alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cory McKibbin, Appellant, v Susan Jenkin, as Preliminary Executor of the Estate of Linda McKibbin, Deceased, Respondent.

Submitted July 23, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 795.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Hum phreys, McCullough and Se nior Judge Bumgardner

DANIEL MARTINEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1927-13-4 PER CURIAM JANUARY 28, 2014 ZAMUDIO TREE & LANDSCAPING AND THE UNINSURE D EMPLOYER’S FUND

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Gregory J. Park; Park & Park , P.C., on brief), for appellant. (Dana L. Plunkett; Midkiff, Mu ncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellee The Uninsured Employer’s Fund. No brief for appellee Zamudio Tree & Landscaping.

Daniel Martinez appeals a decision of th e Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his claim for temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, he claims the commission erred in concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish an average weekly wage upon which temporary total disability benefits could be aw arded. We have review ed the record and the commission’s opinion and fi nd that this appeal is without meri t. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its fi nal opinion. See Mart inez v. Zamudio Tree & Landscaping, JCN VA02000006921 (Sept. 11, 2013). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED
Subpart 1353.1 - General

Parent topic: PART 1353 - FORMS

1353.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes DOC forms that are supplemental to those provided in FAR Part 53.

1353.107 Obtaining forms.

The DOC forms may be obtained from any DOC contracting office.
49–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–703 

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 5122, NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1062] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1062, by a nonrecord vote, reports the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and against its consideration. Finally, the 

rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as 

read. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of clause 8 of 

rule XXII (requiring a three-day layover of conference reports and 

the accompanying joint explanatory statement) which is necessary 

because the conference report was filed with the House on Friday, 

September 29, 2006 and it may be considered by the House as 

early as Friday, September 29, 2006. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
749.111-71 Required review and approval.

(a) When required. The USAID Settlement Review Board shall receive and approve all USAID/W and

Mission proposed settlements or determinations if:

(1) The amount of settlement, by agreement or determination, involves $100,000 or more;

(2) The settlement or determination is limited to adjustment of the fee of a cost-reimbursement

contract or subcontract and:

(i) In the case of complete termination, the fee, as adjusted, with respect to the terminated portion of

the contract or subcontract is $100,000 or more; or (ii) in the case of a partial termination, the fee,

as adjusted, with respect to the terminated portion of the contract or subcontract is $100,000 or

more;

(3) The head of the contracting activity concerned determines that a review of a specific case or

class of cases is desirable; or

(4) The contracting officer, in his/her discretion, desires review by the board.

(b) Level of review. Proposed settlements in excess of $5 million shall be reviewed and approved by

a board consisting of the M/OAA Director, the General Counsel, and the Controller, without power of

redelegation.

(c) Submission of information. The contracting officer shall submit to the board a statement of the

proposed settlement agreement or determination, supported by such detailed information as is

required for an adequate review. This information should normally include copies of:

(1) The contractor's or subcontractor's settlement proposal, (2) the audit report, (3) the property

disposal report and any required approvals in connection therewith, and (4) the contracting officer's

memorandum explaining the settlement. The board may, in its discretion, require the submission of

additional information.

Parent topic: Subpart 749.1—General Principles
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

#### § 1.13 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) was established by section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Consisting of a maximum of 15 members, it reviews and reports on safety studies and applications for construction permits and facility operating licenses; advises the Commission with regard to hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards; upon request of the Department of Energy (DOE), reviews and advises with regard to the hazards of DOE nuclear activities and facilities; reviews any generic issues or other matters referred to it by the Commission for advice. The Committee, on its own initiative, may conduct reviews of specific generic matters or nuclear facility safety-related items. The ACRS conducts studies of reactor safety research and submits reports thereon to the U.S. Congress and the NRC as appropriate.
#### In the Matter of Angela M. Rodriguez, Appellant, v Robert Doar, as Commissioner of Onondaga County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 1, 2007;

decided November 27, 2007

Reported below, 42 AD3d 944.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 13, 2018


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 370 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on March 12, 2018, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-222459) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
#### § 987.56 Outlets for utility and cull dates.

Subject to the provisions of § 987.47, utility dates and cull dates may be disposed of without inspection, but only in feed, non-table syrup, alcohol, or brandy outlets, or in such other outlets for non-human food products as the Committee with the approval of the Secretary, may specify: *Provided,* That whenever the Committee concludes and the Secretary finds that the use of utility dates of any variety in certain products for human consumption would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, the Secretary shall specify such products, and dates of such variety that are inspected and certified as utility dates may be disposed of for use, or used, in such products: *And provided further,* That whenever the Committee concludes and the Secretary finds that the disposition of utility dates of any variety through any export outlet would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, the Secretary shall specify such export outlet, and dates of such variety that are inspected and certified as meeting such grade, size, container, and identification requirements as may be prescribed by the Committee with the approval of the Secretary for such outlet may be so exported.

[29 FR 9707, July 18, 1964, as amended at 43 FR 4251, 4253, Feb. 1, 1978]
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Access to EducationCommunity CollegesDistance EducationEducational FinanceEducational PolicyEducational ResourcesEducational TechnologyTechnological Advancement

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### . CARNEY, Appellant, v. PENN REALTY CO.j Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by Joseph P. Carney against the Penn Realty Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv723MHT

) 

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For good cause shown, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to

28 U.S.C.A. § 636, this case is referred to the United

States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for

consideration and disposition or recommendation on all

pretrial matters as may be appropriate.

DONE, this the 16th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 1
1 Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2021)

Statement of B REYER , J. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CARL WAYNE BUNTION v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–8043. Decided October 4, 2021
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J USTICE B REYER respecting the denial of certiorari. Carl Wayne Buntion was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death in 1991. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18. Because his original sentencing was unconstitutional, he was granted a resentencing and again sentenced to death in 2012. Id., at 18–21. He has now been on death row under threat of execution for 30 years. He tells us that he has spent the last 20 of those years in solitary confine

ment, isolated in his cell for 23 hours a day. Pet. for Cert. 1. He further tells us that, at age 77, he is now the oldest prisoner on Texas’ death row. Ibid. Texas does not dispute these facts. Buntion now as ks the Court to consider whether execution after such an extended delay is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. I recognize the procedural obst acles that make it difficult for the Court to grant certiorari in Buntion’s case. I write, however, to underscore how this case illustrates the prob

lems with the death penalty that I identified in my dissent

ing opinion in Glossip v. Gross , 576 U. S. 863, 908 (2015), and in a number of other cases since then, see, e.g., Hamm

v. Dunn , 583 U. S. ___ (2018) (statement respecting denial of application for stay and denial of certiorari); Smith v. Ryan , 581 U. S. ___ (2017) (statement respecting denial of certiorari). I continue to beli eve that excessive delay both2 BUNTION v. LUMPKIN

Statement of B REYER , J. “undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale” and is “in and of itself . . . especially cruel because it ‘subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehu

manizing conditions of confinement.’ ” Glossip, supra, at 925. The Court has previously recognized that the uncer

tainty of waiting in prison under the threat of execution, even for a span of just four weeks, is “one of the most horri

ble feelings to which [a person] can be subjected.” In re Medley , 134 U. S. 160, 172 (1890). On top of that, solitary confinement bears “ ‘a further terror and peculiar mark of infamy.’ ” Id., at 170; see also Davis v. Ayala , 576 U. S. 257,289 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Years on end of neartotal isolation exact a terrible price”). Buntion has now been subjected to those conditio ns for decades. His lengthy confinement, and the confinement of others like him, calls into question the constitutionality of the death penalty and reinforces the need for this Court, or other courts, to consider that question in an appropriate case.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Bridgefilms,
      Inc. for the year ended August 31, 2007, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Bridgefilms, Inc. for the year ended
              August 31, 2007 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 annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
              ended August 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of Bridgefilms,
              Inc..
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                  Virginia F. PerryName:
            Virginia
                F. PerryTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer,
              Principal
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            November
                27, 2007
#### Nathan L. Spells, Appellant, v. Carl B. Davis et al., Respondents.

In this action to compel specific performance of a contract claimed to have been made by' defendants Davis to sell to plaintiff a parcel of real property, plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 5, 1969, which *inter alia*granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Order and judgment modified, on the law, by striking therefrom all the decretal provisions except that which denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment and by substituting therefor a provision denying defendants’ motion. As so modified, order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Defendant vendors allege that the memorandum relied upon by plaintiff as the contract of sale did not contain material terms of the financing agreement, which terms were allegedly left for future negotiation. However, the memorandum appears to contain all material terms relative to financing and, in our opinion, it cannot be said as a matter of law that any material terms were left for future negotiation. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied (cf. *MacLaeon*v. *Lipchitz,*56 N. Y. S. 2d 609, affd. 269 App. Div. 953). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Subpart 2915.4 - Contract Pricing

Parent topic: PART 2915 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

2915.405-70 Determining fair and reasonable price.

(a) Where the contractor insists on a price or demands a profit or fee that the contracting officer

considers unreasonable and the contracting officer has taken all authorized actions to resolve the

matter (see FAR 15.402), the contract action must be referred to the HCA for final resolution.

(b) Resolution under paragraph (a) of this section must be documented and signed by the HCA and

included in the contract file.
#### § 932.65 Compliance.

Except as provided in this part, no person shall handle olives, the handling of which has been prohibited by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of this part, and no person shall handle olives except in conformity with the provisions of this part and the regulations issued hereunder.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and )

JOAN K. CRAIG, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-685-WKW

)

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD )

EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that all dates and deadlines in this case, including the trial date, are

CONTINUED generally due to the representation of the magistrate judge that this case is settled

pending final approval by the Russell County Board of Education. 

DONE this 21st day of February, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 62 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3372 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3372

      To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole Technical.

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

SECTION 1. CYPROCONAZOLE TECHNICAL.

    (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:

``      9902.12.59      [a-(4-              Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Chlorophenyl)-a-                                                   31/2009
                         (1-
                         cyclopropylethyl)
                         -1H-1-1,2,4-
                         triazole-1-
                         ethanol
                         (Cyproconazole)
                         (CAS No. 94361-06-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2934.99.12)......

    (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>
```
EXHIBIT
10.31








Overview
of Financial Counseling Services Program








In 2009,
TVA began offering a Financial Counseling Services Program for a limited number
of executives approved by the CEO.  Under the program, participants
are eligible to receive personal financial counseling services, such as estate
planning, investment planning, income tax planning, income tax preparation, and
retirement planning.  TVA pays the cost of the program for each
participant and also pays each participant a gross-up amount that reasonably
approximates the additional income and employment taxes estimated to be payable
as a result of TVA’s payments pursuant to the program.  The program is
administered by The Ayco Company, L.P.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 582

- C R

Style: Rodney Wayne Robins

v

. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : December 1 , 201 4

Type of motion: “Appellant’s M otion to Hold the Briefing Schedule until Record Properly F il e d or Extend

Time to File Brief”

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant ’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 30 , 201 4

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested: January 1 , 201 5

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part and dismissed as moot in part

If document is to be filed, document due: January 2 , 2014

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

The court reporter’s record was filed in this appeal on September 30, 2014. Accordingly, appellant’s request for a

h old on the briefing schedule is dismissed as moot. Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file appellant’s

b rief is granted. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed with this Court no later than January 2, 2014.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: December 9, 2014
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-J6
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-J6


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance