alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mary E. Lewin, Deceased. Leah McKune, as Guardian of William H. Lewin, an Incompetent, Respondent; Winifred S. Robertson et al., Appellants.

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate in a construction proceeding wherein it was determined that the terms of a will were governed by the statute in effect at date of death of testatrix. On June 17, 1953, Mary Ellen Lewin executed a will which provided, in part: “ Second: I give, devise and bequeath unto my beloved husband, William H. Lewin, the share and interest in my estate to which he is entitled under the Decedent Estate Law of the State of New York.” Mrs. Lewin died on September 27, 1965 leaving her husband and certain residuary legatees. When the will was drafted, subdivision 4 of section 83 of the Decedent Estate Law provided that, under the circumstances here presented, the surviving spouse would take $10,000 and one half of the residue. This section was amended in 1963 to provide that the entire estate would go to the surviving spouse in such circumstances. The terms of the will are unambiguous and no extrinsic evidence is required for the determination of the issue presented. The general rule is that a will takes effect not at the time of execution but on the death of the testator *(St. John*v. *Andrews Inst. for Girls,*191 N. Y. 254) and wey are not persuaded that there has been any change in the rule that for “ the meaning and effect of the will we are to look to the law at the time of the testator’s death ” *(Matter of Gaffken,*197 App. Div. 257, 259, affd. 233 N. Y. 688); and the court in *Gaffken (supra),*further stated *“*Otherwise new legislation would never begin to take effect until after the prior wills had been outlived ”. Testators must be assumed to know that the Statute of Distributions can be changed at any time and that distributive shares could be increased or diminished at any time after the execution of a will *(Matter of Koch,*282 N. Y. 462; *Matter of Owens,*186 Misc. 777). The enactment, after the execution of a will, of an amendment to a statutory rule for distribution of an estate, determines the construction to be placed on the document; and, to give the statute such a construction, does not operate to make it retrospective in its operation, since it actually affects no rights vested before its passage. Order affirmed, with costs to all parties filing briefs payable from the estate. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.
#### § 56.71 Willful violation of the regulations.

Any willful violation of the regulations in this part or the Act.

[71 FR 42011, July 24, 2006]
#### § 52.39 Issuance of certificate of sampling.

Each inspector and each licensed sampler shall prepare and sign a certificate of sampling to cover the samples drawn by the respective person, except that in-plant inspectors who inspect the samples which they have drawn need not prepare a certificate of sampling. One copy of each certificate of sampling prepared shall be retained by the licensed sampler and the original and all other copies thereof shall be disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the Administrator.

[51 FR 20445, June 5, 1986]
NTSB/HAB-02/11 

E PLURIBUS UNUM

NATIONAL TRA S PORTAT OI N

BOARD

SAFE T Y

N

National Transportation Safety Board 

Washington, D.C. 20594 

Highway Accident Brief

Accident No.: HWY-98-SH-008

Accident Type: Collision with jackknifed semitrailer 

Location: Mendota, California 

Date and Time: November 16, 1997; 9:42 a.m. 

Vehicle 1 (V1): 1991 Freightliner tractor with a double flatbed semitrailer 

Vehicle 2 (V2): 1982 Plymouth Voyager van 

Fatalities/Injuries: 11 fatalities, 1 serious and 1 minor injury 

Accident Description 

A witness behind the van stated that the van’s driver drove into the opposing lane of 

State Route 180 traffic at about 55 mph to pass two cars. (See figure 1.) The truckdriver 

stated that he saw the van’s headlights through the fog traveling toward him in his lane. 

He said he braked, skidded, and jackknifed into the opposing lane. The van struck the 

right side of the tractor. Eleven of the 12 van occupants were killed. The right-rear van 

passenger sustained serious injuries, and the truckdriver sustained minor injuries. 

State/Federal Oversight 

California has adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations with some 

variances; none of the variances were pertinent to the carrier or driver at the time of the 

accident. The carrier had been inspected under the California Highway Patrol’s Biennial 

Inspection of Terminals Program in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999. In June 1997, the carrier 

received an unsatisfactory rating, mostly for hours-of-service violations and vehicle 

defects. In September 1997, the carrier was reinspected and given a satisfactory rating. 
NTSB/HAB-02/11 

2 

V2

at impact

V1

at impact

V1

pre-crash

V2

pre-crash

State Route 180

Source: NTSB

(not to scale)

N

Mendota, California

(shoulder)

(shoulder)

Figure 1. Accident diagram. 

Probable Cause 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the 

accident was the van driver’s poor judgment in attempting to pass other vehicles in the 

fog. 

Adopted: September 17, 2002
37.304 Contract clauses.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-4, Payment by Government to

Contractor, in solicitations and contracts solely for dismantling, demolition, or removal of

improvements whenever the contracting officer determines that the Government shall make

payment to the contractor in addition to any title to property that the contractor may receive under

the contract. If the contracting officer determines that all material resulting from the dismantling or

demolition work is to be retained by the Government, use the basic clause with its AlternateI.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-5, Payment by Contractor to Government

in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements whenever the

contractor is to receive title to dismantled or demolished property and a net amount of compensation

is due to the Government, except if the contracting officer determines that it would be advantageous

to the Government for the contractor to pay in increments and the Government to transfer title to

the contractor for increments of property only upon receipt of those payments.

