alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 49-3 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### Stanley Hoffman et al., Appellants, v Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See *Niemczyk v Pawlak,*76 AD2d 84.) (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—Statute of Limitations.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
(June 18, 1970)

#### Ella S. Bregman, Respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

Order entered on January 6, 1970, granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a notice of claim *nunc pro tunc*unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. Plaintiff’s accident occurred on February 1, 1969. The time to file a notice of claim expired May 2, 1969. On June 19 she applied to the court for leave to file a claim *nunc pro tunc*as of May 2 upon the ground that she was unable to file the claim due to her physical condition. The court denied the application with leave to renew upon a specific showing of disability. Unfortunately, her application now under review falls short of this requirement. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on or about February 21 and the discharge note stated she was in good condition and practically asymptomatic. Although she stayed at home, the latest date on which she was seen by a doctor appears to have been March 25. She does not meet the burden that her failure to consult counsel was due to any physical incapacity. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 987.46 Revisions of percentages.

The Secretary may, on recommendation of the Committee submitted prior to January 31 of the crop year, or on the basis of other information available to him, increase the free percentage to conform with such new relation as may be found to exist between trade demand for free dates and available supply of marketable dates of applicable grade and size. Upon any revision in the free and restricted percentages the control obligation of each handler with respect to free dates handled or certified for handling or for further processing by him for the entire crop year shall be recomputed in accordance with such revised control percentages. The handler shall be permitted to select, insofar as practicable, under the supervision and direction of the Committee, the particular dates to be removed from any dates withheld.

[27 FR 6818, July 19, 1962, as amended at 43 FR 4253, Feb. 1, 1978]
#### Jeffrey Lamont TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-15988.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 21, 2007.

*418Jeffrey Lamont Taylor, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey Lamont Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his First Amendment rights by denying him access to the law library. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s claim that he was denied access to the prison library and thus deprived of a fair trial, because Taylor could not demonstrate any actual injury. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (finding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library and that the inmate must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a legal claim were hindered).

Taylor’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 4.18
 
 Purpose of Plan
     Definitions




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Administration of Plan
    3




---



##### 



Eligibility
   Share Options
  Share Purchase Rights
  4




---



##### 



Limitations and Conditions
       5




---



##### 



Transfers and Leaves of Absence
  Adjustments
  Merger, Consolidation, Exchange, Acquisition, Distribution, Liquidation or Dissolution
  6




---



##### 



Amendment and Termination
  Withholding Taxes
  Registration
  7




---



##### 



Shareholders Agreement
  Individuals Subject to Non-Singapore Jurisdictions
  Effective and Termination Dates
  Shareholder Approval
  Information Disclosure
  8




---



##### 



9
#### § 945.82 Effective time.

The provisions of this subpart shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare above his signature attached to this subpart, and shall continue in force until terminated in one of the ways specified in this subpart.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Igor Gorodnitsky, President and Director of Cavitation Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2014 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: October 28, 2014 | /s/ IGOR GORODNITSKY                                                      
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Name: Igor Gorodnitsky
                      Title: President and Director

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

---
#### Francis W. Chung, Appellant, v Eduard Rozenthal et al., Defendants, Igor Nikishin, Respondent, and Jon A Gard, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 686]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated January 10, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Igor Nikishin which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and the defendant Jon A. Gard separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Igor Nikishin which was for summary judgment dismissing his cross claim insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint and the cross claim of the defendant Jon A. Gard are reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant Igor Nikishin.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting Nikishin leave to file a late motion for summary judg*850ment. “No excuse at all, or a perfunctory excuse, cannot be ‘good, cause’ ” *(Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004] ). Nikishin failed to offer a “good excuse” for the delay in making the motion. He failed to explain why he did not file a timely motion for summary judgment when he had two weeks in which to do so after the rejection of his untimely cross motion for summary judgment. He failed to explain why he waited approximately three months after the expiration of the period within which to file a motion for summary judgment. Hence, the Supreme Court should have denied Nikishin’s motion as untimely *(see Czernicki v Lawniczak,*25 AD3d 581 [2006]; *Finegan v Clear Channel Communications, Inc.,*22 AD3d 459 [2005] ; *Gaines v Shell-Mar Foods, Inc.,*21 AD3d 986 [2005]; *Rivera v Toruno,*19 AD3d 473 [2005]; *Thompson v Leben Home for Adults,*17 AD3d 347 [2005]; *Breiding v Giladi,*15 AD3d 435 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
645.107-70 DOSAR contract clause and

solicitation provision.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.245–70, Status of Property Management

System, in solicitations when any of the following conditions apply:

(1) Highway motor vehicles or aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or

acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government;

(2) Software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor costs to develop, is provided by the

Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government; or

(3) Personal property greater than $25,000 (and not in paragraph (a)(1) of this subsection) is

provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government. The

personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component

part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life

expectancy to exceed two years.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.245–71, Special Reports of Government

Property, in all solicitations and contracts that contain the provision at 652.245–70.

