alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Leroy C. Gooden, Appellant, v Edward R. Hammock, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent, Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, to vacate a parole violation detainer warrant and to restore petitioner to parole, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 8, 1979, which dismissed his petition as academic. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted, with prejudice, to the extent that Parole Violation Detainer Warrant No. 51521 is vacated and upon the expiration of the sentences petitioner is now serving he shall be released on parole status with respect to the prior sentences imposed in 1963 and 1964 by the Supreme Court, Queens County, and the Supreme Court, New York County, respectively. The parole eligibility hearings, heretofore afford the petitioner, denying parole in relation to the sentences imposed upon him in 1976 and 1977, which he is now serving by virtue of judgments of conviction rendered in the Supreme Court, Queens County, and the Supreme Court, Westchester County, respectively, cannot serve as a substitute for a final parole revocation hearing (see *Lindsay v New York State Bd. of Parole,*48 NY2d 883). The rule, as stated in *People ex rel. Schmidt*v *La Vallee*(39 NY2d 886), upon which Special Term relied in holding that the parole eligibility hearings held in relation to subsequent sentences, rendered the failure to hold a final parole revocation hearing academic, was thereafter disapproved in *Lindsay v New York State Bd. of Parole (supra).*Where, as here, the petitioner was at all times "within the convenient and practical control of the parole authorities,” a prompt final *640revocation hearing was required (see *Matter of Higgins v New York State Div. of Parole,*72 AD2d 583). The failure to provide a final parole revocation hearing at any time since the petitioner was declared a delinquent in 1976 was prejudicial and constituted a denial of his constitutional rights (see *Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US 471, 488; *Matter of Piersma v Henderson,*44 NY2d 982). Respondent’s claim that petitioner has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies is without merit since there was a failure to provide a final parole revocation hearing, and therefore no final determination was ever made by the Parole Board requiring such preliminary administrative review. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
TS-EMLA40 

Attachment #9

Pt. 2, Sec. B 

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Operations at Road 

Construction Sites
#### PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH, Respondent, v. BOARD OF AUDITORS OF TOWN OF HORICON, WARREN COUNTY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

June 27, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people, on the relation of Irving S. Smith, against the board of town auditors of the town of Horicon, Warren county, N. Y.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs CASE NO. 5:97cr24

ERIC JONES,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Defendant's sentence of confinement is hereby reduced from life to 188 months. In

all other respects, the original sentence imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order

filed 26 November 1996 shall remain unchanged.

ORDERED this18th day of May 2007.

 s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:97-cr-00024-LC-MD Document 172 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 1
WILLIAM
H. SORRELL ATTORNEY GENERAL

TEL:

(802) 828-3171 FAX: (802) 828-2154 TTY: (802) 828-3665 SUSANNE
R. YOUNG DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

CIVIL

RIGHTS: (802) 828-3657 WEBPAGE: www.atg.state.vt.us WILLIAM

E. GRIFFIN ClllEF ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF VERMONT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 109 STATE STREET MONTPELIER 05609-1001 

### CERTIFICATION

OF LEGAL AUTHORITY January 13, 2015 Curt Spalding, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Office 5 Post Office Square Suite 100, Mailcode ORA01-4 Boston, MA 02109-3912 Re: Attorney General's Certification
of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Rules§ 7- 502(o)(8)

& (10) and the definition of"wastewater evaporation unit" in§ 7-103 Dear Mr. Spalding: In accordance with Section 3006(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (42 U.S.C

. § 6901 et seq.), and 40 C.F.R. Part 271, it is my opinion, after review and discussions between our Office and EPA Region

1, that Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Rules§ 7-502(o)(8)

& (10) and the definition of "wastewater evaporation unit" in § 7-103 provide the State of Vermont and the Secretary of the Vermont Agency ofNatural Resources with adequate authority
to carry out corresponding aspects of the hazardous waste program and to meet the requirements
of 40 C.F.R. Pmi 271, Subpart A. The specific authorities provided are contained
in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted
at the time this Statement

is signed and which are in effect now. Please note that this Certification supplements
an earlier Certification
by this Office dated July 30, 2013.



# S il ely ( William E. Gri in Chief Assistant Attorney General cc: Matt Chapman, Ve1mont Agency ofNatural Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2730 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2006 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. CHAFEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment 

Yellow 175. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 175. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.19 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Pigment Yellow 175) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 2730 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Subpart 36.7 - Standard and Optional Forms

for Contracting for Construction, ArchitectEngineer Services, and Dismantling,

Demolition, or Removal of Improvements

Parent topic: Part 36 - Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts

36.700 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth requirements for the use of standard and optional forms, prescribed in part 

53, for contracting for construction, architect-engineer services, or dismantling, demolition, or

removal of improvements. A listing of the Standard forms is located in subpart 53.3.

36.701 Standard and optional forms for use in contracting

for construction or dismantling, demolition, or removal of

improvements.

(a) Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Construction, Alteration, or Repair), shall be

used to solicit and submit offers, and award construction or dismantling, demolition, or removal of

improvements contracts expected to exceed the simplified acquisition thresholds, and may be used

for contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. In all sealed bid solicitations, or when

the Government otherwise requires a noncancellable offer acceptance period, the contracting officer

shall insert in the blank provided in Block 13D the number of calendar days that the offer must be

available for acceptance after the date offers are due.

(b) Optional Form 347, Order for Supplies or Services, may be used for construction or dismantling,

demolition, or removal of improvements contracts that are at or below the simplified acquisition

threshold; provided, that the contracting officer includes the clauses required (see subpart 36.5) in

the simplified acquisitions (see part 13).

(c) Contracting officers may use Optional Form 1419, Abstract of Offers-Construction, and

Optional Form 1419A, Abstract of Offers-Construction, Continuation Sheet, or the automated

equivalent, to record offers submitted in response to a sealed bid solicitation (see 14.403) and may

also use it to record offers submitted in response to negotiated solicitations.

36.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer

services.

(a) Contracting officers must use Standard Form 252, Architect-Engineer Contract, to award fixedprice contracts for architect-engineer services when the services will be performed in the United

States or its outlying areas.
(b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, shall be used to evaluate firms before awarding a

contract for architect-engineer services:

(1) Use the SF 330, Part I-Contract-Specific Qualifications, to obtain information from an architectengineer firm about its qualifications for a specific contract when the contract amount is expected to

exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Part I may be used when the contract amount is

expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, if the contracting officer determines

that its use is appropriate.

(2) Use the SF 330, Part II-General Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer

firm about its general professional qualifications.
# 28.102 Performance and payment bonds and alternative payment protections for construction contracts.

- 28.102-1 General. 
- 28.102-2 Amount required. 
- 28.102-3 Contract clauses. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 28.1 - Bonds and Other Financial Protections
#### Daniel J. Gaeta, Respondent, v. Salvatore Rizzo, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 2, 1968, as granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the *ad damnum*clause of the complaint from $50,000 to $250,000 and to serve a further and supplemental bill of particulars. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding (1) to the second decretal paragraph, as a further condition to the granting of the motion, the following: “that the plaintiff specify in his further and supplemental bill of particulars all injuries sustained as a result of the accident and a description t)f those claimed to be permanent ”; and (2) to the fourth decretal paragraph a provision that plaintiff shall serve an additional bill of particulars specifying all said injuries and such description. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The additional bill of particulars shall be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, plain*654tiff’s proposed and further hill of particulars is insufficient to the extent that it -indicates that he is claiming all of the injuries contained in various hospital records and physicians’ reports attached thereto; defendant is entitled to know, over plaintiff’s verification, precisely what plaintiff will claim at the trial *(D’Onofrio*v. *Davis,*14 A D 2d 960; CPLR 3043, subd. [a], par. [6]). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF
SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,002
<SECURITIES>                                     3,799
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                       990
<INVENTORY>                                      5,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,341
<PP&E>                                          23,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,569
<SALES>                                         21,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,123
<CGS>                                           12,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Rick Walchuk                                               |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Rick Walchuk                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  December 2, 2010                                                     |
#### § 58.439 Cheese from unpasteurized milk.

If the cheese is labeled as “heat treated”, “unpasteurized,” “raw milk”, or “for manufacturing” the milk may be raw or heated at temperatures below pasteurization. Cheese made from unpasteurized milk shall be cured for a period of 60 days at a temperature not less than 35 °F. If the milk is held more than 2 hours between time of receipt or heat treatment and setting, it shall be cooled to 45 °F. or lower until time of setting.
Subpart 43.3 - Forms    **Parent topic:** Part 43 - Contract Modifications43.301 Use of forms.       (a)                                                         (1) 								                The Standard Form 30 (SF 30), Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of	Contract, shall (except for the options stated in 43.301(a)(2) or actions processed	under part  15) be	used for-                                                                           (i) 										                    Any amendment to a solicitation;                                                                              (ii) 										                    Change orders issued under the Changes clause of the contract;                                                                              (iii) 										                    Any other unilateral contract modification issued under a contract clause authorizing such modification without the consent of the contractor;                                                                              (iv) 										                    Administrative changes such as the correction of typographical mistakes, changes in the paying office, and changes in accounting and appropriation data;                                                                              (v) 										                    Supplemental agreements (see 43.103); and                                                                              (vi) 										                    Removal, reinstatement, or addition of funds to a contract.                                                                                                           (2) 								                The SF 30 may be used for-                                                                           (i) 										                    Modifications that change the price of contracts for the acquisition of petroleum as a result of economic price adjustment;                                                                              (ii) 										                    Termination notices; and                                                                              (iii) 										                    Purchase order modifications as specified in 13.302-3.                                                                                                           (3) 								                If it is anticipated that a change will result in a price change, the estimated amount of the price change shall not be shown on copies of SF 30 furnished to the contractor.                                                                             (b) 						            The Optional Form 336 (OF 336), Continuation Sheet, or a blank sheet of paper, may be used as a continuation sheet for a contract modification.
RAB/98-09

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Railroad Accident Brief Report

ATL 96 FR 012

LIGHT- RAIL-VEHICLE REAR-END COLLISION

 SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

MARCH 11, 1996

About 7:10 a.m., on Monday, March 11, 1996, Southeastern Pennsylvania

Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Light-Rail-Vehicle (LRV) 9037 struck 2

standing LRVs (9081 & 9018) in the tunnel between 36th Street Station and

37th Street Station, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LRV 9037 had a crew of one

operator and the two standing trains each had one operator. Eighty-nine of the

126 passengers were transported to local hospitals. After being checked for

injuries all but 1 of the passengers were released. The three operators were

uninjured in the collision. Weather conditions were cloudy, daylight and 47 0 F. 

Damages were estimated to be about $82,800.

About 7:05 a.m. LRV 9010 had a propulsion problem and stopped

between signals MS-360 and MS-362 and could not move from the 36th Street

Station. The Elmwood Control Center was contacted and advised LRV 9010 to

wait for LRV 9020 to couple behind him to make a multiple unit (MU) to move out

of the station.

While the cars at 36th Street Station were coupling, LRV cars 9081 and

9018 had closed in from T Street Station and were stopped in the tunnel

between signals MS-364 and MS-362, when they were struck. The cars were

operating in an automatic block signal system where a red signal required a train

to stop. 

The operator on LRV 9037 was operating in a 10-mph curve when he

entered the lighted tunnel. He stated that he did not see the stop signal located

297 feet south of the two stopped LRV cars. After the accident, the sight

distance was measured to be about 100 feet in the 6-degree curve from where

the cars were stopped. The operator stated that when he entered the block the
2

car was moving too fast to stop short of the two cars ahead. He placed his car

into emergency braking when he saw the cars ahead. He estimated that his train

was moving 3 to 5 mph when the collision occurred. 

Stopping distance tests done after the accident revealed that a train

moving 10 mph could stop in less than 100 feet. The operator was well rested

when the accident occurred; however, he stated that he had a head cold and

had taken some over-the-counter cold medication which made him sleepy. The

operator stated that he did not see the stop signal. Toxicological tests revealed

no evidence of drugs or alcohol.

An on-site inspection of the track and signals at the point of collision

revealed no defects that would have contributed to the accident. The train was

operating in a 6-degree curve restricted to 10 mph and the operator had failed to 

stop for a stop signal just before the collision. 

PROBABLE CAUSE

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable

cause of this accident was failure of the operator of LRV 9037 to comply with the

10-mph speed restriction and his failure to stop at the stop signal located 297

feet from the point of the collision because he was inattentive.

Adopted: August 18, 1998
3