alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1212.85 Personal liability.

No member, alternate member, or employee of the Board may be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as a member, alternate member, or employee, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
#### WEIR v. UNION RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Action by Winant W. Weir against the Union Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals granted. Settle orders on notice.
Exhibit



                



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
CARVANA CO. 
2017 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
Carvana Co., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), established the Carvana Co. 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan effective as of April 27, 2017 (the “Plan”).  The Plan was approved by the Company’s Board of Directors and Sole Stockholder on April 27, 2017.  By adoption of this First Amendment, the Company now desires to amend the Plan as set forth below.
1.This First Amendment shall be effective as of the date set forth below.
2.Section 2.10 (“Common Stock”) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
2.10         “Common Stock” means the shares of Class A common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company.
3.Section 14.4 (Withholding of Taxes) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


14.4         Withholding of Taxes.  The Company shall have the right to deduct from any payment to be made pursuant to the Plan, or to otherwise require, prior to the issuance or delivery of shares of Common Stock or the payment of any cash hereunder, payment by the Participant of the minimum amount necessary to satisfy any federal, state or local taxes required by law to be withheld with respect to an Award.  Upon the vesting of Restricted Stock (or other Award that is taxable upon vesting), or upon making an election under Section 83(b) of the Code, a Participant shall pay all required withholding to the Company. To the extent that alternative methods of withholding are available under applicable tax laws, the Committee shall have the power to choose among such methods (including, without limitation, allowing a Participant to satisfy his or her withholding obligation by reducing the number of shares of Common Stock otherwise deliverable or by delivering shares of Common Stock already owned). 


4.This First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this First Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed as of this 5th day of June, 2017.
	
		
	 
	CARVANA CO.

	By:
	/s/ Paul Breaux

	Name:
	Paul Breaux

	Title:
	Vice President & Secretary
#### Benjamin Campo et al., Appellants, v. Michael Nardone, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiffs moved for examination on the subjects appearing in paragraphs numbered 1 through 8 of their notice, of motion. The motion was granted as to paragraphs 1 and 2 and denied on the ground of irrelevancy as to the remaining six paragraphs. On this appeal the plaintiffs have abandoned 8. The defendant is a lawyer who represented both buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. He is sued for misrepresentation. The plaintiffs were the buyers. In view of the defendant’s unusual fiduciary relationship we think a more liberal view should have been taken. Order modified by granting examination also as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### William H. McFadden, appellant, v. In re Estate of Katherine E. Swift, deceased, appellee.

Gen. No. 34,581.

Opinion filed May 13, 1931.

Harry Z. and Bernard Perel, for appellant; Sydney R. Drebin, of counsel.

M. D. Dolan, for appellee; B. A. Cummins, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1218

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1218 appear at 66 FR 37118, 37119, July 17, 2001, and 71 FR 77245, Dec. 26, 2006.

#### § 1218.12 Order.

*Order* means an order issued by the Secretary under section 514 of the Act that provides for a program of generic promotion, research, and information regarding agricultural commodities authorized under the Act.
945.170-1 Policy. The DOE has established specific policies concerning special nuclear material requirements needed under DOE contracts for fabricating end items using special nuclear material, and for conversion or scrap recovery of special nuclear material. *Special nuclear material* means uranium enriched in the isotopes U233 or U235, and/or plutonium, other than PU238. The policies to be followed are: ( a ) Special nuclear material will be furnished by the DOE for fixed-price contracts and subcontracts, at any tier, which call for the production of special nuclear products, including fabrication and conversion, for Government use. (The contractor or subcontractor must have the appropriate license or licenses to receive the special nuclear material. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the licensing agency.)
( b ) Contracts and subcontracts for fabrication of end items using special nuclear material generally shall be of the fixed-price type. Cost-type contracts or subcontracts for fabrication shall be used only with the approval of the Head of the Contracting Activity. This approval authority shall not be further delegated.
( c ) Contracts and subcontracts for conversion or scrap recovery of special nuclear material shall be of a fixed-price type, except as otherwise approved by the Head of the Contracting Activity.
832.006-4 Procedures. ( b ) The Remedy Coordination Official (RCO) for VA is the Deputy Senior Procurement Executive (DSPE) who shall carry out the responsibilities of the Secretary or designee in FAR 32.006-4(b).
( e ) The RCO shall carry out the responsibilities of the agency head in FAR 32.006-4(e) to notify the contractor of the reasons for the recommended action and of its right to submit information within a reasonable period of time in response to the proposed action under FAR 32.006. ( 1 ) The notice of proposed action will be sent to the last known address of the contractor, the contractor's counsel, or agent for service of process, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or any other method that provides signed evidence of receipt. In the case of a business, the notice of proposed action may be sent to any partner, principal, officer, director, owner or co-owner, or joint venture. The contractor will be afforded an opportunity to appear before the RCO to present information or argument in person or through a representative and may supplement the oral presentation with written information and argument.
( 2 ) The contractor may supplement the oral presentation with written information and argument. The proceedings will be conducted in an informal manner and without the requirement for a transcript. If the RCO does not receive a reply from the contractor within 30 calendar days, the RCO will base his or her recommendations on the information available. Any recommendation of the RCO under FAR 31.006-4(a) and paragraph (b) of this section, must address the results of this notification and the information, if any, provided by the contractor. After reviewing all the information, the RCO shall make a recommendation to the SPE whether or not substantial evidence of fraud exists.
( g ) In addition to following the procedures in FAR 32.006-4, the SPE shall provide a copy of each final determination and the supporting documentation to the contractor, the RCO, the contracting officer, and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The contracting officer will place a copy of the determination and the supporting documentation in the contract file.
[83 FR 49305, Oct. 1, 2018]
Mr. William J. Burke Opikon No. WW-647 

Executive Director 

State Board of Control Re: Validity of vouchers for 

Capitol Station the purchase of medication 

Austin, Texas and drugs to be furnished 

patients at a State hospiDear Mr. Burke: tal while on furlough. 

You have requested our opinion concerning the 

validity of vouchers for the payment of drugs furnished 

patients at Terre11 State Hospital while on furlough. 

The facts surrounding these purchases, as revealed in the letter attached to your request from the Business Manager of the Terre11 State Hospital, may be summarized as follows: 

The drugs purchased are for the purpose of furnishing patients at the Terre11 State Hospital who are on furlough, thereby enabling them to remain on furlough for longer 

periods of time. The patients reimburse the State for these 

drugs. The vouchers have been approved by the Business Manager of the Terre11 State Hospital and the Board for Texas 

State Hospitals and Special Schools. 

Article 3196a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, requires 

non-indigent patients to be maintained at the expense of the 

State in the first instance, "but in such cases the State 

shall have the right to be reimbursed for the support, maintenance and treatment of such patients." It is our opinion 

that the furnishing of the patient with the drugs constitutes 

-,- 

a part of the treatment of the patient and is therefore the 

purchase of necessary supplies for the hospital. 

You are therefore advised that the vouchers presented 

with your request should be processed for payment as the same 

constitute purchases of necessary supplies for the proper treatment of patients at the Terre11 State Hospital. 

In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary for us to 

answer your questions categorically. 
Mr. William J. Burke, page 2 (W-647) 

SUMMARY 

Drugs furnished at a State hospital 

while patients are on furlough constitute a part of the treatment of 

patients at the hospital and may 

therefore be purchased by the State 

as necessary supplies. 

Your3 very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY BJJww-cc/ John Reeve3 

Assistant 

JR:wb:mfh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. K. Richards, Chairman 

J. Milton Richardson 

Marvin Brown 

Marvin R. Thomas, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert
Opinion issued July 26, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00529-CR

———————————

IN RE MICHAEL DONNELL PRUITT, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Michael Donnell Pruitt, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, has 

filed an “Application For Writ of Mandamus” seeking to compel the respondents,

listed as “Chief District Attorney John Lewis” and “Judge Susan Brown,” to rule
2

on his pending pro se pre-trial motions and writ of mandamus filed in his 

underlying criminal proceeding.

1

We construe the application as a petition for writ of mandamus, but deny the 

petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). We dismiss all pending motions as 

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Michael Donnell Pruitt, Cause No. 

1502019, pending in the 185th District Court, Harris County, Texas, The 

Honorable Susan Brown presiding.
From: Janis Hudson

To: Wiley, Adina

Cc: Michael Wilhoit ; Mike Wilson
Subject: Flexible Permit Amendment Applications - clarification

Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:48:34 PM

The information provided below does not include notice of permits issued under the Existing Facility Flexible Permit rules, which were adopted by TCEQ in 2002 in §§

116. 793 - 116.802 and 116.804 - 116.807 for grandfathered facilities that wanted a flexible permit as for initial authorization. The TCEQ withdrew these rules from EPA consideration as a SIP revision at its meeting on September 24, 2013.

From: Janis Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:24 PM

To: Adina Wiley
Cc: Michael Wilhoit; Mike Wilson Subject: Flexible Permit Amendment Applications

You asked that TCEQ provide EPA with data regarding how many flexible permit amendment applications were subject to public notice requirements, and how many of those were applications concerned agricultural facilities.