Parent topic: Subpart 645.1—General
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM D. BOWDEN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV665-WHA

 )

MISSION PETROLEUM CARRIERS, )

ANTONIO MARTINEZ NAVARRO, )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production (Doc. #35), filed on April

13, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that Defendants shall show cause in writing on or before April 30, 2007, as to

why the motion should not be granted. 

DONE this 16th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 36 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****The economicand budget outlook**** 
SuDocNumberY 10.13
ItemNumber:1005-F(online)
CGPsystem Number:000629823
 
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
 **
Subpart 636.1—General

Parent topic: PART 636—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

636.101 Applicability.

636.101-70 Exception.

Contracts for overseas construction, including capital improvements, alterations, and major repairs,

may be excepted where necessary from the provisions of the FAR (48 CFR Chapter 1) under the

authority of section 3 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 294). The

Director/Chief Operating Officer of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is authorized to

approve such exceptions.

636.104 Policy.

636.104-70 Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as

amended.

(a) Policy. Section 11 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 302)

limits competition for the construction, alteration, or repair of buildings or grounds abroad

exceeding $5 million to:

(1) American-owned firms; or

(2) Firms from countries which permit or agree to permit substantially equal access to American

firms for comparable diplomatic and consular building projects.

(b) Limitation. This participation may be permitted by or limited to:

(1) Host-country firms where required by international agreement; or

(2) By the laws of the host country; or

(3) Where determined by the Secretary of State to be necessary in the interest of bilateral relations

or necessary to carry out the construction project.

(c) Evaluation preference. For purposes of determining competitive status, American-owned firms

shall receive a ten (10) percent price preference reduction, provided that two prospective

responsible bidders/offerors submit a bid/offer.

636.104-71 Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism
Act.

(a) Preference for United States contractors. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism

Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–399; 22 U.S.C. 4852) limits certain construction projects abroad to

United States persons or qualified United States joint venture persons. The Omnibus Diplomatic

Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 applies to the following, as determined by the Assistant

Secretary for Diplomatic Security:

(1) Diplomatic construction or design projects abroad exceeding $10 million; or,

(2) Diplomatic construction projects abroad at any dollar amount that involve technical security,

unless the project involves low-level technology.

(b) Exception. This preference shall not apply with respect to any diplomatic construction or design

project in a foreign country whose statutes prohibit the use of United States contractors on such

projects.

(c) Subcontracting limitation. With respect to a diplomatic construction project, a prime contractor

may not subcontract more than 50 percent of the total value of the contract for that project.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Feb-28-1997
<CASH>                        2,047,353
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 000
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        25,905,715
<DEPRECIATION>                10,265,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                18,100,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         786,350
<BONDS>                       6,271,363
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    11,042,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  18,100,057
<SALES>                       952,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,014,387
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 525,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              259,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            121,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>               2,690,656
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           000
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  2,690,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 46.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                 46.73
        

</TABLE>
§ 654.16 Property management. Sponsor(s) are to: ( a ) Use real property acquired in whole or in part with Federal funds as long as needed for the purpose for which it was acquired and in accordance with the O&M agreement. If real property acquired in whole or in part with Federal funds is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, the sponsor(s) shall obtain NRCS approval for future use or disposition.
( b ) Use nonexpendable personal property acquired in whole or in part with Federal funds as long as needed for the purpose for which it was acquired in accordance with the rules governing Federal grant property (34 CFR part 256).
( c ) Establish, adopt, and comply with a property management system which meets the standards governing Federal grant property.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q OF RESPONSE ONCOLOGY FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,729
<INVENTORY>                                      1,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,072
<PP&E>                                          13,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,284
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   396
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    674
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3289 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3289

          To suspend temporarily the duty on electric knives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

   Mr. Allen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on electric knives.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTRIC KNIVES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.12        Electric knives         Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           (provided for in                                                  31/2009          ''
                           subheading                                                                          .
                           8509.80.00)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024 SC-2023-0960 Ex parte Eric Tyler Sledge PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Ex parte Eric Tyler Sledge (In re: State of Alabama v. Eric Tyler Sledge)) (Morgan Circuit Court: CC-99-643; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0522).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on July 12, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properites Ltd. IV 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000763049
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. IV
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      188
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          22,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         14,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (13.46)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>