alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUBCHAPTER G—CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT

PART 642—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

PART 643—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

PART 644—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

PART 645—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

PART 647—TRANSPORTATION

PART 648—VALUE ENGINEERING

PART 649—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

PART 651—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS

PART 642—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

Subpart 642.1—Contract Audit Services

642.101 Contract audit responsibilities.

Subpart 642.2—Contract Administration Services

642.270 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

642.271 Government Technical Monitor (GTM).

642.272 DOSAR contract clauses.

Subpart 642.6—Corporate Administration Contracting Officer

642.602 Assignment and location.

Subpart 642.7—Indirect Cost Rates

642.703 General.

642.703-2 Certificate of indirect costs.

Subpart 642.15—Contractor Performance Information

642.1503 Procedures.

642.1503-70 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

PART 643—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

Subpart 643.1—General

643.102 Policy.

643.102-70 Contract compliance and review.

643.104 Notification of contract changes.

643.104-70 DOSAR contract clause.

PART 644—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Subpart 644.3—Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews

644.302 Requirements.

PART 645—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Subpart 645.1—General

645.107 Contract clauses.

645.107-70 DOSAR contract clause and solicitation provision.

PART 647—TRANSPORTATION

647.000 Scope of part.

Subpart 647.2—Contracts for Transportation or for Transportation-Related Services

647.207 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and special requirements.

647.207-7 Liability and insurance.

Subpart 647.3—Transportation in Supply Contracts

647.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.

647.305-70 Notice of shipment.
647.305-71 Shipping instructions.

PART 648—VALUE ENGINEERING

Subpart 648.1—Policies and Procedures

648.102 Policies.

Subpart 648.2—Contract Clauses

648.201 Clauses for supply or service contracts.

PART 649—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 649.1—General Principles

649.101 Authorities and responsibilities.

649.101-70 Termination action decisions after debarment.

649.106 Fraud or other criminal conduct.

649.111 Review of proposed settlements.

PART 651—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS

Subpart 651.70—Contractor Use of Travel Advances, Official Travel Orders, and

Government Travel Requisitions

651.7001 Policy.
§ 1015.304 Joint and several liability. ( a ) When two or more debtors are jointly and severally liable, DOE will pursue collection activity against all debtors, as appropriate. DOE will not attempt to allocate the burden of payment between the debtors, but will proceed to liquidate the indebtedness as quickly as possible.
( b ) DOE will seek to ensure that a compromise agreement with one debtor does not release DOE's claim against the remaining debtors. The amount of a compromise with one debtor shall not be considered a precedent or binding in determining the amount that will be required from other debtors jointly and severally liable on the claim.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 2 4 -0 1 4 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ STILLWATER M INING COM PANY,

Pl ai n t i ff/ Ap p el l an t v . AIG CLAIM S, INC., Defen d an t/Ap p el l ee.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ORDER

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ Th e p art i es h av e s t ip ul at edt o ret ai nGu y Ro g ers as th e m ed i at o r i n t h i s cas e p u rs u an t t o Ru l e 7 (4 )(b ), M o n t an a Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro cedu re. Th e p art i es fu rt her s ti p u l at e t o h o l d th e d ead l i n es i m p os edfo r b ri efi n g i nab ey an ce u n t i l th e earl ier o f t h e d at e o f t h e fi l in g o f t h e m ed i at o r’ s rep o rto r ex p i rat i o no f t h e 7 5 -d ay t i m e l i m i ts etfo rth i nRu l e 7 (3 )(a), M o n t an a Ru l es o f Ap p el lat e Pro cedure. Fo r g o o d cau s e s h o wi n g , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED th atth e d ead l i n es i m p o s edfo r b ri efi n g are h el di nab ey an ce u n t i l th e earl i er o f t h e d at e o f t h e fi l i n g o f t h e m ed i at o r’ s rep o rto r ex p i rat i o no f t h e 7 5 -d ay t i m e l i m its etfo rt h i nRu l e 7 (3 )(a), M o n t an a Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro cedu re. DATED th i s

_

_ _ _ d ay o f M arch , 2 0 2 4 . By :

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 27 2024

03/27/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0140
#### DUFFY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Annie S. Duffy, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central *&*Hudson River Railroad Company.

Martin Gilligan, for appellant.

Lyman A. Spalding, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
236.701 Standard and optional forms for use in contracting for construction or dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements.       (c)  Do not use Optional Form 347, Order for Supplies or Services (see                 213.307             ).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 236.7 - STANDARD AND OPTIONAL FORMS FOR CONTRACTING FOR CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES, AND DISMANTLING, DEMOLITION, OR REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS
#### In the Matter of Paul F. Donohue, Jr., a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[815 NYS2d 766]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1971. He resides in the City of Albany.

