alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Apex Ribbon Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Knitwear Supplies, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered June 19, 1964, granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff and directing a severance of certain Chuses of action unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants to abide the event and motion denied. The amended complaint herein alleges that plaintiff delivered to defendant, Knitwear Supplies, Inc., a quantity *767of merchandise on consignment; that defendant has failed to pay for a portion of the merchandise or to return it although demand therefor has been made. The answer denies most of these allegations and specifically denies that any demand had been made for the return of the unsold merchandise. “ The rule that one who comes lawfully into possession of property cannot be charged with conversion thereof until after a demand and refusal is too well established to justify extended discussion.” *(MacDonnell*v. *Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co.,*193 N. Y. 92, 101; *Shea*v. *Chinn,*223 App. Div. 476, 477.) The moving papers herein contain no factual statements showing a demand for the return of the goods and refusal to comply therewith. There is only a repetition of the eonclusory allegation set forth in the complaint. Such defect prevents the granting of summary judgment. In passing it should be noted that the order herein grants plaintiff summary judgment against defendant, Broadway Thread, Inc., in the sum of $800.77. Such relief was sought in the notice of motion but was not discussed or apparently passed upon by Special Term. That action originated in Civil Court and plaintiff’s prior motion in that court for summary judgment was denied. Subsequently an order was made consolidating that action with this one. It appears from the moving papers that defendant, Broadway Thread, Inc., contends that the delivery of merchandise to it was pursuant to the consignment agreement between plaintiff and defendant, Knitwear Supplies, Inc. We conclude that triable issues are presented in the former Civil Court action that prevent the granting of summary judgment to plaintiff. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Babin, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10133 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the reporting of periodic 

transaction reports not later than 15 days after receiving notification 

of the requirement to report a transaction but in no case later than 

30 days after such transaction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2024 

Mr. BURCHETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the reporting of periodic transaction reports not later than 15 

days after receiving notification of the requirement to 

report a transaction but in no case later than 30 days 

after such transaction, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Timely Stock Disclo5 sure Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10133 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERIODIC TRANSACTION REPORTS. 

2 (a) PERIODIC TRANSACTION REPORTS.— 

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 13105(l) of title 5, 

4 United States Code, is amended by— 

5 (A) striking ‘‘30 days’’ and inserting ‘‘15 

6 days’’; and 

7 (B) striking ‘‘45 days’’ and inserting ‘‘30 

8 days’’. 

9 (2) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by 

10 paragraph (1) shall begin to apply 90 days after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Such section is fur13 ther amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

14 striking ‘‘section 13104(a)(5)(B’’ and inserting ‘‘section 

15 13104(a)(5)(B)’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[114th Congress Public Law 82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 671]]

Public Law 114-82
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
90 Cornell Street in Kingston, New York, as the ``Staff Sergeant Robert 
 H. Dietz Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 5, 2015 -  [H.R. 1442]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT H. DIETZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 90 Cornell Street in Kingston, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Robert H. Dietz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Robert H. Dietz Post Office Building''.

    Approved November 5, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1442:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            Sept. 24, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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)

# A Provider’s Introduction to Substance Abuse Treatment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals

This manual, prepared for the CSAT seeks to inform administrators and clinicians about appropriate diagnosis and treatment approaches that will help ensure the development or enhancement of effective LGBT-sensitive programs. SAMHSA has also funded the development of a 22-module training curriculum to accompany this publication.

http://store.samhsa.gov/product/A-Provider-s-Introduction-to-Substance-Abuse-Treatment-for-Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-and-Transgender-Individuals/SMA12-4104
#### CITY OF MT. VERNON, Respondent, v. BRETT et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,

September 28, 1906.)

Action by the city of Mt. Vernon against John H. Brett and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of City of Mt. Vernon v. Kenlon, 97 App. Div. 191, 89 N. Y. Supp. 817.
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

            -           Report: The Financial Literacy of 15-year-olds in the U.S. and Abroad      

# Report: The Financial Literacy of 15-year-olds in the U.S. and Abroad

This report presents the results of the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment financial literacy assessment of 15-year-old students in the U.S. and the 14 other education systems that participated. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017086&utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=Reports
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BARRY TAERBAUM, * No. 21-1159V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

* Filed: March 24, 2022

v. *

* Stipulation; Twinrix vaccine; hepatitis

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * A and B vaccine; acute liver cell

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * injury; autoimmune hepatitis

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner;

Katherine C. Esposito, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On March 22, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Barry Taerbaum on April 6, 2021. Petitioner 

alleged that the Twinrix (hepatitis A and B) vaccine he received on January 23, 

2019, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. 

