alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RAB/98-06

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Railroad Accident Brief Report

LAX 96 FR 006

HEAD-ON COLLISION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

NACCO, WYOMING

JANUARY 31, 1996

About 2:00 a.m., on January 31, 1996, a Union Pacific Railroad unit coal

train CNAIM004-30 separated between the fourth and fifth locomotive units while

the train was ascending a 1-percent grade. The train’s automatic air brake

system did not hold the train in place and the fifth locomotive unit and all 114

cars began an uncontrolled downhill movement. A helper locomotive en route to

assist the unit train was warned of the runaway train by radio, and the crew

abandoned their train.

About 2:05 a.m. the runaway train struck the helper locomotive and

pushed it about 1 mile to the east switch at Nacco, Wyoming, where a general

derailment of the two helper locomotive units and 66 loaded coal cars occurred.

Propane gas tanks used in switch heating service were punctured during the

derailment. No fire resulted. No injuries were reported on either train. Damages

totaled $8,199,246. The temperature at the time of the accident was -35 ° F and

dropping.

Postaccident examination indicated the train experienced an undesired

emergency brake application at about 1:47 a.m. Following the emergency brake

application, the brake cylinder pressure and air reservoir pressure were lost due

to leaks at the brake cylinder hose crimp fittings. The leaking allowed the

emergency application of the brakes to release, thus allowing the stopped train

to roll down the descending grade. The traincrew had not applied hand brakes

as required by applicable operating rules.

The unit coal train was exerting near the maximum tensile strength of the

couplers at the head of the train. Total tonnage of the train was 15,658 trailing

tons on a 1-percent grade. This amounts to 391,450 pounds per coupler while

the maximum exerted pounds on a coupler should be around 400,000 pounds.

When operating this close to maximum coupler strength, any slippage of the

locomotives could result in the breaking of a coupler.
2

PROBABLE CAUSE

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable

cause of this accident was the failure of the brake cylinder hose fittings to

maintain air in the brake cylinder during extreme cold weather and the failure of

the crew to apply the hand brakes to the separated train. Contributing to the

cause of the accident was Union Pacific management dispatching trains in this

territory with tonnage near the tensile strength of the couplers.

Adopted: August 18, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ADA ALBORS GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv286-MW/MJF

JUAN ALBERTO ALBORS

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 74. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 74, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico 

is the proper venue for this case. Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the 

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Clerk shall take all 

steps necessary to effect the transfer. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the 

complaint does not overcome the finding that the proper venue is in Puerto Rico.

Case 4:20-cv-00286-MW-MJF Document 76 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, ECF No. 75, is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on August 10, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00286-MW-MJF Document 76 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 251 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 251

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2005

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau 
 of Reclamation, to conduct a water resource feasibility study for the 
              Little Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins in Oregon.

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

SECTION 1. LITTLE BUTTE/BEAR CREEK SUBBASINS, OREGON, WATER RESOURCE 
              STUDY.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Little Butte/
Bear Creek Subbasins Water Feasibility Act''.
    (b) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
the Bureau of Reclamation, may participate in the Water for Irrigation, 
Streams and the Economy Project water management feasibility study and 
environmental impact statement in accordance with the ``Memorandum of 
Agreement Between City of Medford and Bureau of Reclamation for the 
Water for Irrigation, Streams, and the Economy Project'', dated July 2, 
2004.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Bureau of Reclamation $500,000 to carry out activities 
        under this Act.
            (2) Non-federal share.--
                    (A) In general.--The non-Federal share shall be 50 
                percent of the total costs of the Bureau of Reclamation 
                in carrying out subsection (b).
                    (B) Form.--The non-Federal share required under 
                subparagraph (A) may be in the form of any in-kind 
                services that the Secretary of the Interior determines 
                would contribute substantially toward the conduct and 
                completion of the study and environmental impact 
                statement required under subsection (b).

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
47.102 Transportation insurance.

(a) The Government generally-

(1) Retains the risk of loss of and/or damage to its property that is not the legal liability of

commercial carriers and

(2) Does not buy insurance coverage for its property in the possession of commercial carriers (40

U.S.C.17307). (See part 28, Bonds and Insurance.)

(b) Under special circumstances the Government may, if such action is considered necessary and in

the Government’s interest, (1) buy insurance coverage for Government property or (2) require the

carrier to (i) assume full responsibility for loss of or damage to the Government property in its

possession and (ii) buy insurance to cover the carrier’s assumed responsibility. The cost of this

insurance to the carrier shall be part of the transportation cost. (The Secretary of the Treasury

prescribes regulations regarding shipments of valuables in 31 CFR parts 361 and 362.)

(c)

(1) If special circumstances dictate the need for the Government to buy insurance coverage, the

contracting officer shall ascertain that-

(i) There is no statutory prohibition; and

(ii) Funds for insurance are available.

