alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis C. Fieland, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Holders of Chase Manhattan Mortgage and Realty Trust, Similarly Situated, Appellant, v Chase Manhattan Mortgage and Realty Trust, Respondent, et al., Defendants, and Fidelity Union Trust Company, Intervenor-Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 27, 1978, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; denied consolidation; granted Fidelity’s motion to intervene and for summary judgment in its favor on behalf of all noteholders, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. Chase Manhattan Mortgage and Realty Trust (CMART) had defaulted in payment of over $38 million in its 7%% notes due May 1, 1978. The notes were issued pursuant to a trust indenture which provided, *inter alia,*that in the event of a default a specifically named trustee or its successor was empowered to take any action necessary to recover overdue principal and interest on behalf of the noteholders. After the default five separate actions were instituted in Supreme Court, New York County. One of those actions was commenced by the successor trustee, Fidelity Union Trust Company. Louis C. Fieland instituted the present suit seeking class-action status to recover money on behalf of all noteholders. Fidelity sought to intervene in order to oppose the grant of class-action status to Fieland. CMART did not raise any substantive defenses. Special Term was faced with motions by both Fieland and Fidelity for summary judgment in lieu of complaint in their favor against CMART; a motion by Fidelity to intervene in the Fieland action; and a motion by CMART to consolidate the actions pending against it. Special Term granted Fidelity’s motion to intervene, as well as its motion for summary judgment; the other actions against CMART were dismissed. We would affirm. Clearly, Fidelity was authorized to act on behalf of all noteholders. Any class action instituted by individual noteholders would be supererogatory, and therefore the other actions against CMART were properly dismissed. Similarly, we agree with Special Term that Fidelity’s bringing of this lawsuit on behalf of noteholders does not mean that it is doing business in New York State within the intendment of section 1312 of the Business Corporation Law. The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations "doing business” within New York State and not to enable avoidance of a contractual obligation *(Von Arx, AG. v Breitenstein,*41 NY2d 958, 960). Concur — Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Lane, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 103

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulation''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2023

Mr. Smucker (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Van Duyne, Mrs. 
Miller of Illinois, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Lesko, 
Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Green of Tennessee, Mr. Owens, Mr. Womack, Mr. 
 Banks, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Moolenaar, Ms. Mace, Mr. Rose, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
  Fitzgerald, and Mr. Mann) submitted the following joint resolution; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulation''.

    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 Department of Labor relating to ``Updating the 
Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations'' (88 Fed. Reg. 57526 (August 
23, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
33.207 Contractor certification. ( a ) Contractors shall provide the certification specified in paragraph (c) of this section when submitting any claim exceeding $100,000.
( b ) The certification requirement does not apply to issues in controversy that have not been submitted as all or part of a claim.
( c ) The certification shall state as follows: I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.
( d ) The aggregate amount of both increased and decreased costs shall be used in determining when the dollar thresholds requiring certification are met (see example in 15.403-4(a)(1)(iii) regarding certified cost or pricing data).
( e ) The certification may be executed by any person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the claim.
( f ) A defective certification shall not deprive a court or an agency BCA of jurisdiction over that claim. Prior to the entry of a final judgment by a court or a decision by an agency BCA, however, the court or agency BCA shall require a defective certification to be corrected.
[59 FR 11381, Mar. 10, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 48218, 48230, Sept. 18, 1995; 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997; 63 FR 58595, Oct. 30, 1998; 75 FR 53149, Aug. 30, 2010; 79 FR 24212, Apr. 29, 2014]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Report: Substance Use Among 12th Grade Aged Youths, by Dropout Status      

# Report: Substance Use Among 12th Grade Aged Youths, by Dropout Status

This report uses combined data from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2002 to 2014 to identify 12th grade-aged youth who had dropped out of school and to describe their substance use compared to their peers who were currently attending school. **Learn more.**
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


With   respect  to  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Central   Natural
Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company")  on  Form
10-Q  for  the  quarter ended June 30, 2004  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Leonard L. Noah, Chief Financial Officer  of  the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   1350,  as  adopted
pursuant to  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  result  of
operations of the Company.

Date:  August 12, 2004

/s/ Leonard L. Noah
____________________________________
Leonard L. Noah
Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
18  U.S.C.   1350 and is not being filed as a part of the  Report
or  as  a  separate disclosure document, and is not to be  deemed
incorporated  by reference into any filing under  the  Securities
Act  or  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the  Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2150

ALFRED M. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., Aerospace Equipment Systems,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-98-816-5-F)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred M. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen, OGLETREE,

DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Davis appeals from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to AlliedSignal, Inc. on Davis’ claims alleging

employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v.

