alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Manhattan Gear and Instrument Co., Respondent, v. 2350 Linden Blvd. Corp. et al., Appellants.

In an action to compel specific performance of an option for the purchase of real property, defendants appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 22, 1966, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed specific performance. Order and judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, and summary judgment directed dismissing the complaint. The option agreement, contained in the lease of certain premises to plaintiff, provided that plaintiff “ within three (3) years from the date of occupancy shall have the right and option to purchase the premises” and that “ Such option must be exercised upon three (3) months written notice to landlord”. The date of occupancy, as claimed by plaintiff, was August 28, 1962; the written notice, purporting to exercise the option, was given August 4, 1965. In our opinion, the notice was untimely. By its terms, the option privilege was required to be exercised by notice given not later than three months prior to the expiration of the option period on August 28, 1965. Accordingly, the offer under the option terminated on May 28, 1965; and after that date there was no offer in existence which could be accepted by plaintiff *(Noble*v. *Higgins,*214 App. Div. 135, affid. 243 N. Y. 538; *Mason*v. *Payne,*47 Mo. 517). Since the material facts are undisputed and establish that defendants have a good defense to the action, summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted, even though defendants did not ask for that relief at Special Term (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]; *De Rosa*v. *Slattery Contr. Co.,*14 A D 2d 278, affd. 12 N Y 2d 735). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., concurs in the reversal of the order and judgment, but dissents from the grant of summary judgment to defendants, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the option agreement in the lease is ambiguous as to the time limit for service of the notice exercising the option. This ambiguity is pointed up by the fact that the majority in this court is now holding that the notice exercising the option was untimely, while on the other hand it is implicit in Special Term’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff that that court believed the notice exercising the option was timely. In view of this obvious ambiguity, neither party should be granted summary judgment, and proof should be taken at trial as to the circumstances showing the parties’ intent with respect to the time limit for service of the notice exercising the option. The New York case relied on by the majority is readily distinguishable, since the option agreement there involved was far different from the one at b'ar. The out-of-State case cited is, of course, not a binding authority in New York; and, moreover, I disagree with its holding. I vote to reverse and deny summary judgment as to all parties.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2382 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a priority for the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs in processing certain claims for compensation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mr. COOK (for himself and Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a priority 

for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in processing certain claims for compensation. 

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 ‘‘Prioritizing Urgent 

5 Claims for Veterans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRIORITY FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS OF THE DE7 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 

9 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following new section: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2382 IH

1 ‘‘§ 5109C. Priority for processing claims 

2 ‘‘In processing claims for compensation under this 

3 chapter, the Secretary shall provide the following claim4 ants with priority over other claimants: 

5 ‘‘(1) Veterans who have attained the age of 70. 

6 ‘‘(2) Veterans who are terminally ill. 

7 ‘‘(3) Veterans with life-threatening illnesses.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

10 after the item relating to section 5109B the following new 

11 item: 

‘‘5109C. Priority for processing claims.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 29.3527 Leaf structure.

The cell development of a leaf as indicated by its porosity. (See Elements of Quality, § 29.3586.)

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to their knowledge:

(1)          this periodic report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          the information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced BioEnergy, LLC.
| Dated: August 14, 2006 |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                    |
| * *               | * *                | *Revis L. Stephenson III* | * * |
|                   | Revis L. Stephenson     |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    | *Robert W. Holmes* |   |
|                   |                    | Robert W. Holmes |   |
|                   | Treasurer               |
|                        |                         |  |  |  |

 

----
§ 2903.14 Conflicts of interest and confidentiality. ( a ) During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may impact review or evaluation. Determinations of conflicts of interest will be based on the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution. The program announcement will specify the methodology for determining such autonomy.
( b ) Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of the reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of reviewers will be made available in such a way that the reviewers cannot be identified with the review of any particular application.
118 STAT. 2258 PUBLIC LAW 108–403—OCT. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5039:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 22, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–403

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at United

States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Eva Holtzman Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Eva Holtzman Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Eva Holtzman

Post Office’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 5039]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 4:03CR60-001

SHARON SHERMAN HALL

__________________________/

ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

This matter came before the Court on a petition alleging that the

defendant violated the conditions of her supervised release as outlined in

Probation Form 12C filed on January 29, 2008.