*1213By decision dated September 6, 2000, this Court suspended respondent from practice indefinitely for mental incapacity. Our decision stated that respondent could apply for reinstatement when he could demonstrate that he is no longer incapacitated from practicing law *(Matter of Donohue,*275 AD2d 803 [2000]).

Respondent has submitted medical opinion that he is no longer incapacitated from practicing law. He has also moved for leave to now file the required affidavit of compliance with the suspension order, which motion we grant *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9 *[f]).*

Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with the Court’s rules regarding the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court’s rule regarding reinstatement *(see*22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]) and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law.

However, in view of all the circumstances presented, we condition respondent’s reinstatement as follows. For two years from the date of this decision, respondent shall submit to petitioner semiannual reports from his treating mental health provider assessing his continuing capacity to practice law. The first report shall be due six months from the date of this decision. Petitioner shall report to this Court any failure to submit the reports.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law upon the condition set forth in this decision, effective immediately.
2405.502 Authority.

Use of paid advertisements in newspapers, trade journals, and other media are authorized by

Delegations or Redelegations of Authority, subject to the availability of funds.

Parent topic: Subpart 2405.5 - Paid Advertisements
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2932 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2932

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Cyan 1 special liquid 
                                 feed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Cyan 1 special liquid 
                                 feed.

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

SECTION 1. CYAN 1 SPECIAL LIQUID FEED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.04.21 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Cyan 1 special liquid feed) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     OF POLLUTION RESEARCH AND CONTROL CORP.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and  accompanies  the quarterly  annual report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form
10-QSB") for the quarter ended  September  30, 2002,  of Pollution  Research and
Control Corp. (the "Issuer").

I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-QSB fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
section  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15  U.S.C.  78m(a)  or
78o(d)); and

(ii) the  information  contained  in the Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Issuer.

Dated: November 12, 2002.





/S/ JACQUES TIZABI
----------------------------
Name: Jacques Tizabi
Subpart 613.2—Actions At or Below the Micro-Purchase Threshold    **Parent topic:** PART 613—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES613.201 General.       (g)          (1)  			The procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purpose of FAR 13.201(g)(1).
Exhibit 32


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted


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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pattern Energy Group Inc. (the “ Company ”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:


(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2018 (the “ Report ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


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





Date:March 28, 2019By/s/ Michael M. GarlandMichael M. GarlandChief Executive Officer


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted


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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pattern Energy Group Inc. (the “ Company ”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:


(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2018 (the “ Report ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


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





Date:March 28, 2019By/s/ Michael  J. LyonMichael J. LyonChief Financial Officer
#### Carroll B. Stoianoff, Appellant, v Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted December 3, 2007;

decided January 10, 2008

Reported below, 16 Misc 3d 128(A).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 957 (2007)].
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50138 **consolidated with** No. 22

- 50143 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Diego Hernandez**

**- Herrera,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 890

- 1 USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 894

- 1

Before **Jolly, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Diego Hernandez

- Herrera appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal , as well as the judgment revoking his term of

* P ursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circui t 

### FILED October 24, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50138 Document: 00516518792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2022No. 22

- 50138 c/w No. 22

- 501423

2 supervised release for a prior offense

. He has not briefed, and has therefore abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised release or his revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time on appeal, Hernandez

- Herrera argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the district court enhanced his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on facts that w ere neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While he acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Co urt review. In addition, Hernandez

- Herrera has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Hernandez

- Herrera is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. Hernandez

- Herrera’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgments are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50138 Document: 00516518792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2022
§ 13.14 Separation of functions. ( a ) The investigating official, the reviewing official, and any employee or agent of the authority who takes part in investigating, preparing, or presenting a particular case may not, in such case or a factually related case— ( 1 ) Participate in the hearing as the ALJ;
( 2 ) Participate or advise in the initial decision or the review of the initial decision by the authority head, except as a witness or a representative in public proceedings; or
( 3 ) Make the collection of penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( b ) The ALJ shall not be responsible to, or subject to the supervision or direction of, the investigating official or the reviewing official.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the representative for the Government may be employed anywhere in the authority, including in the offices of either the investigating official or the reviewing official.
[56 FR 47135, Sept. 18, 1991; 56 FR 64839, Dec. 12, 1991]
#### Suffolk County Correction Officers Benevolent Association et al., Appellants, and Suffolk Chapter, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant, v John V.N. Klein, as County Executive of Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.

Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 10, 1979, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the memorandum decision of Mr. Justice Geiler at Special Term. Damiani, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv737-WKW

)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for telephone conference (Doc. # 13), filed

October 23, 2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall contact the

court’s chambers on or before noon on October 27, 2006, at 334-954-3670 to give the court

the telephone number at which she can be reached for the conference call. 

