alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vincent Valenti, Appellant, v Vincent Chanice, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 13, 1978, which was in favor of defendant and dismissed the action, upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict for defendant on the issue of damages following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motions to preclude and for a directed verdict are denied, and the action is remitted to Trial Term for determination of the question of damages. When defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of medical reports, and in fact had copies of such reports prior to the trial on the question of damages, he may not wait until immediately prior to the commencement of the trial on damages to seek preclusion for the alleged failure to comply with the rules governing the exchange of medical information (see 22 NYCRR Part 672). To do so would result in extreme surprise and prejudice to the plaintiff, antithetical to the purpose of such rules. Indeed, the rules anticipate that normally a defect in compliance should be addressed at the calendar stage of litigation (see 22 NYCRR 672.6, 672.10). Nor do we find the discrepancy concerning the identity of the examining physician to be so significant as to justify total preclusion. There is only one doctor’s report in issue and the identity of the examining physician (one of two associates in the same office) may be readily ascertained. There is neither surprise nor prejudice to the defendant and no persuasive basis to invoke the sanction of preclusion. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00392

- CR

CHANCE ROACH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 185th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1394753).

TO THE 185TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 16th day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on April 25, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contain s no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 16, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion de livered by Justice Higley.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 23, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
# L_2021141EN.01002101.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 141/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 141/21

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2021/672

of 23 April 2021

implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

| (2) | The entry for one person should be deleted as he is deceased. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The entry for one person should be deleted as he is deceased.

| (3) | Annexes II and IV to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annexes II and IV to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annexes II and IV to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. P. ZACARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

1

---

ANNEX

Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Annex II (List of persons and entities referred to in Article 8(2)), Part A (Persons), entry 10 (concerning AL-GAOUD, Abdelmajid) is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Annex II (List of persons and entities referred to in Article 8(2)), Part A (Persons), entry 10 (concerning AL-GAOUD, Abdelmajid) is deleted;

| (2) | in Annex IV (List of persons and entities referred to in Article 9(2)), Part A (Persons), entry 10 (concerning AL-GAOUD, Abdelmajid) is deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in Annex IV (List of persons and entities referred to in Article 9(2)), Part A (Persons), entry 10 (concerning AL-GAOUD, Abdelmajid) is deleted.

---
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Benjamin De Benedetto, Respondent, and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, the Government Employees Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 19, 1978, which, *inter alia,*vacated the award. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application denied. The arbitrator’s reliance on evidence of appellant’s office practice and mailing procedure in his determination of the issue of mailing under section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was not wholly irrational and was therefore not a ground for vacatur of the award under the prevailing standard of review for compulsory arbitration (see *Matter of Garcia v Federal Ins. Co.,*46 NY2d 1040; cf. *Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood,*26 NY2d 493; *Caso v Coffey, 41*NY2d 153). Furthermore, the arbitrator did not exceed his power by finding that coverage was terminated on July 3, 1977, rather than on April 3, 1977, the termination date orginally asserted by appellant. The scope of the controversy submitted to arbitration is governed by the demand for arbitration, which, in this case, indicates that the issue to be resolved was the general question of the insured’s coverage as of the date of the accident, September 11,1977. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
FTIR and GPC Sanitized
#### § 27.21 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71463-71464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,695]


Woodland Mills Corporation Mill Spring, NC; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    By application dated July 22, 2010 petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding the eligibility of workers and former workers 
of Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North Carolina, to apply 
for Trade Adjustment Assistance. On August 4, 2010, the Department 
issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration. The Department's Notice was published in the Federal 
Register on August 13, 2010 (75 FR 49524). Workers at the subject firm 
are engaged in employment related to the production of cotton yarn.
    The information collected during the reconsideration investigation 
revealed

[[Page 71464]]

that, during the period of investigation, imports of articles directly 
incorporating cotton yarn produced outside the United States that are 
like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating 
cotton yarn produced by Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North 
Carolina Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North Carolina had 
increased, and the increased imports contributed importantly to worker 
separations and declines in sales and production at the afore-mentioned 
firm.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained during the 
reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of Woodland 
Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North Carolina, who are engaged in 
employment related to the production of cotton yarn, meet the worker 
group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I 
make the following certification:

    ``All workers of Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, North 
Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after March 10, 2009, through two years from the date of this 
revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with 
total or partial separation from employment on date of certification 
through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.''


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of November, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-29430 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### § 319.69-3 Entry inspection.

All packing materials shall be subject to inspection at time of entry.
# L_2021180EN.01015201.xml

| 21.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 180/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 180/152

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2021/815

of 20 May 2021

implementing Decision 2014/450/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Sudan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/450/CFSP of 10 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Sudan and repealing Decision 2011/423/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 July 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/450/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 July 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/450/CFSP.

| (2) | On 5 March 2021 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1591(2005) approved the removal of one person from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 5 March 2021 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1591(2005) approved the removal of one person from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | The Annex to Decision 2014/450/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Annex to Decision 2014/450/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2014/450/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. SANTOS SILVA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 203, 11.7.2014, p. 106.

1

---

ANNEX

In the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/450/CFSP, the entry for the following person is deleted:

| 3. | SHAREIF, Adam. |
| --- | --- |

3.

SHAREIF, Adam.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4003-WS

CARL LOWE, 4:05cv485-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 608)

docketed April 18, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

application for relief from judgment (doc. 603) and Rule 60(b) motion (doc. 605) be

summarily dismissed. The defendant has filed objections (doc. 609) to the report and

recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 608) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:89-cr-04003-WS-WCS Document 610 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:89cr4003-WS

2. The defendant’s application for relief from judgment (doc. 603) and Rule 60(b)

motion (doc. 605) are hereby summarily DISMISSED. 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:05cv485-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this May 23, 2006.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04003-WS-WCS Document 610 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In.the Matter of Eugene Gaffney et al., Petitioners, v Department of State of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Secretary of State, dated April 3, 1978. and made after a hearing, which found that petitioners had demonstrated untrustworthiness and suspended the license of petitioner Gaffney for a period of three months. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The individual petitioner was properly served with notice of the charge against him pursuant to section 441-e of the Real Property Law, which provides for service of a notice of hearing by personal delivery or "by mailing same by registered mail to the last known business address” of the licensee. Nor can he successfully complain of a lack of "apodictic specification”. Furthermore, the complaint is clear and certain in its specification of the charge of "untrustworthiness” and the basis therefor. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20408 

Conference Calendar

__________________

GLENN ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GLADYS M. OAKLEY, Judge,

 Defendant-Appellee,

and

GEORGIA ANDERSON,

 Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-720

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenn Franklin Anderson appeals from the denial of his

motion for a preliminary injunction in which he sought to

"[e]njoin [p]rocess in Cause No. 92L-866 before the County Court

at Law Austin County Texas." The district court did not abuse
No. 95-20408

-2-

its discretion in denying Anderson's motion for a preliminary

injunction. Anderson failed to demonstrate a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits because the district court

lacked federal jurisdiction. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263

U.S. 413, 416 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 475 (1983). All pending motions are

DENIED.

