alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ALEXANDER v. WRIGHT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by David A. Alexander against Albert N. Wright and others.

No opinion. Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled, motion for new trial denied, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendants, dismissing the complaint, with costs.
#### Manfred Rocken-Styre, Appellant, v. Wesley C. Huck, Respondent.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered October 21, 1968 in Warren County, upon a verdict of no cause of action in a personal injury negligence action. On March 7, 1966 the appellant was operating his automobile in a westerly direction on Horicon Avenue in the Town of Bolton when it came in collision, at the intersection of Horicon Avenue and First Street, with an automobile owned by respondent while being operated by his daughter-in-law, Patricia Huck, in a southerly direction on First Street. Appellant’s main contention is that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse appellant’s requests to charge that Horicon Avenue was a *“*through street ” and to charge the provisions of sections 1162, 1163, and 1173 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. A “through highway” is defined in section 149 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law as a highway “ on which vehicular *698traffic is given preferential right of way, and at the entrances to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways is controlled by traffic-control signals ”. Since there was no evidence in the record indicating that there were control signals at the intersection of Horicon Avenue and First Street, the trial court properly refused to charge appellant’s request that Horicon Avenue was a *“*through street The evidence further indicates that the operator of respondent’s automobile stopped on First Street at the northerly edge of Horicon Avenue and then proceeded into the intersection approximately four feet at which point the collision occurred. The operator testified that its was her intention to turn left and proceed easterly on Horicon Avenue. In reply to the request to charge sections 1162, 1163 and 1173 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the trial court declined to charge those sections since in its opinion they had no application to the facts in the lawsuit. Section 1162 relates to starting a parked vehicle, and section 1173 provides directions to drivers of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, or building, and neither section is applicable to the facts as established in the record. Section 1163 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law relates to turning movements of a vehicle at an intersection, and the trial court refused to charge that section on the basis that the section is only applicable to vehicles traveling in opposite directions. Even if we assume that section 1163 is not so limited, the facts as established on the trial did not require a specific charge of section 1163. However, the trial court did charge section 1140 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law relating to vehicles approaching or entering an intersection, in addition to charging the general rules of negligence and the general rule of mutual forbearance. In our opinion there were no errors in the trial court’s charge, and the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.4 Fees. ( a ) AMS will assess persons covered by the Act fees to cover the costs of administering the Act.
( b ) Warehouse operators, licensees, applicants, or providers must pay: ( 1 ) An annual fee as provided in the applicable licensing or provider agreement; and
( 2 ) Fees that AMS assesses for specific services, examinations and audits, or as provided in the applicable licensing or provider agreement.
( c ) The schedule of fees showing the current fees or any annual fee changes will be provided as an addendum to the applicable licensing or provider agreement or/and: ( 1 ) Will be available at AMS's website, or
( 2 ) May be requested at the following address: Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, Fair Trade Practices Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3601.
( d ) At the sole discretion of AMS, these fees may be waived.
[67 FR 50783, Aug. 5, 2002. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 45645, 45646 Aug. 30, 2019]
#### Byblos Bank Europe, S.A., Respondent, v Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi, Appellant.

Submitted July 9, 2007;

decided September 4, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 497.

Motion for leave to cross appeal dismissed upon the ground that Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi is not a party aggrieved *(see*CPLR 5511; *Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]).
#### Anna R. Riester, Respondent, v. Town of Fleming, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: This proceeding raises the question of the propriety of the rejection by the town of all bids for work in connection with the reading of water meters and collection of all charges imposed. The town advertised for bids, reserving the right to reject any and all bids. Petitioner and one Brothers submitted the only bids, which were rejected. Thereafter, the town awarded the contract to Brothers for $2,400, he having previously submitted a bid for $2,500 while petitioner’s bid was for $1,500. In a proceeding to review the town’s action in rejecting the bids, Special Term, without taking proof, erroneously directed readvertisement for bids. The record is barren of any proceedings taken by the town in rejecting the bids and we are further deprived of any reason assigned for rejecting the bids and later awarding the contract to the highest bidder. The pleadings present fact issues which required determination by Special Term (CPLR 7804, subd. [h]) and, without proper determination thereof, an informed decision cannot be made as to whether the action of the town was proper. “‘In exercising the power to reject any or all bids, and proceeding anew with the awarding of othe contract, the officers [of a municipality] cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously, but must observe good faith and accord to all bidders just consideration ’ ”, *(Matter of Carucci*v. *Dulan,*24 A D 2d 529; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], § 29.77, p. 438.) Legislative intent favoring competitive bidding may not be evaded under color of rejection. (10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], § 29.77, p. 438.) We must remit the matter for determination of the critical issue of the town’s good faith in rejecting the bids and awarding the contract to the highest bidder at a negotiated price of $100 less than his bid. *734We take note of the paucity and inadequacy of the record and remind counsel of the responsibility to comply with established rules and requirements. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Special Term setting aside award of contract.) Present—Del Veeehio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)



I, Todd Axelrod, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gallery of History,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the quarter period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

Date:  February 14, 2006
                                   /s/ TODD AXELROD
                                   _______________________
                                   Todd Axelrod
                                   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3043

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain refracting and reflecting 
                              telescopes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain refracting and reflecting 
                              telescopes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN REFRACTING AND REFLECTING TELESCOPES.