DONE, this 23rd day of October, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 14 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 165 ) ll-E-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 165of 276

# CONVERSATIO N RECO II-E-1 6 , i U 

# ll** TYP E Q VISI T Locatio n o f Visit/Conferenct : Q CONFERENC E TELEPHON E • INCOMIN G |f f OUTGOIN G NAM E O F PERSON'S ) CONTACTE D O R I N CONTAC T WIT H YO U /V U V k

Xr riin^«vj ; [J\<\ <2\jt { I < \ f \SJ ? aJiS^v^Lp", Toart-ajCaiSAiA ^ T.-vVt-le-^in t ORGANIZATIO N (Office , dept. . bureau , etc. ) TELEPHON E NO * (lj|^2»|-2/aX 7 SUBJEC T 

## w^-f<i o —p 0 

## - A y/^A'ii-vfl"t» t v ROUTIN G NAME/SYMBO L Va>*/1«.Wt4)3 1 ^ \ cvi X f « - •firo f 

### • I J 

# ^t= U a- r 

# £*.* _ IN

T

SUMMAR Y H?7l?P pH>poi^L'V'^'"t " /H-Vt>go V . We_o^klr>^- 7 -V-U ~ hs^y^y'f f--.-H i •'Jy - « / ~f o WA a W J 

# •M l I ) rA-^ j a 

# + W.*« . -rc^k r-\^ ^ a < w^ 7 •'e Abv, wefc o

f j _<-,.•• , V Wlo^'wi | \V^ \ vJj J kjuyu~y

rtvl c-\-vfii> ^ G, ) Fallo w0^ ^ " \ ^ OaT-l L ste^* ^

prtrJ'^»- J k —l i r+\\zJ*~e«J rj\ e«.V--V>_ ( j L i " O^voilyi ^ O A? /* \

C a-* f • ' "-J - 

# X -T - -t W i r<taffYska.^XZb<v. ^ -HAS H V IV&^ V */>J*J y\ T ° noJU y\-^oJ*-c\ . "Vf/r ? JUJJIUNVI L "f o > - dU^,"x i 

# ito4U4vjt>v ^ V/ vVAJIV-. ' L



# 4 t (Dy ^ JLjt!^<.y»>a . HI*M—i«^--»»^--fvjYu.T7J L c^/^ - <*-«^ i n^r vVAAF- I >o< i


## « * _„—_ ^ ,_->

_,+*—.
—r Ui-U { 

# ? Q v ( v«-tx

_o Ti 'a-'A_ov- . Va * cy"^v*Ajut > , \

ray t* Y J v**-*

^ vnv-t w. v—-* « "v>

u * . • -j • - — ^nA^a- t o J » * ±t»»axk . "t- o UJ * r wnit/??. ACTIO N REQUIRE D 

## . , Er

TiH Ti v

_.... . ^-^ v 

## -*a L \\\ffl*t Hr f.EQU.RED^. ^ H Q ^

L^f^V- , >»».*-•« . )»Vo \
NAM E O F PERSO N DOCUMENTIN G CONVERSATIO N 

# ^av-, L ScWVACTIO N TAKE N

. \ 1 ^ • SIGNATUR E 

## v-.v. A TITLE ^ DAT E 5O271-.0 1 U.S.G.P O - 19S S -4il-275V:o:Q2 , CONVERSATIO N RECOR D OPTIONA L roRM 27 1 (12-76 ) DEPARTMEN TO F DEFENS E P. 2

I N 

## o £


# LL
(Republished)

#### Lillian Horowitz et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 3, 1979, unanimously modified, on consent, to reduce plaintiff-respondent husband’s *847judgment to the amount contained in the *ad damnum,*clause, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The order of this court entered on November 18,1980 is vacated. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Bims, Fein, Ross and Bloom, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT #32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard K. Dickson II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to
the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Richard K. Dickson II
-----------------------------------

Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by
     Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
     Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kennemer *v.*Branch.

July 15, 1913.

Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Roan. DeKalb superior court. June *22,*1912,

*Alonzo Field,*for plaintiff in error.

*Napier, Wright' & Cox',*contra.

Hill, J.

No complaint was made tliat any error of law was committed upon the trial. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the judge did not err in. refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 985.64 Compliance.

No person shall handle oil except in conformity with the provisions of this part.
#### In the Matter of Peter F. Crispino et al., Respondents, v. James F. Byrne, and Robert J. Gaffney et al., Constituting the Committee to Fill Vacancies, Appellants, and James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of James F. Byrne et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

In consolidated proceedings, proceeding No. 1 being to invalidate petitions designating appellant Byrne as . a candidate in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination to the public office of Councilman at Large for the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, and for an injunction, and proceeding No. 2 being to validate said designating petitions, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 9, 1969, which (1) adjudged said designating petitions null and void, (2) enjoined the respondent Board of Elections accordingly and (3) dismissed proceeding No. 2. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appellants *795are granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Questions of law have arisen which ought to he reviewed. Beldoek, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.