alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William W. Aaronson, as Administrator of the Estate of Morton Aaronson, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 36021.)

Appeal from a judgment entered on a decision rendered after .trial in the Court of Claims. The claimant’s intestate was mentally ill and was under treatment in a hospital maintained by the State. He escaped from custodial care on January 17, 1958 and was later found to have died from exposure. During his hospital treatment which began in November, 1956 the decedent had escaped on two previous occasions, once in October and once in November, 1957; and he had been returned to the hospital after each escape. Although his tendency to escape from custodial care was known to the hospital, reasonable precautions were taken to safeguard him. He was placed in a ward in which patients were kept under guard and were always locked in with attendants. Continuous surveillance was maintained over this group of patients. On January 17, 1958 the decedent was taken with a group of nine other patients to attend a religious service. This group which moved by pairs together as a unit was accompanied by two guards, one of whom walked at the head of the group the other at the end. During the service the 10 patients were seated in a row with a guard at each side of them. A number of other patients were at the service. From time to time during the service the two guards counted their 10 charges. At the end of the service when all the persons in the congregation were standing the guards observed and counted 10 patients. But after the groups had begun to move they noticed one was missing. Decedent apparently moved one of the chairs and mixed in with other groups and thus evaded notice. No doubt if the hospital were able to maintain perfect security this would not have occurred. Had the hospital not permitted the patients to attend religious service and kept them in the locked ward; or if one guard had been assigned to each patient or to each of two patients, the escape would probably have been avoided. But the segregation of the 10 security patients in the hall in immediate presence of the two guards stationed at the ends of the same row of seats seems to us to have amounted to reasonable precaution against escape. No proof in the record suggests that by any common standard of hospital practice this, and the prompt steps taken to discover the patient after he was missed, did not amount to reasonable care. And reasonable precaution is the test by which the liability of a hospital, and hence the State in this ease, is measured. *{Hirsh*v. *State of New York,*8 N Y 2d 125; *Martindale*v. *State of New York,*269 N. Y. 554; *Cries*v. *Long Is. Home,*274 App. Div. 938.) Judgment for claimant reversed on the law and the facts and claim dismissed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
# CA2016384DE.01000101.xml

| 18.10.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 384/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 384/1

---

AUSWAHLVERFAHREN PE/190/S

Referatsleiter — Mini-Parlamentarium Berlin (m/w) (AD 9)

EIGNUNGSLISTE

(2016/C 384 A/01)

| 1. | ENGELS, Markus |
| --- | --- |

1.

ENGELS, Markus

| 2. | MARAS, Isabelle |
| --- | --- |

2.

MARAS, Isabelle

| 3. | SPRENGER, Joachim |
| --- | --- |

3.

SPRENGER, Joachim

Die Eignungsliste wurde am 5. Oktober 2016 angenommen.

---
#### Richard Ackerberg, an Infant, by Nathan Ackerberg, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Margaret Kemelman, Defendant. Kenneth Segal, an Infant, by Alexander Segal, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Peter Ackerberg et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

These appeals are consolidated and disposed of as follows: Judgment in favor of the infant plaintiff Kenneth Segal in the sum of $3,500 in a personal injury action and against the plaintiff Alexander Segal, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to plaintiffs-appellants, unless defendants-respondenfs stipulate to increase the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff Kenneth Segal to the sum of $5,000 and to the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff Alexander Segal in the sum of $1,542.75, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs to plaintiffs-appellants. On this record the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff is inadequate and inconsistent with the verdict against the infant’s father for medical expenses. Settle order on notice. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
#### Lewis Brownell et al., Respondents, *v.*The National Bank of Gloversville et al., Appellants.

.(Argued October 15, 1888 ;

decided October 26, 1883.)

*Francis Kernan*for appellants.

*Samuel Hand*for respondents.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (“We") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yanbiao Bai, the chief
executive officer of us, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:
 
 (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 us.
  Date:
May   15 , 2009
 /s/
      Yanbiao
      BaiYanbiao
      Bai, CEO and President
3009.171-6 Guidelines for contracting officers. ( a ) In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.4 (48 CFR subpart 9.4), a contracting officer may not award a contract for FPS guard services to any business concern that is suspended, debarred or proposed for debarment unless the agency head determines that there is a compelling reason for such action.
( b ) The contracting officer shall not award a contract for FPS guard services to any business concern that is otherwise nonresponsible on the same contract.
( c ) The contracting officer shall not award an FPS guard services contract to any business concern that is owned, controlled or operated by an individual convicted of a serious felony as defined in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.171-5 except as provided in under (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.171-7.
( d ) In considering an award request under (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.171-7, the contracting officer may not review the fact of the conviction itself, but may consider any information provided by the individual or business concern, and any information known to the contracting officer. Factors that the contracting officer may consider include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) The age of the conviction.
( 2 ) The nature and circumstances surrounding the conviction.
( 3 ) Protective measures taken by the individual or business concern to reduce or eliminate the risk of further misconduct.
( 4 ) Whether the individual has made full restitution for the felony.
( 5 ) Whether the individual has accepted responsibility for past misconduct resulting in the felony conviction.
[74 FR 58856, Nov. 16, 2009]
# C_2018107EN.01001201.xml

| 22.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2018/C 107/12)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/357/18 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/357/18 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 107 A of 22 March 2018.