The matter was heard on March 18, 2008, and the Court found that the

defendant violated the terms and conditions of her supervised release. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant be continued on supervised

release with the following modifications: 

The defendant shall pay restitution in monthly installments of $100

starting April 1, 2008.

The defendant shall apply for child support. 

All other terms and conditions previously imposed shall remain in full force and

effect. Defendant shall appear before this Court at 1:30 p.m. on June 16, 2008,

to report on the status of her restitution payments and efforts to obtain child

support.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00060-SPM-WCS Document 39 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ISAAC BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:03cv326-WS/WCS

JAMES V. CROSBY, 

DR. PAREKH,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is again before me upon referral from the office of the clerk.

This court's order entered May 2, 2005, directed Plaintiff to advise the court

whether or not he wished to pursue this lawsuit in light of his release from custody. A

copy of the order was mailed to his probation officer for delivery to the Plaintiff. That

order has not been returned and Plaintiff has not filed a response.

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734

(1962). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to

obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.)

Case 4:03-cv-00326-WS-WCS Document 26 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 4:03cv326-WS/WCS

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case,

his complaint should be dismissed.

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 20, 2005. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO PARTIES

Within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation, a party may

serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party

may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. 

Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case 4:03-cv-00326-WS-WCS Document 26 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 3406
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3406.4 Purpose of the program. ( a ) The Department of Agriculture and the Nation depend upon sound programs in the food and agricultural sciences at the Nation's colleges and universities to produce well trained professionals for careers in the food and agricultural sciences. The capacity of institutions to offer suitable programs in the food and agricultural sciences to meet the Nation's need for a well trained work force in the food and agricultural sciences is a proper concern for the Department.
( b ) Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with the 1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. Through its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the Department has borne the responsibility for helping these institutions develop to their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of students and the needs of the Nation.
( c ) The institutional capacity building grants program is intended to stimulate development of quality education and research programs at these institutions in order that they may better assist the Department, on behalf of the Nation, in its mission of providing a professional work force in the food and agricultural sciences.
( d ) This program is designed specifically to build the institutional teaching and research capacities of the 1890 land-grant institutions through cooperative programs with Federal and non-Federal entities. The program is competitive among the 1890 Institutions and encourages matching funds on the part of the States, private organizations, and other non-Federal entities to encourage expanded linkages with 1890 Institutions as performers of research and education, and as developers of scientific and professional talent for the United States food and agricultural system. In addition, through this program, NIFA will strive to increase the overall pool of qualified job applicants from underrepresented groups in order to make significant progress toward achieving the objectives of work force diversity within the Federal Government, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Editorial Note on Part 300
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 300.3 Reference Manual A. ( a ) The Reference Manual for Administration, Procedures, and Policies of the National Seed Health System, which was published on February 25, 2000, by the National Seed Health System (NSHS), has been approved for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
( b ) *Availability.* Copies of Reference Manual A: ( 1 ) Are available for inspection at the APHIS Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html*; or
( 2 ) May be obtained by writing to Phytosanitary Issues Management, Operational Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; or
( 3 ) May be viewed on the APHIS Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/accreditation .*
A Factsheet from Social Security
_______________________________________________________________
                                   Social Security Administration
                                   February 1997
 
                     How to Reach Social Security
  
You don't need to visit a Social Security office to reach
Social Security.
 
*   Call Social Security's toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213,
    from 7AM to 7PM, Monday to Friday. Services provided by
    Social Security representatives between 7AM and 7PM include
    answers to questions, information about programs and
    publications, and making appointments at local offices. 
    (The phone lines are busiest at the beginning of the month.)
  
    If you have a touch-tone phone, recorded information and
    services are available 24 hours a day, including weekends
    and holidays, at 1-800-772-1213.
 
    People who are deaf or hard of hearing may call our
    toll-free "TTY" number, 1-800-325-0778, between 7AM and 7PM,
    Monday through Friday. 
 
*   Use Internet to get information. Social Security Online,
    Social Security's home page at http://www.ssa.gov, includes
 
    --   information about programs and publications, 
    --   an online form that lets you request a copy of your
         earnings record, and 
    --   links to related Internet pages. More than 500 of our
         local offices have individual pages to serve you better.
 
*   If you have a touch-tone phone and a fax machine, call our
    toll-free number,  1-888-475-7000 to request copies of 
    Social Security documents in our FAX Catalog. 
 
    Social Security's FAX Catalog is easy to use. When you call,
    a voice menu leads you through the simple steps to receive
    documents you seek. Available documents include factsheets,
    information in foreign languages, talking points on subjects
    of public interest, research tables and actuarial reports. 
 
*   If you have a problem, first try calling our 800 number or
    contacting your local office. Your local office is listed in
    the phone book blue pages under "U.S. Government." If you
    still need additional help you may write to the Office of
    Public Inquiries at: 
 
         Social Security Administration 
         Office of Public Inquiries 
         6401 Security Blvd. 
         Room 4-C-5 Annex 
         Baltimore, MD 21235 
 
*   If you are an organization or government agency and you need
    several copies of a publication, contact Social Security's
    Public Information Distribution Center (PIDC).  Call 
    1-410-965-0945 or send a fax to 1-410-965-0696 to have
    multiple copies of Social Security publications mailed to
    you by the PIDC.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3415

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3415 appear at 76 FR 4811, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3415.13 Availability of information.

Information regarding the peer review process will be made available to the extent permitted under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a.), and implementing Departmental regulations (part 1 of this title).
EXHIBIT 32.2



July 31, 2009

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano
|Michael J. Castellano       
|Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
2006-0622.

#### Evans v. Gowdown.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
• I -

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Plaintiff,


### v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. Prince George's County Police Services 

### et at., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED OCT 302009 Clerk, 

## u.s. District 

### and Bankruptcy Courts


# 09 2U35

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs 

### pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant the 

### informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Jarrell v. 

### Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 

### see Ashcroft v. 

### Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); 

### Ciralsky v. 

### CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of

### resjudicata applies. 

### Brown v. 

### Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

# ·.. 

# - ...' 

### Plaintiff, a resident ofUpper Marlboro, Maryland, sues police officers in Palmer Park, Maryland, for $100,000. The complaint consists ofone page and a stack ofunexplained attachments. The allegations are incomprehensible and, thus, fail to provide any notice ofa claim and the basis offederal courtjurisdiction. A separate order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

# C2~~. United States District Judge Date: October

# .....L.!-, 2009

2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2412 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to consider the best interest of the veteran when determining 

whether the veteran should receive certain contracted health care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2013 

Mr. BARBER (for himself and Mr. HECK of Nevada) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to consider the best interest 

of the veteran when determining whether the veteran 

should receive certain contracted health care. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Health Ac5 cess Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2412 IH

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF CONTRACT CARE AUTHORITY 

2 FOR HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF VETERANS. 

3 Section 1703 of title 38, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘When De6 partment facilities’’ and everything that follows 

7 through ‘‘required,’’ and inserting ‘‘In any case de8 scribed in subsection (e)(1),’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 section: 

11 ‘‘(e) ELIGIBILITY.—(1) A case described in this para12 graph is any case— 

13 ‘‘(A) when Department facilities are not capable 

14 of furnishing— 

15 ‘‘(i) economical hospital care or medical 

16 services because of geographical inaccessibility; 

17 or 

18 ‘‘(ii) the care or services required; or 

19 ‘‘(B) in which a physician of the Department 

20 determines that it is in the best interest of a veteran 

21 to receive hospital or medical services furnished in a 

22 non-Department facility in accordance with sub23 section (a). 

24 ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall determine whether or not 

25 to furnish to a veteran care or services in a non-Depart26 ment facility pursuant to this section by the date that is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2412 IH

1 30 days after the date on which the veteran requests such 

2 care or services.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:43:07-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office