alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CLOVIS NELSON a/k/a C.B. NELSON and DONNET NELSON,

Appellant s

,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

, et al

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 2180

[ April 2, 2020 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Frank Ledee , Judge; L.T. Case No. 14

-

023619 CACE

.

Robert Phaneuf of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for

appellants.

Ofer M. Amir, Fort Lauderdale, f or appellee YJJ Investment Group LLC.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 73 

Condemning the Cuban regime and the Chinese Communist Party for their 

reported intent to build a joint military training base on the island 

of Cuba, 100 miles from the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2023 

Mr. MOONEY (for himself, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. GIMENEZ, Ms. SALAZAR, 

Mr. NORMAN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. WALTZ, and Ms. LEE of 

Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Condemning the Cuban regime and the Chinese Communist 

Party for their reported intent to build a joint military 

training base on the island of Cuba, 100 miles from 

the United States. 

Whereas it is the concurrent sense of Congress that any plan 

by the Cuban regime and the Chinese Communist Party 

to create a new joint military training base on the island 

of Cuba poses a threat to the national security interests 

of the United States; 

Whereas this joint military training base would expand the 

Chinese Communist Party’s presence in Cuba; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HCON 73 IH 

Whereas the Chinese Communist Party has supported the 

Cuban regime in the establishment and administration of 

the strategically located, special economic zone, deepwater port at Mariel helping to prop up Cuba’s failed socialist economy; 

Whereas the Cuban regime is a United States designated 

State Sponsor of Terrorism; 

Whereas, in 2015, Colombian authorities uncovered defense 

articles and ammunition, including gunpowder and cannon shells, destined for Cuba on a Chinese-flagged vessel; 

Whereas Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party has operated intelligence facilities in Cuba since at least 2019; 

Whereas Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party are able to 

use the intelligence facilities to tap into electronic signals 

from United States communications systems, radars, and 

weapons systems to covertly gather intelligence; 

Whereas the Chinese Communist Party has recently undertaken unsafe, unprofessional, and aggressive military actions towards the United States, and its allies and partners, in the South China Sea; and 

Whereas Cuba has a history of targeting the United States 

and serving the interests of communist powers like the 

former Soviet Union and China: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) condemns the Cuban regime and the Chi4 nese Communist Party for their active discussions to 

5 create a joint military training facility that threatens 

6 the national security of the United States; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HCON 73 IH 

1 (2) calls for the immediate withdrawal of any 

2 Chinese Communist Party military and intelligence 

3 assets on the island of Cuba. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 1.201 Department review. ( a ) Except with respect to a proceeding covered by § 1.183(a)(1)(ii) of this part either the applicant or agency counsel may seek review of the initial decision on the fee application, in accordance with the provisions of §§ 1.145(a) and 1.146(a) of this part or in accordance with any delegation made pursuant to § 1.189 of this part. If neither the applicant nor agency counsel seeks review, the initial decision on the fee application shall become a final decision of the Department 35 days after it is served upon the applicant. If review is taken, it will be in accord with the provisions of §§ 1.145(b) through (i) and 1.146(b) of this part, or
( b ) With respect to a proceeding covered by § 1.183(a)(1)(ii) of this part, either party may seek reconsideration of the decision on the fee application in accordance with Rule 29 of the Board of Contract Appeals contained in § 24.21 of this title. In addition, either party may appeal a decision of the Board of Contract Appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 607.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19525
<ALLOWANCES>                                       258
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          10728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                        2640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23510
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   580
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    48
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    31
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    132
<INCOME-TAX>                                        46
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 86
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        86
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Michael A. Davis, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[776 NYS2d 651]

Carpincho, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered January 22, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.

Petitioner, an inmate, complained of a lump in his upper abdomen in December 2001 and was seen by the Facility Health Services Director, who conducted an examination and advised that no treatment was necessary. Petitioner filed a grievance seeking testing to determine the nature of the lump. This grievance was denied and petitioner appealed to the Central Office Review Committee. During the pendency of this appeal, petitioner received a second opinion from another physician who concluded that the lump was a normal part of petitioner’s sternum and that no tests were indicated. The Central Office Review Committee ultimately denied the grievance. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that denial. He appeals from Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition.

