA YORK

Appellant,

V.

TODD BOATMAN

Appellee.

IN THE

SIXTH COURT

OF APPEALS

FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S SR1KF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Leta York, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause,

and moves this Court to grant an extension oftime to file appellant's brief, pursuant

to Rule 38,6 ofthe Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows

the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 62ND Judicial District Court of

Hopkins County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled Leta York vs.Todd Boatman, and numbered

CV 41400.

3. This is a civil case involving title to land. There is no question for

immediate possession ofthe land.

4. Notice of appeal was given on JUNE l9, 2015.

5, The clerk's record was filed on July 23, 2015; the reporter's record was

filed on September 4, 2015,

ACCEPTED

06-15-00030-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

10/5/2015 1:30:04 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 10/5/2015 1:30:04 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
6. The appellate brief is presently due on October 5, 2015.

7. Appellant requests an extension of time of 14 days from the present

date, i.e. October 19,2015.

8. No extension to file the brief has been received in this cause.

9, Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested

extension:

Appellant's attorney has had a death in the family during the last 30 days and

has had extensive preparation for a jury trial and other hearings that were not

originally foreseen. He is almost complete with the brief, but needs just a few more

days to complete it. Appellee is in agreement with this extension,

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this

Court grant this Motion To Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

SMITH k, SMITH LAW FIRM

300 Oak Avenue

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Tel: (903) 439-3000

Fax; (903) 439-3110

By'.

Phil Smith

State Bar No. 18664400

p smith 300@hotmail. corn

Attorney for Leta York
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on October 5, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe above

and foregoing document was served on Larry A. Powers by fax to 903-885-1199.

Phil Smith

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

This is to certify that I have personally spoken to the other attorne, Larry A.

Powers, and he has agreed to this request for extension of time to file Appellant's

brief,

Phil Smit
STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HOPKINS

AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared

Phil Smith, who after being duly sworn stated;

"1am the attorney for the appellant in the above numbered and entitled

cause, l have read the foregoing Motion To Extend Time to File

Appellant's Brief and swear that all ofthe allegations offact contained

therein are true and correct. "

Phil Smith

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on IQQA. ~ Ma

2015, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

WK E.SMITH

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES

Febnwy t4, 3Ile

No Public, tate of Texas
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan SARABIA-PICHARDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50748

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

*437PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Sarabia-Piehardo raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11009

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

REYNALDO RENDON, JR., also known as Rey Reynold, also known as Rey 

Rendon,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-19-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Rendon, Jr. pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and ammunition. He appeals his conviction, arguing that 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed 

motion for summary affirmance arguing that Rendon’s challenge is foreclosed 

by circuit precedent or, alternatively, requesting an extension of time to file its 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11009 Document: 00514448159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2018
No. 17-11009

2

brief on the merits. The Government does not invoke the waiver provision 

contained in the plea agreement. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-

31 (5th Cir. 2006).

Rendon’s argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it 

exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is 

foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); 

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. 

De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). He concedes as much and raises 

the argument to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the Government’s 

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11009 Document: 00514448159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2018
#### 225.873 Waiver of United Kingdom commercial exploitation levies.
#### 245.604 Sale of surplus personal property.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS

TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR THE SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION

BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

DETERMINATION 

No. EIB 13- 02 (R)

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF HEARING NOTICE AND

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFTS

______________________________________________________________________________

The New Mexico Environment Department ("Department") files this notice that on June 

28, 2013, notice of the public hearing in this matter, scheduled for September 5 – 6, 2013, was

published in the New Mexico Register, the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish), and 

the Farmington Daily Times (in English and Spanish). This fulfills the requirement of 

20.1.1.301.A NMAC that notice be given at least 60 days in advance of the hearing. 

Concurrently with publication of this notice, public review drafts of the proposed State 

Implementation Plan (“SIP”) revisions (i.e., Chapter 10 and Appendix D of the Regional Haze 

SIP) were posted on the Department’s web page. Copies of the public review drafts of Chapter 

10 and Appendix D are attached hereto as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. Also attached are 

Attachments 3 and 4, showing in legislative drafting format the changes in the public review 

drafts as compared to the versions of Chapter 10 and Appendix D, respectively, that were filed 

with the Board with the May 21, 2013 request for hearing.
**From Informal Group Working on Prior Approval Proposal**

We are sending some suggestions on prior approval out to all the negotiators to ask for your thoughts in a few specific areas.  Although we provided these during negotiations, and got some feedback then, we are sending these out again so that we can gather any additional feedback that may have occurred to you since, or that there was no time to offer during the negotiations.  We anticipate developing detailed language on prior approval provisions, but believe your input on the concepts, before we develop specific language would be very helpful.  The purpose behind the list below is to have a few, clear, specific criteria that would be clearer, more specific, and more useful in weeding out the worst GE programs before students become indebted for them, than the current requirement to attest that there is a need for the GE program proposed.

**Here are the questions we have for you about the concept/list below:**

1.  What, if any, technical issues do you see that might impact how or whether these criteria could work?  

2.  What, if any practical issues do you see in gathering the necessary information?

3.   Do you have any suggestions for any other specific, clear criteria that would distinguish the worst GE programs, that you think should be added or substituted for any in the list?

4.  If you are aware of any accrediting associations or states that require any of the criteria included in the list below for approval of GE or other programs, do they have any specific requirements for how the information is to be collected or documented?

5.  If not all GE programs would have to be approved in advance, do you have any suggestions for how to determine which ones should be?

6.  Some negotiators discussed rigorous approval processes they used.  Given that poor-performing programs exist, do you have any suggestions about aspects of your approval process that others are not using that you believe would weed out those weak programs?

**Here is the concept on which we want your feedback (the more specific the better):**

 All the data must demonstrate that the program will prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation:

-projected ratio of debt to earnings shows earnings sufficient to repay debt

- projected earnings greater than 150% of poverty level

-has programmatic approval generally needed to sit for state licensure exam or private certification exams generally expected by employers

-training at that level is generally required to obtain employment in the SOC codes identified

Data supporting these items to be obtained in reliable and valid survey conducted in same manner DE proposed for salary surveys for earnings alternative data or other reliable and verifiable documentation to be discussed.  

**Thank you for your help.**