alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISCIPLINARY CASES

2006-0124.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier.

This cause is pending before the court on the report and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. On May 9, 2006, respondent filed letters of recommendation with the court. Whereas the document does not consist of a list of citations to additional authorities as permitted by S.Ct.Prae.R. IX(7) and is not otherwise permitted under the Rules of Practice as a filing after completion of merit briefing,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the document is stricken.
#### In the Matter of Jerome Straus, Individually and as President of the Plainview—Old Bethpage Chairpersons Association, et al., Respondents, v Board of Education of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the appellant to pay the petitioners their full salaries for the period between February 20 and February 24, 1978, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 29, 1978, which (1) denied the appellant’s motion, *inter alia,*to dismiss the proceeding and (2) granted the petition. Judgment modified by deleting therefrom the first, third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof. As so *649modified, judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the matter is remitted to Special Term for further proceedings. The appellant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be entered herein, together with notice of entry thereof. The facts and issues of this case are indistinguishable from those involved in *Matter of Rubin v Board ofEduc.*(71 AD2d 606). Accordingly, a similar result is required. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 109–212—APR. 1, 2006 120 STAT. 321

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4911:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Mar. 14, considered and passed House.

Mar. 28, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–212

109th Congress

An Act

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Higher Education Extension

Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005

(Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking

‘‘March 31, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2006’’.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension

Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit

or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the

durations of, programs contained in the amendments made by the

Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–

171) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and

the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Approved April 1, 2006.

20 USC 1001

note.

Higher Education

Extension Act

of 2006.

20 USC 1001

note.

Apr. 1, 2006

[H.R. 4911]
§ 1778.14 Other considerations. ( a ) *Civil rights compliance requirements.* All grants made under this part are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq.*) as outlined in subpart E of part 1901 of this title.
( b ) *Environmental requirements.* All projects must have appropriate environmental reviews in accordance with RUS requirements.
( c ) *Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ( 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).* All projects must comply with the requirements set forth in 7 CFR part 21.
( d ) *Flood and mudslide hazard area precautions.* If the project is located in a flood or mudslide area, then flood or mudslide insurance must be provided as required in subpart A of part 1806 of this title (RD Instruction 426.2).
( e ) *Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement).* All projects must comply with the requirements of 2 CFR part 180, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension, implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and suspension.
( f ) *Intergovernmental review.* All projects funded under this part are subject to Executive Order 12372 (3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 197), which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. These requirements are found at 2 CFR part 415, subpart C, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Agriculture Programs and Activities” and RD Instruction 1970-I, `Intergovernmental Review,' available in any Agency office or on the Agency's Web site.
( g ) *Uniform administrative requirements.* All projects funded under this part are subject to 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and 2 CFR part 415, General Program Administrative Requirements.
( h ) *Restrictions on lobbying.* All projects funded under this part are subject to 2 CFR part 418, New Restrictions on Lobbying.
( i ) *Requirements for drug-free workplace.* This program is subject to 2 CFR part 421, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).
[68 FR 46078, Aug. 5, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 80730, Dec. 27, 2011; 79 FR 76006, Dec. 19, 2014; 81 FR 7697, Feb. 16, 2016]
#### § 1726.20 Standards and specifications.

All materials, equipment, and construction must meet the minimum requirements of all applicable RUS standards and specifications. (See part 1728 of this chapter, Electric Standards and Specifications for Materials and Construction, which is applicable regardless of the source of funding.)

[69 FR 7109, Feb. 13, 2004]
§ 15c.8 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Age Act; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of the agency's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1141 KA 16-00076
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DONALD SCHWARTZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JEREMY D. SCHWARTZ, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NIAGARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Niagara County Court (Sara Sheldon, J.), dated November 10, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq. ). County Court determined that defendant was a presumptive level three risk by applying the automatic override for a psychological abnormality “that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]), and then granted him a downward departure to a level two risk. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s conclusion that the override applies based on his diagnosis of pedophilia is supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see People v Cobb , 141 AD3d 1174, 1175; People v Ledbetter , 82 AD3d 858, 858, lv denied 17 NY3d 702; see generally People v Andrychuk , 38 AD3d 1242, 1243-1244, lv denied 8 NY3d 816). We also reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in declining to grant him a further downward departure to a level one risk ( see People v Busby , 60 AD3d 1455, 1456; People v Suarez , 52 AD3d 423, 423-424, lv denied 11 NY3d 710; see generally People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 861). “The departure to level two sufficiently addressed the mitigating factors cited by defendant” ( People v Billups , 58 AD3d 425, 426, lv denied 12 NY3d 707).