*890We reject petitioner’s assertion that respondents’ alleged negligence and medical malpractice entitles him to relief compelling respondents to perform additional tests.* A referral for further tests is required only if the Facility Health Services Director determines that it is necessary, which he has not *(see*Department of Correctional Services, Division of Health Services Policy Manual item 1.21). In fact, both examining physicians were of the opinion that further tests were not necessary. Mandamus is inappropriate as the Facility Health Services Director has already performed his duty and rendered a decision *(see Matter of City of New York v New York State Dept, of Envtl. Conservation,*89 AD2d 274, 276-277 [1982]). Additionally, the decision on whether further testing is necessary is based on the physician’s judgment, and mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of such an act *(see Matter of Brusco v Braun,*84 NY2d 674, 679 [1994]).

We also find that petitioner failed to show that the denial of his grievance was affected by an error of law or arbitrary and capricious. The two physicians agree that no further testing is required, and petitioner has not shown that their assessments in that regard were incorrect *(see Matter of Singh v Eagen,*236 AD2d 654, 655 [1997]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Petitioner, in his brief, correctly concedes that the alleged negligence of the two physicians is insufficient to make out a violation of the 8th Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (see US Const 8th Amend; *Estelle v Gamble,*429 US 97, 105-106 [1976]; *Matter ofRonson v Commissioner of Correction, State ofN.Y.,*112 AD2d 488, 489 [1985]).
EX-31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Arnold P. Kling, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Twin Lakes, Inc.;

2.    Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.    Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for the
registrant and have:

      (a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      (c)   presented  in  this  annual   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

      (a)   all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      (b)   any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

6.    The registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: February 27, 2006


                                        By: /s/ Arnold P. Kling
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Arnold P. Kling, President
#### In the Matter of Eugene L. Sugarman, an Attorney.

— Motion for reinstatement held in abeyance and, without passing upon the merits of the application, the matter is referred to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for investigation and, if necessary, a hearing, and for a report to this *661court. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Lane, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
970.4402-2 General requirements. The following shall apply to the purchasing systems of management and operating contractors: ( a ) The objective of a management and operating contractor's purchasing system is to deliver to its customers on a timely basis those best value products and services necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Government's contract. To achieve this objective, contractors are expected to use their experience, expertise and initiative consistent with this subpart.
( b ) The purchasing systems and methods used by management and operating contractors shall be well-defined, consistently applied, and shall follow purchasing practices appropriate for the requirement and dollar value of the purchase. It is anticipated that purchasing practices and procedures will vary among contractors and according to the type and kinds of purchases to be made.
( c ) Contractor purchases are not Federal procurements, and are not directly subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations in 48 CFR. Nonetheless, certain Federal laws, Executive Orders, and regulations may affect contractor purchasing, as required by statute, regulation, or contract terms and conditions.
( d ) Contractor purchasing systems shall identify and apply the best in commercial purchasing practices and procedures (although nothing precludes the adoption of Federal procurement practices and procedures) to achieve system objectives. Where specific requirements do not otherwise apply, the contractor purchasing system shall provide for appropriate measures to ensure the— ( 1 ) Acquisition of quality products and services at fair and reasonable prices;
( 2 ) Use of capable and reliable subcontractors who either— ( i ) Have track records of successful past performance, or
( ii ) Can demonstrate a current superior ability to perform;
( 3 ) Minimization of acquisition lead-time and administrative costs of purchasing;
( 4 ) Use of effective competitive techniques;
( 5 ) Reduction of performance risks associated with subcontractors, and facilitation of quality relationships which can include techniques such as partnering agreements, ombudsmen, and alternative disputes procedures;
( 6 ) Use of self-assessment and benchmarking techniques to support continuous improvement in purchasing;
( 7 ) Maintenance of the highest professional and ethical standards;
( 8 ) Maintenance of file documentation appropriate to the value of the purchase and which is adequate to establish the propriety of the transaction and the price paid; and
( 9 ) Maximization of opportunities for small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned small business concerns to participate in contract performance.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36374, July 22, 2009]
#### Joseph Ramirez, Respondent-Appellant, v Albert Goldberg, Individually and as a Partner of National-Tronics Co., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to declare plaintiff a partner in *641defendants’ businesses and for an accounting and a money judgment, defendants appeal and plaintiff cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 16, 1978, which determined, after a nonjury trial, that plaintiff was a partner and awarded him judgment in the principal sum of $45,000. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as not perfected in accordance with the rules of this court. Case remitted to Trial Term for findings of fact pursuant to CPLR 4213 and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The parties shall submit proposed findings of fact to the court within 15 days after service upon plaintiff by defendants of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Defendants shall serve a copy of the order within 15 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The trial court shall render its findings in accordance with CPLR 4213 (subd [b]) within 30 days after submission of the proposed findings of fact. On July 19, 1977, immediately upon completion of the lengthy trial of the complex issues in this action, the trial court returned the 135 trial exhibits to the parties. Nevertheless, the court’s decision, consisting of seven short paragraphs covering one and one-half pages, was not filed until October 26, 1978 (although it is dated September 18, 1977). The decision contains only one finding of fact — that the business operations grossed $1,740,000 in five years. The award of $45,000 to the plaintiff is thus a conclusion based on no stated facts. The record before us consists of four volumes. Manifestly, the challenged determination should not be reviewed by this court until the trial court has made findings of fact in accordance with its obligations under the statute. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of John L. Crehan et al., Respondents, v. Charles R. Thom, as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, in which an order was previously made on April 22, 1960 and affirmed by this court *(Matter of Crehan*v. *Thom,*12 A D 2d 502), directing the transfer of the three petitioners (and one other presently not involved) from a village Police Department to the Suffolk County Police Department, the Police Commissioner and the Civil Service Commission of Suffolk County appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, made and entered September 19, 1961 upon the decision of the court after a hearing, which granted the petitioners’ application, made pursuant to section 1303 (article 78) of the Civil Practice Act, to enforce said prior order, and which awarded to each petitioner his salary from the date of his transfer on January 1, 1960 to the date of his purported discharge on April 12, 1961. Order reversed on the law without costs, and application remitted to the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the purpose of holding a further hearing and determining the amount due to each petitioner for the nine-month period January 1, 1960 to September 30, I960, and for the purpose of making an appropriate order not inconsistent herewith. No questions of fact were considered. Under the circumstances and in the light of such defenses as were interposed, the maximum period of nine months during which a provisional appointee may be employed (Civil Service Law, § 65) must be deemed to commence as of the time the transfer of the petitioners should have been effected. There were no legal successive provisional appointments; nor did petitioners render services as such provisional employees. It was immaterial, therefore, that on April 12, 1961 the Police Commissioner and the Civil Service Commissioner of Suffolk County undertook to terminate petitioners’ services as of January 1, 1960; compensation could not 'be had beyond the nine-month period during which petitioners held the status of provisional employees. The compensation of each of the petitioners, therefore, must be limited to the salary which he would have received during the nine-month period commencing January 1, 1960 and ending September 30, 1960, less any offsets within the meaning of section 77 of the Civil Service Law. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### LABLACK, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN EIGHTS R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Hurt, Appellate Division, Second Department,

arch 2, 1906.)

Action by Otto E. Lablack :ainst the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Comny.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order aimed, with costs.

WOODWARD, J.,

dissents.
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

            -           Teaching Soft Skills Through Workplace Simulation in Classroom Settings      

# Teaching Soft Skills Through Workplace Simulation in Classroom Settings

The Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy provides a resource focused on how schools and employment opportunities can teach soft skills, specifically for students with disabilities. Relevant soft skills, as mentioned in the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, include: teamwork, problem solving, effective use of resources and effective coommunication. 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/documents/TeachingSoftSkills.pdf
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







In connection with the Annual Report of American Southwest Music Distribution, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent Puckett, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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.









|                        |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Dated:  August 14, 2007 |  | /s/  Kent Puckett                     
|                        |  | Kent Puckett, Chief Accounting Officer
#### 514.201-7 [Reserved]