    (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:

      

``      9902.13.86        Refracting telescopes   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           with 60 mm or smaller                                             31/2009          ''
                           objective lenses and                                                                .
                           reflecting telescopes
                           with 76 mm or smaller
                           mirrors, and parts
                           and accessories
                           thereof (provided for
                           in subheading
                           9005.80.40 or
                           9005.90.80)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
52.247-59 F.o.b. Origin-Carload and Truckload Shipments.       As prescribed in 47.305-16(a), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that they may result in f.o.b. origin contracts with shipments in carloads or truckloads. This will facilitate realistic freight cost evaluations of offers and ensure that contractors produce economical shipments of agreed size.          F.o.b. Origin-Carload and Truckload Shipments (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The Contractor agrees that shipment shall be made in carload or truckload lots when the quantity to be delivered to any one destination in any delivery period pursuant to the contract schedule of deliveries is sufficient to constitute a carload or truckload shipment, except as may otherwise be permitted or directed, in writing, by the Contracting Officer.                                          (b) 						            For evaluation purposes, the agreed weight of a carload or truckload shall be the highest applicable minimum weight that will result in the lowest freight rate (or per car charge) on file or published in common carrier tariffs or tenders as of the date of bid opening (or the closing date specified for receipt of proposals).                                          (c) 						            For purposes of actual delivery, the agreed weight of a carload or truckload will be the highest applicable minimum weight that will result in the lowest possible freight rate (or per car charge) on file or published as of date of shipment.                                          (d) 						            If the total weight of any scheduled quantity to a destination is less than the highest carload/truckload minimum weight used for evaluation of offers, the Contractor agrees to ship such scheduled quantity in one shipment.                                          (e) 						            The Contractor shall be liable to the Government for any increased costs to the Government resulting from failure to comply with the above requirements.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL

PART 3401—ED ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM

PART 3402—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

PART 3403—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

PART 3404—ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS

PART 3401—ED ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM

3401.000 Scope of part.

Subpart 3401.1—Purpose, Authority, Issuance

3401.104 Applicability.

Subpart 3401.3—Agency Acquisition Regulations

3401.303 Publication and codification.

Subpart 3401.4—Deviations

3401.403 Individual deviations.

3401.404 Class deviations.

Subpart 3401.6—Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities

3401.601 General.

3401.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments.

3401.604-70 Contract clause.

PART 3402—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

Subpart 3402.1—Definitions

3402.101 Definitions.

Subpart 3402.2—Definitions Clause

3402.201 Contract clause.

PART 3403—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Subpart 3403.1—Safeguards

3403.104-7 Violations or possible violations.

Subpart 3403.2—Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel

3403.203 Reporting suspected violations of the Gratuities clause.

3403.204 Treatment of violations.

Subpart 3403.3—Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations

3403.301 General.

Subpart 3403.4—Contingent Fees

3403.405 Misrepresentation or violations of the covenant against contingent fees.

Subpart 3403.6—Contracts With Government Employees or Organizations Owned or

Controlled by Them

3403.602 Exceptions.

Subpart 3403.7—Voiding or Rescinding Contracts

3403.704 Policy.

3403.705 Procedures.

Subpart 3403.9—Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees

3403.905 Procedures for investigating complaints.

3403.906 Remedies.

PART 3404—ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS

3404.000 Scope of part.

3404.001 Definitions.

Subpart 3404.4—Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry
3404.470 Contractor security vetting requirements.

3404.470-1 Contract clause.

Subpart 3404.7—Contractor Records Retention

3404.710 Contracting officer records management responsibilities.

3404.770 Contract clause.

Subpart 3404.8—Government Contact Files

3404.804 Closeout of contract files.

3404.804-5 Procedures for closing out contract files.
RSM(logo)

RSM US LLP

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

To the Board of Directors

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingCertification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (Management’s Assertion), that Situs Holdings, LLC(the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s (SEC) Regulation AB (the applicable servicing criteria) for services by the Company that are encompassed bycontractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting for the Operating or Trust Advisor Services Platform (the “Platform”),including only those asset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. AppendixB to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting thePlatform. Management is responsible for Situs Holdings, LLC’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibilityis to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteriabased on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicingactivities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicingcriteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourprocedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and,accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in the Platform.Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period coveredby this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Situs Holdings,LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, for thePlatform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ RSM US LLP

Duluth, Minnesota

January 31, 2019

 

**THE POWER OF BEING UNDERSTOOD**

AUDIT │ TAX │ CONSULTING

 

RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International,a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM USLLP and RSM International.
Subpart 1348.1 - Policies and Procedures

Parent topic: PART 1348 - VALUE ENGINEERING

1348.102 Policies.

(a) Contracting activities shall send contractor-submitted Value Engineering Change Proposals

(VECPs) to the appropriate technical personnel for review.

(b) Technical personnel shall conduct a comprehensive review of VECPs for technical feasibility,

usefulness, and adequacy of the contractor's estimate of cost savings; make a written report; and

recommend acceptance or rejection to the contracting officer.

(c) The designee authorized to grant exemptions from value engineering provisions in appropriate

supply, service, architect-engineer and construction contracts is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
[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:****Mineralresources of the Little Humboldt River Wilderness study area, Elko County,Nevada**** 
SuDocNumber:I19.3:1732-B
ItemNumber: 0620
CGPsystem Number:000594831
 
Report
Plate
 **
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 7 of 7
#### See Chang Chiu, Respondent, v Carlos Garcia et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 27, 1978, which is in favor of plaintiff and against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted with respect to the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event. Trial Term erred in allowing plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Chaitin, to testify as to matters shown on X rays which were not in evidence and whose absence was not explained (see *Richter v Trailways of New England,*28 AD2d 737; *Sirico v Cotto,*67 Misc 2d 636). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and O’Connor, JJ., concur.