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX - 11.1
                        Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share
    
                            NET LNNX INC.
    
       STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
    
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
  

                                                  Year Ended        Year Ended 
                                              December 31, 1998  December 31, 1997
<S>                                          <C>                 <C>

Net Loss                                        $  215,415       $   698,704
Loss applicable to common stockholders          $  215,415       $   698,704

Total weighted average number of
  common shares and equivalents                  2,410,826         2,108,945

Net loss per common share                       $    (0.09)      $     (0.55)

</TABLE>
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 
            -           Resource: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Enhancing the Security of Your K-12 School Using an All-Hazards Approach      

# Resource: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Enhancing the Security of Your K-12 School Using an All-Hazards Approach

This fact sheet (PDF, 9 pages) provides tips for how K-12 schools can apply the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach to reducing and removing opportunities for criminal behaviors at public schools. The fact sheet also discusses how schools can incorporate CPTED principles into emergency operations plan (EOP) development. **Learn more**(PDF, 9 pages).
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE ORDER R-08-007

Relating to the Adoption of Regulations to Reduce E missions from Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24

Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

WHEREAS, on October 26, 2007, and November 15, 2007 , the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) conducted public hearings to con sider adoption of regulations to reduce emissions from diesel engines on commercial harbor craft operated within

California waters and 24 nautical miles of the Cali fornia baseline, as set forth in the Initial Statement of Reasons released to the public on September 7, 2007;

WHEREAS, following the public hearing on November 1 5, 2007, the Board adopted Resolution 07-47, in which the Board approved for a doption new section 2299.5 of chapter 5.1 of division 3, title 13, CCR, and new s ection 93118.5 of subchapter 7.5, chapter 1, division 3, title 17, CCR, as set forth in Attachment A thereto, with the

modifications shown in Attachment B and Attachment C thereto;

WHEREAS, in Resolution 07-47, the Board directed th e Executive Officer to adopt the regulations, after making the modified regulatory l anguage and additional supporting documents and information available for public comm ent for a period of 15 days, provided that the Executive Officer shall consider such written comments regarding the modified text as may be submitted during this perio d, shall make modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, a nd shall present the regulations to

the Board for further consideration if he determine s that this is warranted;

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2008, the modified regulations , reflecting the amendments approved by the Board and other changes made to bes t reflect the intent of the Board at the hearing, were made available for public comment for a period of at least 15 days, with the changes to the originally proposed text cl early indicated, in accordance with the provisions of title 1, California Code of Regulatio ns, section 44;

WHEREAS, a number of written comment letters were r eceived during the 15-day comment period and those comments have been conside red by the Executive Officer;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings contained in Resolution 07-47 are incorporated by reference here in.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in accordance with Resolution 07-47, the adoption new section 2299.5 of chapter 5.1 of division 3, title 13, CCR, and new section 93118.5 of subchapter 7.5, chapter 1, division 3, title 17, CC R, are adopted as set forth in

Attachment 1 hereto.Executive Order R-08-007 2

Executed this __2 nd _day of _September , 2008, at Sacramento, California.