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-6, Incremental Payment by Contractor to

Government, in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements

if (l) the contractor is to receive title to dismantled or demolished property and a net amount of

compensation is due the Government, and (2) the contracting officer determines that it would be

advantageous to the Government for the contractor to pay in increments, and for the Government to

transfer title to the contractor for increments of property only upon receipt of those payments. This

determination may be appropriate, for example, if it encourages greater competition or participation

of small business concerns.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.3 - Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements
15.403-5 Instructions for submission	of certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified	cost or pricing data.       (a)                    						            Taking into consideration the	policy at 15.402, the contracting	officer shall specify in the solicitation (see 15.408(l) and (m))-                                                         (1)                          								                Whether	certified cost or pricing data are required;                                                            (2)                          								                That, in	lieu of submitting certified cost or pricing data, the offeror may	submit a request for exception from the requirement to submit certified	cost or pricing data;                                                            (3)                          								                Any requirement	for data other than certified cost or pricing data; and                                                            (4)                          								                The requirement	for necessary preaward or postaward access to offeror’s records.                                                                             (b)                                                         (1)                         *Format	for submission of certified cost or pricing data*. When certification	is required, the contracting officer may require submission of certified	cost or pricing data in the format indicated in Table  15-2 of 15.408, specify an alternative	format, or permit submission in the contractor’s format (See 15.408(l)(1)), unless	the data are required to be submitted on one of the termination	forms specified in subpart  49.6.                                                            (2)                         *Format	for submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data*.	When required by the contracting officer, data other than certified	cost or pricing data may be submitted in the offeror’s own format	unless the contracting officer decides that use of a specific format	is essential for evaluating and determining that the price is fair	and reasonable and the format has been described in the solicitation.                                                            (3)                         *Format	for submission of data supporting forward pricing rate agreements*.	Data supporting forward pricing rate agreements or final indirect	cost proposals shall be submitted in a form acceptable to the contracting	officer.    **Parent topic:** 15.403 Obtaining certified cost or pricing data.
9.108 Prohibition on contracting with

inverted domestic corporations.

9.108-1 Definitions.

9.108-2 Prohibition.

9.108-3 Representation by the offeror.

9.108-4 Waiver.

9.108-5 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Institutional Mortgage Fund L.P. Financial Statements for the six months
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             12-31-97
<PERIOD-END>                                  06-30-97
<CASH>                                       1,100,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,482,010
<ALLOWANCES>                              (16,524,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,980<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,191,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,504
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,173,652<F2>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,191,156
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               335,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   283,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other Assets
<F2>Includes Limited Partners Equity of $8,391,520, general partners deficit
of ($217,868).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 502.10 Photographs by visitors or for news, advertising, or commercial purposes.

Photographs may be taken by visitors or for news purposes without prior permission. Photographs for advertising and commercial purposes may be taken at BARC only with the prior written approval of the Director, Beltsville Area.

[61 FR 51212, Oct. 1, 1996]
#### § 52.783 Ascertaining the grade of a lot.

The grade of a lot of canned red tart pitted cherries covered by these standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products (§§ 52.1 to 52.87).
46.315 Certificate of conformance.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-15, Certificate of Conformance, in

solicitations and contracts for supplies or services when the conditions in 46.504 apply.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
# 36.516 Quantity surveys.

The *contracting officer**may* insert the clause at 52.236-16, Quantity Surveys, in *solicitations* and contracts when a fixed-price *construction* contract providing for unit *pricing* of items and for payment based on quantity surveys is contemplated. If it is determined at a level above that of the *contracting officer* that it is impracticable for Government personnel to perform the original and final surveys, and the Government wishes the contractor to perform these surveys, the clause *shall* be used with its *Alternate*.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INCOME
STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,335
<INVENTORY>                                     81,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,298
<PP&E>                                         313,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 353,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,478
<BONDS>                                        146,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,397
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   353,905
<SALES>                                        107,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,078
<CGS>                                           71,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,173
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,270
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

VICTOR JEROME BELL,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5894/LAC/EMT

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

December 20, 2021 (ECF No. 46). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

46) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 6) is

DENIED.

Case 3:20-cv-05894-LC-EMT Document 50 Filed 01/13/22 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

2. Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 44) and

Motion for New Trial After an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 45) are DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order

and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th

 day of January, 2022.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5894/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05894-LC-EMT Document 50 Filed 01/13/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the year ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Minhong Yu, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2010



By:

/s/    Michael Minhong YuName:

Michael Minhong YuTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

A & E BAIL BONDS, INC., § a Delaware corporation, § § No. 535, 2019 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1710006739 (N) § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: June 17, 2020 Decided: June 24, 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES

, Justices.

ORDER

This 24 th day of June, 2020, after careful cons ideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Superior

Court should be affirmed on the basis of a nd for the reasons stated in its November

25, 2019 order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
```

[107th Congress Public Law 234]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ234.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1481]]

Public Law 107-234
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        To extend the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training 
             Program. <<NOTE: Oct. 4, 2002 -  [H.R. 4558]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IRISH PEACE PROCESS CULTURAL AND TRAINING 
            PROGRAM.

    Section 2 of the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program 
Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by striking ``3'' and inserting 
        ``4'';
            (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``3'' and inserting 
        ``4'';
            (3) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``2005,'' and inserting 
        ``2006,''; and
            (4) in subsection (d)(2) by striking ``2005,'' and inserting 
        ``2006,''.

    Approved October 4, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4558:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-596, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            July 22, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 18, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Kiara R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 873]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J), dated July 13, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 6, 2005, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 6, 2005.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of Takeya B.,*304 AD2d 825, 826 [2003]; *Matter of Stafford B.,*187 AD2d 649, 650 [1992]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if commit*704ted by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree *(see Matter of Rosario S.,*18 AD3d 563 [2005]) and menacing in the third degree *(see Matter of John F.,*12 AD3d 509, 510 [2004]; *Matter of Ramon M.,*109 AD2d 882, 883 [1985]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### § 51.2715 Whole.

*Whole* means that the peanut kernel is not split or broken.