(2) The contracting officer shall document the need and authorization for insurance coverage in the

contract file.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.1 - General
§ 4284.1014 Grant closing. ( a ) *Letter of Conditions.* The Agency will notify an approved applicant in writing, setting out the conditions under which the grant will be made.
( b ) *Applicant's intent to meet conditions.* Upon reviewing the conditions and requirements in the letter of conditions, the applicant must complete, sign and return the Agency's “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions,” or, if certain conditions cannot be met, the applicant may propose alternate conditions to the Agency. The Agency must concur with any changes proposed to the letter of conditions by the applicant before the application will be further processed.
( c ) *Grant agreement.* The Agency and the grantee must enter into an “Agriculture Innovation Center Grant Agreement” prior to the advance of funds.
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Tony Kimbro Case No: 5:94cr5018LAC

USM No: 03501-017

Date of Previous Judgment: 29 November 1994

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of : the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

: DENIED. 9 GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 40 Amended Offense Level: 38

Criminal History Category: V Criminal History Category: V

Previous Guideline Range: 360 to Life Amended Guideline Range: 360 to Life

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The sentence remains within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Although the base offense level is reduced by two levels from a level 40 to a level 38, the guideline range does

not change according to the Sentencing Table in Chapter 5, Part A— it remains the same, 360 to life. The 420 month

sentence is still the appropriate sentence.

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 29 November 1994 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 30 September 2008

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. Distsrict Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 5:94-cr-05018-LC Document 142 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 1
#### Home Reporter, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Brooklyn Spectator, Inc., Appellant, and Walter E. Haas et al., Respondents.

Appeal by defendant Brooklyn Spectator, Inc., as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 16, 1969, as denied its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as to it, and plaintiffs cross appeal from so much of the same order as granted the motion of the individual defendants to dismiss the complaint as to them. Order modified, on the law, by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph, which granted the motion of the individual defendants, and substituting therefor a provision denying said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs against defendants appearing and filing briefs separately. In our opinion, the complaint states causes of action against the individual defendants for unfair competition and conspiracy. Our inquiry is limited to *“*whether it states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law” *(Dulberg*v. *Mock,*1 N Y 2d 54, 56). Upon a motion under CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) to dismiss a complaint, it is now fundamental that we look to the substance rather than to the form and that such a motion is solely directed to the inquiry of whether or not the pleading, *considered as a whole,*states a cause of action *(Foley*v. *D’Agostino,*21 A D 2d 60, 64). The complaint at bar, while inartistically drawn and indefinite in certain of its allegations, does contain statements ‘ sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action” (CPLR 3013). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., not voting.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN VARGAS, individually and 

on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-224-AW-GRJ

SQUEAKY KLEAN SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER RECOGNIZING SETTLEMENT

The parties have settled the case. ECF No. 17. Accordingly, all deadlines are 

stayed until April 9, 2021. The parties must move for approval of the settlement by 

then.

SO ORDERED on March 12, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
§ 371.12 Concurrent authority and responsibility to the Administrator. ( a ) *Delegations that preclude the Administrator or each Deputy Administrator or Director from exercising powers or functions.* No delegation or authorization in this part shall preclude the Administrator or each Deputy Administrator or Director from exercising any of the powers or functions or from performing any of the duties conferred upon each, respectively. Any delegation or authorization is subject, at all times, to withdrawal or amendment by the Administrator, and in their respective fields, by each Deputy Administrator or Director. The officers to whom authority is delegated in this part shall: ( 1 ) Maintain close working relationships with the officers to whom they report.
( 2 ) Keep them advised with respect to major problems and developments.
( 3 ) Discuss with them proposed actions involving major policy questions or other important considerations or questions, including matters involving relationships with other Federal agencies, other agencies of the Department, other divisions, staffs, or offices of the agency, or other governmental, private organizations, or groups.
( b ) *Prior authorizations and delegations.* All prior delegations and redelegations of authority relating to any function, program, or activity covered by the statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this part or are amended or revoked. Nothing in this part shall affect the validity of any action taken previously under prior delegations or redelegations of authority or assignments of functions.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 quarterly report of The Furia Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Martin Cohen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Martin Cohen
-----------------------------
Martin Cohen
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
July 6, 2004


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[872 NE2d 1196, 840 NYS2d 890]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank LaPetina, Appellant.

Argued June 7, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*White & White,*New York City *(Brendan White*and *Diarmuid White*of counsel), for appellant.

*855
      *Richard A. Brown, District Attorney,*Kew Gardens *(Linda Cantoni*and *John M. Castellano*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree, two counts of assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division reversed the assault convictions, concluding that a retrial was warranted due to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for a self-defense charge (Penal Law § 35.15). With respect to the burglary conviction, the Appellate Division reduced the offense to burglary in the second degree due to a deficiency in the indictment. But the Court rejected defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a new trial on the burglary charge because the trial court failed to give a “choice of evils” instruction (Penal Law § 35.05).

In this Court, defendant asserts that he was entitled to a Penal Law § 35.05 charge for the burglary offense. This contention is not preserved for review in this Court because defendant failed to alert the trial court that, in addition to the Penal Law § 35.15 self-defense instruction discussed during the charge conference, he was also seeking a “choice of evils” instruction *(see*Penal Law § 35.05; *People v Craig,*78 NY2d 616 [1991]). Defendant’s alternative claim that, having reversed his assault convictions, the Appellate Division should have reversed the burglary conviction because it was “contaminated” by the charging error associated with the assault counts is without merit.

We further reject defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in precluding admission of photographs of an injury suffered by a person who was not present during the altercation involving defendant. The court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the proffered evidence was collateral and that its prejudicial effect would outweigh any potential probative value *(see People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282 [1983]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
§ 4279.215 Credit evaluation. ( a ) Lenders must analyze all credit factors associated with each proposed loan and apply its professional judgment to determine that the credit factors, considered in combination, to ensure loan repayment. The Lender must have an adequate underwriting process to ensure that loans are reviewed by someone other than the originating officer. The Agency will only guarantee loans that are financially sound and feasible with reasonable assurance of repayment.
( b ) In its credit evaluation, the Agency will consider the following factors: ( 1 ) The feasibility of the Project and Borrower and likelihood that the Project and Borrower will produce sufficient revenues to service the Project's debt obligations over the life of the loan guarantee and result in sufficient returns to investors;
( 2 ) Project and Borrower debt structure and characteristics and debt repayment ability;
( 3 ) Revenues of the Project and Borrower, strength and duration of off-take contracts and counterparty agreements, market demand and competitive position;
( 4 ) Technical feasibility, demonstrated performance of the technology and readiness to commercialize the technology;
( 5 ) Ownership structure of the Project and Borrower, strength of ownership and sponsors, commitment and amount of equity investment from ownership, sponsors and other equity investors;
( 6 ) Operational management and experience;
( 7 ) Complexity of construction/completion, terms of construction contracts, experience and financial strength of the construction contractor or engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor;
( 8 ) Availability and depth of resource/feedstock market, strength and duration of purchase agreements, and availability of substitutes;
( 9 ) Contracts and intellectual property rights, and state and local regulations;
( 10 ) Energy, infrastructure and environmental considerations;
( 11 ) The extent to which Project Costs are funded by the guaranteed loan or other Federal and non-Federal governmental assistance such as grants, tax credits, or other loan guarantees;
( 12 ) Economic safeguards of the Project including contingency reserve funds and protections and safeguards provided to the Agency and Lender in the event of default through loan collateral and ownership and sponsorship guarantors, and;
( 13 ) Other criteria that the Agency deems relevant.
§ 520.3 Policy. ( a ) It is ARS policy to comply with the provisions of NEPA and related laws and policies.
( b ) Environmental documents should be concise, written in plain language, and address the issues pertinent to the decision being made.
( c ) Environmental documents may be substituted or combined with other reports which serve to facilitate decisionmaking.
( d ) Costs of analyses and environmental documents are to be planned for during the budgetary process for the plan, program, or project. Special provisions for financing NEPA process activities which are unanticipated and extraordinary may be made in the Office of the Administrator of ARS.
( e ) ARS personnel will cooperate with other agencies, States, contractors, or other entities proposing to undertake activities involving the ARS to assure that NEPA considerations are addressed early in the planning process to avoid delays and conflicts as required by 40 CFR 1501.2.
( f ) For some activities, project participants outside ARS may be required to provide data and documentation. When an applicant or contractor prepares an environmental assessment (EA) or a contractor prepares an environmental impact statement (EIS), the activities shall be carried out according to 40 CFR 1506.5.
( g ) Environmental documents, decision notices, and records of decision must be made available for review by the public. There shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental analysis process (40 CFR 1501.7).
( h ) The concepts of tiering to eliminate repetitive discussions applicable to EIS's (40 CFR part 1502) are also applicable to EA's.
( i ) ARS personnel may adopt an existing EA or EIS when a proposed action is substantially the same as the action for which the existing EA or EIS was prepared (40 CFR 1506.3 (b)).
( j ) ARS personnel may incorporate by reference any existing documents in order to reduce the bulk of an EA or EIS (40 CFR 1502.21).
( k ) After prior consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, ARS personnel may forego preparation of an EA or EIS in emergency situations (40 CFR 1506.11).
22.1309 Actions because of noncompliance.       The contracting officer must take necessary action as soon as possible upon notification by the appropriate agency official to implement any sanctions imposed on a contractor by the Department of Labor for violations of the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans. These sanctions (see 41 CFR 60-300.66) may include-                                       (a) 						            Withholding progress payments;                                          (b) 						            Termination or suspension of the contract; or                                          (c) 						            Debarment of the contractor.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 22.13 - Equal Opportunity for Veterans