___________/s/

___________ James N. Goldstene

Executive Officer

Attachment
§ 1753.7 Plans and specifications (P&S). ( a ) The P&S consist of an RUS contract form, the appropriate RUS specifications, and such additional information and documents needed to provide a clear, accurate, and complete understanding of what is included in the construction.
( b ) 7 CFR 1755.93 provides a list of the RUS forms of telecommunications contracts for use in purchasing telephone materials and equipment and for constructing telephone facilities with loan funds. Also listed is the source where copies may be obtained.
( c ) The appropriate standards and specifications listed in 7 CFR part 1755 shall be included in the P&S. When RUS has not prepared standards and specifications, the borrower shall use all appropriate project specific engineering requirements and specifications prepared by the borrower's engineer. The specifications prepared by the borrower's engineer and based on appropriate project specific engineering requirements shall be subject to review and approval by RUS for all major construction, including major projects which would be exempted from RUS approval under paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) The P&S shall be based on the LD approved by RUS. Section 1753.3 presents the requirements and procedures for obtaining RUS approval for construction that does not conform to the LD approved by RUS.
( e ) RUS approval of P&S is required for construction that is estimated to cost over $500,000 or 25% of the total loan, whichever is less, and for all building construction. P&S for all other construction are exempt from RUS review and approval except that, at the time of contract approval, RUS will examine the plans and specifications for conformity with the loan purposes and to determine that they comply with other requirements of this part.
( f ) RUS will approve only contracts that will provide for at least the following requirements. ( 1 ) *Equal employment opportunity provision.* If this provision is not already in the contract, RUS Contract Form 270, Equal Opportunity Addendum, shall be attached and made a part of the contract.
( 2 ) *Liquidated damages provision.* ( i ) If not covered by the contract, an appropriate liquidated damages provision, in a form prescribed by RUS, shall be included and made a part of the contract
( ii ) The liquidated damages must be based upon the borrower's best estimate of the damages it would incur as a result of the contractor's default.
( 3 ) *Insurance and bond requirements.* ( i ) The insurance provision shall provide coverage as required by 7 CFR 1788.
( ii ) A contractor's bond shall be furnished as required by 7 CFR part 1788.
( iii ) The borrower is responsible for ensuring that its contractor complies with the insurance and bond requirements.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39396, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 17679, Apr. 14, 1994; 64 FR 16605, Apr. 6, 1999; 81 FR 71582, Oct. 18, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69931-69938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28769]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 10-46]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a copy of a letter to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-46 with 
attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of 
Technology.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 69932]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.009


[[Page 69933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.010


[[Page 69934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.011


[[Page 69935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.012


[[Page 69936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.013


[[Page 69937]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.014


[[Page 69938]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16NO10.015

[FR Doc. 2010-28769 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### §§ 1774.5-1774.6 [Reserved]
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 Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, CEO, Treasurer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
     of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.


/s/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, CEO Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
Dated: March 10, 2010
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000829

21-AUG-2014

08:15 AM
#### In the Matter of CNA Insurance Company, Appellant, v Murray Glass, Respondent, and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, .petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 20, 1979, which, *inter alia,*denied the application. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner concedes that it failed to move to stay the arbitration within the 20-day period prescribed by CPLR 7503 (subd [c]). We do not agree that petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to timely respond to the notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioner complains that respondent Glass served the notice of intention to arbitrate on its Manhattan office after dealing with its Queens office. The notice was not forwarded to the Queens office for some five weeks thereafter. This case is readily distinguishable from *Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. (Levy)*(35 AD2d 916). It is undisputed that Glass notified petitioner’s Manhattan office by letter about a week after the subject accident that he intended to make a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. Moreover, a second letter sent by Glass on the same date to the same office requesting no-fault benefit forms was forwarded to petitioner’s Queens office in seven days or less. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,526
<SECURITIES>                                 2,417,512
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,443,038
<PP&E>                                         812,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,255,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,208
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,974,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,255,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               564,193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                362,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            362,444
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   362,444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    27.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    27.04
        

</TABLE>
#### CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. PITTSBURG. S. & N. R. CO. et al. COCHRAN et al., Appellants, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Actions by the Central Trust Company of New York against the Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Railroad ComPany and others, and Frederick B. Cochran and others, etc., against Frank Sullivan Smith, as, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. *Held,*it appearing that the expenditures authorized were very prop£ly 3°®e whi?h seem,.t0 be.necessary f°r the safe and present operation of the railroad> and *at the value of the lien of the apPlants -will not be materially affected thereby, concur in the direction exercised by the Special lerm.