We caution Anderson that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Anderson is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
§ 3550.11 State Director assessment of homeownership education. ( a ) State Directors will assess the availability of certified homeownership education in their respective states on an as-needed basis but at a minimum every three years and maintain an updated listing of providers and their reasonable costs.
( b ) The order of preference for homeownership education formats will be determined by the Agency based on factors such as industry practice and availability.
( c ) Homeownership education must include a letter or certificate of completion and be provided by homeownership education counselors that are certified by any of the following: ( 1 ) The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
( 2 ) NeighborWorks America (NWA);
( 3 ) The National Federation of Housing Counselors (NFHC);
( 4 ) National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC); or
( 5 ) The State Housing Finance Agency or other qualified organization approved by the State Director.
( d ) The provider will issue a letter or certificate of completion to document that the borrower has satisfactory knowledge of these minimum topics: ( 1 ) Preparing for homeownership (evaluate readiness to go from rental to homeownership),
( 2 ) Budgeting (pre and post-purchase),
( 3 ) Credit counseling,
( 4 ) Shopping for a home,
( 5 ) Lender differences (predatory lending),
( 6 ) Obtaining a mortgage (mortgage process, different types of mortgages),
( 7 ) Loan closing (closing process, documentation, closing costs),
( 8 ) Post-occupancy counseling (delinquency and foreclosure prevention),
( 9 ) Life as a homeowner (homeowner warranties, maintenance and repairs),
( e ) The provider may tailor the homeownership education training to the needs of the borrower to ensure satisfactory knowledge of the topics listed in paragraph (d) of this section.
[72 FR 5156, Feb. 5, 2007, as amended at 87 FR 6770, Feb. 7, 2022]
#### Janet Kern et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Marlene Karnbach et al., Defendants. Gary J. Sher, Appellant-Respondent; Norman Rose, Respondent-Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 5, 1966, determining the lien of an outgoing attorney on a percentage basis, reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The findings of fact of the Special Referee as to the value of the outgoing attorney’s services have not been considered. We are in accord with the determination of the learned Special Referee that this is not a dispute between attorney and client, but is in fact between the incoming and outgoing attorneys, despite the fact that the plaintiffs are nominal parties to the appeals. Such being the ease, the outgoing attorney should he required to elect, either to have his lien determined on the basis of a presently-fixed dollar amount, *quantum*meruit, or, still on the basis of *quantum meruit,*to take a contingent percentage instead, to be determined at the conclusion of the case (cf. *Podbielski*v. *Conrad,*286 App. Div. 1040; *Corpino*v. *Aversano,*5 A D 2d 1009; *Beubenbaum*v. *B. & H. Express,*6 A D 2d 47, 48, 49). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Nolan, JJ., concur.
§ 301.80 Quarantine; restriction on interstate movement of specified regulated articles. ( a ) *Notice of quarantine.* Under the authority of sections 411, 412, 414, and 434 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711, 7712, 7714, and 7754), the Secretary of Agriculture quarantines the States of North Carolina and South Carolina in order to prevent the spread of witchweed (*Striga* spp.), a parasitic plant that causes a dangerous disease of corn, sorghum, and other crops of the grass family and is not widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States. Through the aforementioned authorities, the Secretary imposes a quarantine on the States of North Carolina and South Carolina with respect to the interstate movement from those States of regulated articles, issues regulations in this subpart governing the movement of such articles, and gives notice of this quarantine action.
( b ) *Quarantine restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles.* No common carrier or other person shall move interstate from any quarantined State any regulated articles, except in accordance with the conditions prescribed in this subpart.
( c ) *List of regulated articles.* The Deputy Administrator has determined that certain articles present a hazard of spread of witchweed. A list of all such regulated articles is found on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/SA_Weeds/SA_Noxious_Weeds_Program .* Lists of all regulated articles may also be obtained by request from any local Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) office; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd .*
( d ) *Normal process for designating additional regulated articles.* ( 1 ) If the Deputy Administrator determines that an article not already listed at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/SA_Weeds/SA_Noxious_Weeds_Program* presents a hazard of spread of witchweed, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register proposing to designate the article as a regulated article for witchweed. The notice will provide the basis for this determination, and will request public comment.
( 2 ) If no comments are received on the notice, or if the comments do not change the Deputy Administrator's determination, APHIS will publish a second notice in the Federal Register designating the article as a regulated article for witchweed and listing it.
( e ) *Immediate designation of regulated articles.* An inspector may designate any other article, product, or means of conveyance as a regulated article, if the inspector determines that it presents a hazard of spread of witchweed, and after the person in possession of the article has been so notified.
[87 FR 80011, Dec. 29, 2022]