The table below provides the information that the TCEQ’s Air Permits Division has tracked with regard to the number of flexible permit amendment applications received over three specific time periods, and how many of those were subject to notice. These time periods were chosen to represent:

1. The initial time period for flexible permits (rules adopted in 1994, and first permits issued in 1995), which were under the notice requirements in effect prior to the
adoption and interpretive rulemaking for HB 2518 (77 th Legislature, 2001).

2. The span of FY02 – FY10 is the approximate time period for initial applicability of HB 2518 and the rule interpreting it (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402). The rule became effective November 13, 2001.

3. The span of FY11 – FY13 represents the approximate time period for which the amended rule, which segregated the flexible permit amendment applications in the rule (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402(a)(5)), has been in effect (beginning June 24, 2010). This rule was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in July 2010.

Fiscal Year* Time

Periods Number of Amendment Applications Number of Amendment Applications that Went to

Public Notice

FY94 – FY01 87 0

FY02 – FY10 277 121

FY11 – FY13 49 14*FY is September 1 – August 31.

A review of the records regarding the holders of flexible permits revealed that only one was considered to be an agricultural facility, and it was issued in 2006. No permit amendment applications were filed for that permit, which has subsequently been

deflexed.
§ 1.333 The record. ( a ) The hearing will be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts may be obtained from the reporter by anyone at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of duplication.
( b ) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the ALJ and the judicial officer.
( c ) The record may be inspected and copied (upon payment of a reasonable fee) by anyone unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ.
#### § 1126.51 Class I differential and price.

The Class I differential shall be the differential established for Dallas County, Texas, which is reported in § 1000.52. The Class I price shall be the price computed pursuant to § 1000.50(a) for Dallas County, Texas.
#### The Feople of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Rivera, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 806]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), rendered June 1, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 25 years (five terms), 15 years and 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s present claims regarding the jury charge and the constitutionality of the depraved indifference statutes are *472unpreserved *(see People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them *(see People v Mannix,*302 AD2d 297 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 622 [2003]; *People v Monserate,*256 AD2d 15 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 855 [1999]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
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

            -           Resource: Tribal Behavioral Health Agenda      

# Resource: Tribal Behavioral Health Agenda

This agenda, developed in collaboration with the National Indian Health Board, (PDF, 96 pages) highlights how behavioral health challenges affect Native communities and describes strategies to reduce these problems and improve the behavioral health of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). Tribal leaders, tribal council members, tribal administrators, AI/AN health advocates, and federal agency representatives can use this resource to collaborate on actions to address the behavioral health needs of AI/ANs and to chart priorities for funding, programs, and policy decisions.

http://files.constantcontact.com/57c33206301/a9f6ec3c-038e-4eae-b92e-1b51be17795f.pdf?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources&utm_medium=federal-links
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)

# Receipt of Reproductive Health Services Among Sexually Experienced Persons Aged 15–19 Years — National Survey of Family Growth, United States, 2006–2010

This report from the CDC analyzes 2006-2010 data from the National Survey of Family Growth to estimate the proportion of sexually experienced young people, ages 15-19, who received reproductive services during the past year. Results show that the majority of teens received a reproductive health service from a health care provider in the past 12 months and those with insurance coverage who received formal sex education and who spoke with a parent or guardian about any reproductive or sexual health topic, had the highest prevalence of receiving services. 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6302a13.htm?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1246 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 10, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in 

trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1246 RFS

1 SECTION 1. FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBE LEASING AU2 THORITY. 

3 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of Au4 gust 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539, chapter 615; 25 U.S.C. 

5 415(a)), is amended, in the second sentence, by inserting 

6 ‘‘, land held in trust for any other Indian tribe included 

7 on the list published by the Secretary pursuant to section 

8 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act 

9 of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131)’’ after ‘‘Chehalis Reservation’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### MJM Advertising Inc., et al., Appellants, v Panasonic Industrial Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[775 NYS2d 852]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered June 25, 2003, which, in an action by related advertising agencies and one of their former principals against a former client, granted defendant Panasonic Industrial Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ third cause of action and for fees and costs, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the third cause of action, for unjust enrichment against the client based on the services performed from July 15, 1997 to December 31, 1997, reinstated.

Defendants concede, on constraint of this Court’s determination on a prior appeal (2 AD3d 252 [2003]), that there are questions of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Accordingly, since the third cause of action is premised on the same facts as the first cause, the grant of summary judgment dismissing it was in error and the cause must be reinstated. Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment on the first and third causes of action and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim is without merit in light of the numerous factual issues raised. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.