AlliedSignal, Inc., No. CA-98-816-5-F (E.D.N.C. July 27, 1999)).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
46.317 Reporting nonconforming items. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-26, Reporting Nonconforming Items, in solicitations and contracts—as follows: ( 1 ) For an acquisition by any agency, including the Department of Defense, of— ( i ) Any items that are subject to higher-level quality standards in accordance with the clause at 52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement;
( ii ) Any items that the contracting officer, in consultation with the requiring activity determines to be critical items for which use of the clause is appropriate;
( 2 ) In addition (as required by paragraph (c)(4) of section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81)), for an acquisition that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold and is by, or for, the Department of Defense of electronic parts or end items, components, parts, or materials containing electronic parts, whether or not covered in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
( 3 ) For the acquisition of services, if the contractor will furnish, as part of the service, any items that meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section.
( b ) The contracting officer shall not insert the clause at 52.246-26, Reporting Nonconforming Items, in solicitations and contracts when acquiring— ( 1 ) Commercial products and commercial services using part 12 procedures; or
( 2 ) Medical devices that are subject to the Food and Drug Administration reporting requirements at 21 CFR 803.
( c ) If required by agency policy, the contracting officer may modify paragraph (b)(4) of the clause at 52.246-26, but only to change the responsibility for the contractor to submit reports to the agency rather than to Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP), so that the agency instead of the contractor submits reports to GIDEP within the mandatory 60 days.
[84 FR 64694, Nov. 22, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 61031, Nov. 4, 2021]
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Energy Resources Program 

| Oil and Gas - National Oil and Gas Assessment | Energy Home|About Energy|Contact Energy|How Are We Doing? |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |

EnergyOil and GasNational Oil and Gas Assessment
#### 436.609 Contract clauses.
Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

# Panel Review by Applicant

## Virginia

Bottom of Form

# _1479587431.unknown
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.3




AMENDMENT TO THE
BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL OFFICERS RETIREMENT PLAN


Pursuant to Section 5.5 of the Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. Supplemental Officers Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective February 2, 2017:


1.    Section 1.3 – The Plan is amended by substituting the following for Section 1.3 thereof:


“1.3    Committee. The Retirement Committee of the Company, appointed from time to time by Compensation Committee of the Board.”


2.    Section 5.5 – The Plan is amended by substituting the following for Section 5.5 thereof:


“5.5    Company’s Right to Terminate and Amend.  The Company, acting through the Compensation Committee of the Board, may, at any time, amend or modify the Plan in whole or in part.  In addition, the Plan may be amended by the Committee at any time provided that any such amendment is necessary (A) to bring the Plan into compliance with the Code or other applicable law, or (B) to make any other desired changes which do not result, when aggregated with any other amendments to the Plan made by the Committee during the immediately preceding fiscal year (ignoring inflation trends), in a more than ten percent (10%) increase (when compared to such immediately preceding fiscal year) in the cost of maintaining the Plan to the Company.  The Company also reserves the right in its sole discretion at any time to terminate the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and subject to Section 6.7 of the Plan, no such amendment or termination shall reduce the amount of the benefit theretofore vested in any Participant or change the conditions required to be satisfied to receive payment of such past accrued benefit based on the provisions of the Plan as theretofore in effect. For this purpose, the amount of a Participant's accrued benefit as of the date of any plan amendment or termination shall be determined as if the Participant was then retiring in accordance with Section 3.3 with his actual Vested Percentage accrued as at such date; provided that if the Company is terminating the Plan and if a Participant has not completed at least 5 years of Future Service, Participant's Vested Percentage shall be: (i) 40% if he has completed 4 years of Future Service; (ii) 30% if he has completed 3 years of Future Service; (iii) 20% if he has completed 2 years of Future Service; (iv) 10% if he has completed 1 year of Future Service; and (v) 0% if he has not completed 1 year of Future Service.















This amendment is hereby adopted by the Retirement Committee this 2nd day of February, 2017.