§100.3(a), caused him to suffer an acute liver cell injury and/or autoimmune 

hepatitis. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of this 

injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior 

award or settlement of a civil action for damages on his behalf as a result of his

condition.

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the 

Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties 

have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by 

the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Respondent denies that the vaccine either caused petitioner to suffer from an 

acute liver cell injury, autoimmune hepatitis, any other injury, or his current 

condition.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would 

be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment 

by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States 

Court of Federal Claims judge.
#### 719.271 Agency program direction and operation.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2015
- 0673 ☐ These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2014
- SW
- 034
- AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM 

### ☒ N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is ch ecked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new n otice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

### Latest Revision
. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discus**  **sed together.** Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following: 

### Choose one . If other, explain : Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text. Do we agree? 

### Yes/No If **YES,** we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### Li st any changes to the AD If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with 

### In sert text because 

### In sert justification We disagree with 

### Insert text because 

### In sert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any changes to the AD If **NO** , we don’t agree because 

### In sert our rationale
**ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following: 

### Choose one .

If other, explain : 

### Click here to enter text. Commenter(s): 

### Cl ick here to enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text. Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

### Page 2 of 3

If **YES,** we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the f ollowing changes to the AD: 

### Li st any changes to the AD If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with 

### In sert text because 

### In sert justification We disagree with 

### Insert text because 

### In sert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any changes to the AD If **NO** , we don’t agree because 

### In sert our rationale
**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
1 

### Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:40 PM To: Werner, Christopher; Lorang, Phil Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirem ents for State Plans (RIN 2060- AS55) Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563 _RHR NPRM_03242016.docx
Categories: Regional Haze

Attached please find the summary of additional inte ragency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the d raft proposed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). The summary of interagency comments are based on the mo st recent version submitted by EPA for interagency review

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### Jupiter Shipping Company v. Oviedo Compania Naviera, S. A.

Motion to dismiss appeal from the order entered on December 19, 1961 granted. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
732.401 Statutory authority. ( a ) Sections 635 (b) of the Foreign Assistance Act and Executive Order 11223, May 12, 1965, 30 FR 6635, permit the making of advance payments with respect to functions authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act. Advance payments may also be made under section 305 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which provides authority, not otherwise available to USAID, to take a paramount lien.
( b ) The Act of August 28, 1968, Public Law 85-804 does not apply to USAID.
[56 FR 67225, Dec. 30, 1991, as amended at 62 FR 40469, July 29, 1997]
----

**EXHIBIT 32(b)**

** **

| Cleco Power LLC                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Certification  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 of ClecoPower (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, David M. Eppler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, DilekSamil, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cleco Power,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934; and                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company. |

 

Date:  August 4, 2004

 

| /s/ David M. Eppler                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| David M. Eppler                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Chief Executive  Officer                                                                                                                                                        |

 

| /s/ Dilek Samil                                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dilek Samil                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief

    Financial  Officer                                                                                                                                             |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Darienzo, Also Known as James Martin, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Leonardi, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Doak, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carmine Lavia, Appellant.

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered August 9, 1976, convicting defendants on their respective guilty pleas of criminal usury (Penal Law, § 190.40) following denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained through electronic surveillance, and sentencing Darienzo and Doak to indeterminate sentences of from 0 to 3 years, and sentencing Lavia and Leonardi to indeterminate sentences of from 1 *Vi*to 3 years, reversed, on the law, the pleas vacated, and the motion to suppress granted with respect to all tapes other than those developed during the period following the last extension order, and remanded for further proceedings, including a minimization hearing respecting the latter tapes. The defendants pleaded guilty to criminal usury following denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of court authorized electronic surveillance. The first order was signed on January 30, 1974 and was followed by various amendments and extensions, the last extension being signed on May 29, 1974 and expiring on June 27, 1974. The surveillance ceased on June 27, 1974 and on the following day, June 28, 1974, all the tapes were presented to the court for sealing and were sealed. CPL 700.50 provides that recordings of communications made pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant must be made available to the issuing Justice and sealed "immediately upon the expiration of the period of an eavesdropping warrant.” In *People v Washington*(46 NY2d 116, 121), the Court of Appeals definitively held that this section required the sealing of recordings to be made immediately after the expiration of each order or extension rather than after the expiration of the last extension order. Accordingly, all of the recordings other than those developed during the period following the last extension order must be suppressed. (See *People v Nicoletti,*34 NY2d 249.) As to the recordings not suppressed, enough was presented in the motion to reargue to entitle defendants to a minimization hearing. (See CPL 700.30, subd 7.) Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sandler and Silverman, JJ.