Official Journal of the European Union

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI Mentored Clinical and Basic Science Review.                    

*Date:*                         March 18-19, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Keith A. Mintzer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 207-G, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, (301) 827-7949,                         *mintzerk@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 1, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-02382 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesSurplus PropertiesFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Finance and Operations Home |
|                                       |

Those groups, organizations, entities, or institutions providing educational programs including: States; their political subdivisions and instrumentalities; and tax supported organizations or private nonprofit institutions held exempt from taxation under Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 may apply.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wiley Murphy, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered September 26, 1961, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve a term of three to six years. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
                to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of SecureCARE
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Dennis Nasto, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Neil Burley, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

     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/   DENNIS NASTO
------------------------------------
Name:  Dennis Nasto
Title: Chief Executive Officer
       (Principal Executive Officer)


/s/   NEIL BURLEY
-----------------------------------------------
Name:  Neil Burley
Title: Chief Financial Officer
       (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


Date:  August 14, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. and
will be retained by SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
213.302-3 Obtaining contractor acceptance and modifying purchase orders. ( 1 ) Require written acceptance of purchase orders for classified acquisitions.
( 2 ) See PGI 213.302-3 for guidance on the use of unilateral modifications.
( 3 ) A supplemental agreement converts a unilateral purchase order to a bilateral agreement. If not previously included in the purchase order, incorporate the clause at 252.243-7001, Pricing of Contract Modifications, in the Standard Form 30, and obtain the contractor's acceptance by signature on the Standard Form 30.
[64 FR 2596, Jan. 15, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 3413, Jan. 23, 2006]
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 05-16801

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; D.C. No.

MARGARET BOLAND,  CV-04-04275-SBA

Defendants-Appellees,

ORDER

THE NEW 49’ERS, INC.; RAYMOND

W. KOONS,

Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. 

Filed September 12, 2011

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the deliberations or

vote in this case.

17631
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6820

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC ARTHUR WALTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-6821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC ARTHUR WALTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:85-cr-00033-IMK-1; 1:84-CR-00100-IMK-JES-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Eric Arthur Walton

appeals the district court’s order denying his requests for a 

writ of error coram nobis and correction of his criminal 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error.* Walton did not meet the 

requirements for coram nobis relief. See United States v. 

Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (describing required 

showing). Nor did he establish a clerical error in the court’s 

criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walton, 

Nos. 1:85-cr-00033-IMK-1; 1:84-cr-00100-IMK-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. 

May 9, 2013). We deny Walton’s motion for appointment of 

counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

 * On appeal, Walton does not challenge the court’s rejection 

of his claim that he was entitled to coram nobis relief because 

his statute of conviction was unconstitutionally vague. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in informal 

brief).
20-F





                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.6

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYEES

     On November 16, 2008, a new collective agreement was signed by us, the
Histadrut and our workers committee, in connection with the termination
arrangements of employees who are employed under the Bank's collective
agreements. This agreement was approved by the Supervisor of Wages and Labor
Agreements at the Finance Ministry and it replaces the previous collective
agreements that regulated the terms of termination of these employees. The
agreement of November 16, 2008 sets forth the right of management to dismiss
employees as part of the reduction in our activity, extends the validity of the
reductions that were agreed to in the past in connection with the wages of the
employees and the fringe benefits to which they are entitled, and grants various
benefits to employees in the event of dismissal (including resignations to be
treated as dismissals). According to the agreements, there are two termination
tracks for dismissed employees: a severance track and a pension track. A
dismissed employee in the pension track is one whose seniority is at least 20
years and who is at least 50 years old and who, upon dismissal is entitled to
early pension. A dismissed employee who does not meet these two conditions
together, belongs to the severance track, in which he is entitled to enhanced
severance pay. In the event of the privatization or liquidation of the Bank
and/or if the privatization is not implemented by December 31, 2009, then
immediately thereafter, employees are allowed to resign and be treated as if
they had been dismissed, but we have the right to require the employee to
continue working for an additional period of time. According to the agreement,
part of the termination payments to the employees will be deposited in trust
with a trust company. For this purpose, we engaged the trust company of an
Israeli bank which will serve as trustee. The collective agreement of November
16, 2008 will be in effect until the termination of the last employee to which
the agreement applies. The waivers and part of the benefits set forth in the
aforementioned collective agreement also apply and/or will apply to some of our
employees who are employed under personal contracts.

     We recorded appropriate provisions in our books for this agreement. The
agreements that were signed were approved by the Commissioner of Wages and Labor
Agreements in the Ministry of Finance.
# C_2016447EN.01001301.xml

| 1.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 447/13 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2016/C 447/09)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/331/16 — INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) EXPERTS (AD 7) in the following fields:
1.
Data analysis and IT service 2.
Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing 3.
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) 4.
ICT security 5.
IT infrastructure 6.
IT portfolio/programme management and enterprise architecture | 1. | Data analysis and IT service | 2. | Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing | 3. | Enterprise resource planning (ERP) | 4. | ICT security | 5. | IT infrastructure | 6. | IT portfolio/programme management and enterprise architecture |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------- | -- | ------------ | -- | ----------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1. | Data analysis and IT service | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2. | Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. | Enterprise resource planning (ERP) | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. | ICT security | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5. | IT infrastructure | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6. | IT portfolio/programme management and enterprise architecture | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C 447 A of 1 December 2016.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---