_________________________
Adam Glazner
Sr. Director Benefits






_________________________
Michael Liberatore 
President of ICS-Mutual Fund and Retirement Solutions 






_________________________
Steve Rosenthal
Treasurer






__________________________
Julie Taylor
Chief Human Resources Officer




- 2 -
(February 8, 1979)

#### Robert A. Phelps et al., Appellants, v Salvatore Fiordilino, Respondent.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered March 4, 1977 in Ulster County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of defendant of no cause for action. This is a negligence action wherein plaintiffs are seeking damages for injuries and loss of services allegedly resulting from an automobile accident which occurred on January 20, 1975 in the Village of New Paltz, Ulster County. Robert Phelps, the driver of one of the cars sued for personal injuries and his wife, Myrtle, sued for loss of services. There is no serious dispute as to how the accident happened. Both vehicles were proceeding slowly in the same direction on a wintry day and the defendant’s car struck plaintiffs’ car in the rear. There were patches of ice and snow on the highway. While there was some damage to plaintiffs’ car, defendant testified there was none to his. He further testified that he was traveling about one and one-half car lengths behind plaintiff when he saw the brake lights go on; that he applied his brakes, but his car skidded on a patch of ice and there was contact between the two vehicles. Plaintiff, Robert Phelps, testified that he slowed down and stopped because the car in front of his had stopped to make a left turn and he also stated that the highway was generally slippery. Additionally, he testified to his injuries. After a jury trial a verdict of no cause of action was returned. The trial court denied a motion to set the verdict aside. This appeal ensued. Plaintiffs raise several issues urging reversal, some of which pertain to the court’s charge. As to those, we find plaintiffs’ arguments unpersuasive as there were no exceptions or objections to the charge (see *Krall v Shaker Ridge Country Club,*51 AD2d 481, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 802). Primarily, plaintiffs contend that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. We, however, should not disturb this verdict unless the evidence is so preponderant in plaintiffs’ favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(Knise v Shearer,*30 AD2d 741, 742). In reviewing the order denying plaintiffs’ motion to set the verdict aside, we must recognize the fact that the Trial Judge has had the opportunity to see, hear and weigh the testimony of the witnesses *(Ellis v Hoelzel,*57 AD2d 968). Considering the record in its entirety, we are unable to conclude that the jury could not reasonably find that the accident was due solely to the defendant’s skidding on a patch of ice, which, in and of itself, is not negligence as the court properly charged *(Lahr v Tirrill,*274 NY 112). Consequently, we should not disturb the verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Economic Empowerment for People Who Have Experienced Human Trafficking: A Guide for Anti-Trafficking Service Providers      

# Resource: Economic Empowerment for People Who Have Experienced Human Trafficking: A Guide for Anti-Trafficking Service Providers

This guide (PDF, 40 pages) provides a foundation for organizations considering starting, expanding, or refining programs addressing the economic empowerment of people with lived experience of human trafficking. The guide shares key findings and recommendations for programming related to these five tiers of economic empowerment:  
                  -  Crisis management   
                  -  Career exploration  
                  -  Skill building and work readiness  
                  -  Experience building  
                  -  Employment  

The guide also describes strategies and considerations for applying these recommendations.**Learn more** (PDF, 40 pages).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10012 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include eyeglass lens fittings 

in the category of medical services authorized to be furnished to veterans 

under the Veterans Community Care Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 18, 2024 

Ms. MALOY (for herself, Mr. VAN ORDEN, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER, and Mr. CURTIS) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include eyeglass 

lens fittings in the category of medical services authorized to be furnished to veterans under the Veterans 

Community Care Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF EYEGLASS LENS FITTINGS IN 

4 MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORIZED TO BE FUR5 NISHED UNDER VETERANS COMMUNITY 

6 CARE PROGRAM; REPORT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 

8 (6) of section 1701 of title 38, United States Code, is 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 10012 IH

1 amended by inserting ‘‘services, fittings for eyeglass 

2 lenses,’’ after ‘‘Optometric’’. 

3 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Veterans Af4 fairs shall establish policies and procedures and prescribe 

5 regulations to carry out the amendment made by sub6 section (a). Under such regulations, the Secretary shall 

7 ensure that a veteran eligible to receive medical services 

8 from a non-Department of Veterans Affairs provider 

9 under section 1703 of title 38, United States Code, can 

10 schedule an appointment for a fitting for eyeglass lenses 

11 at such a provider in geographic proximity to the veteran. 

12 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

13 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 

14 to Congress a report that includes— 

15 (1) a statement of the status of the implemen16 tation of the amendment made by subsection (a); 

17 (2) a summary of any challenges faced with re18 spect to such implementation; 

19 (3) a strategy to mitigate such challenges, if 

20 applicable; and 

21 (4) an assessment of the benefits for veterans 

22 resulting from such amendment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB