alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Sean Overton, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 279]

*827Appeal by the People from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), imposed May 11, 2005, upon the defendant’s conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 3Va years, to be followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance with the law in effect at the time the defendant committed the instant crimes.

On April 18, 2005 the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts). In the course of his allocution, the defendant admitted that on five separate dates in March and April 2004 he sold a quantity of cocaine to another person. On May 11, 2005 the Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of SVa years, to be followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court found that the defendant should benefit from the provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, hereinafter the DLRA). The People now appeal, contending that the sentence imposed was illegal. We reverse.

The relevant sections of the DLRA became effective on January 13, 2005, which was “the thirtieth day after” December 14, 2004, when the legislation was approved by the Governor (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]). Since the defendant’s crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the new sentencing provisions, the sentence imposed upon the defendant pursuant to the DLRA was invalid as a matter of law, and the defendant must be resentenced under the law in effect at the time he committed the crimes *(see People v Torres,*26 AD3d 398 [2006]; *People v Goode,*25 AD3d 723 [2006]). Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25164]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8927]

In the Matter of the Designation of Hakimullah Mehsud as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    In accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of 
September 23, 2001, as amended (``the Order''), I hereby determine that 
the individual known as Hakimullah Mehsud, also known as other aliases 
and transliterations, no longer meets the criteria for designation 
under the Order, and therefore I hereby revoke the designation of the 
aforementioned individual as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
pursuant to section 1(b) of the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-25164 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
```

[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7568]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-28]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Wednesday March 17, 2010.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-3533 Filed 2-18-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
1206.501 Requirement.       The DOT Agency Advocate for Competition is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1206.5—Advocates for Competition
#### Dorothy Hall, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Hall, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

In a proceeding to permit the filing of a late notice of claim, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from an order of the .Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 29, 1968, insofar as it was not limited to granting such permission only with respect to the claim for wrongful death and granted such permission with respect to the claim for personal injuries. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs; and, accordingly, motion denied insofar as the notice of claim is for personal injuries. The notice in question encompassed a claim for personal injuries and a claim for wrongful death. It is conceded that the notice with respect to the latter claim was timely filed within the requisite statutory period after plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix. Accordingly, while the motion, insofar as it sought relief with respect to the claim for wrongful death, was .unnecessary, the granting of that aspect of the motion was proper. However, with respect to the claim for personal injuries, the motion was made more than one year after the happening of the event on which the claim is based. As to that claim we are of the opinion that the motion was not timely made in accordance with the clear mandate of the statute as presently constituted (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 5) and, unless there is a basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which is not urged at bar and as to which we make no factual determination, the motion must be denied *(Matter of Brown*v. *Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg School Dist. No. 4, 303*N. Y. 484; *Matter of Rosenberg*v. *City of New York,*309 N. Y. 304; *Matter of Martin*v. *School Bd. of Union Free Dist. No. 28, Long Beach,*301 N. Y. 233). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur..
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust
2013-C5

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
as of February 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among, UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC
Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, and Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator



/s/ David Co

BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2015
2422.1408 Contract clause.       (c) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.222-70, Accessibility of Meetings, Conferences, and Seminars to Persons with Disabilities, in solicitations and contracts when the contract will require the contractor (including contractor employees and subcontractors) to hold meetings, conferences or seminars.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2422.14 - Employment of the Handicapped
#### Joseph M. Tunia, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 61438.)

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at Court of Claims, Lengyel, J. (Appeal from order of Court of Claims—dismiss causes of action.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
#### LOSEE v. FOREST CITY LAND & LUMBER CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Daniel W. Losee against the Forest City Land & Lumber Company and others.

M. T. Townsend, of New York City, for appellants.

J. B. Hand, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
PART 52 – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND

CONTRACT CLAUSES

SUBPART 52.1 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

52.101 Using Part 52.

SUBPART 52.2 – TEXTS OF PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

52.200 Scope of subpart.

5452.233-9001 Disputes – Agreement to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) .

SUBPART 52.1 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROVISIONS

AND CLAUSES

52.101 Using Part 52.

(b) Numbering.

(2) Provisions or clauses that supplement Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).

(ii) Only those provisions and clauses in this directive that are codified are preceded by an assigned

CFR chapter number.

(B) See 1-301.91(c)

SUBPART 52.2 – TEXTS OF PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

(Revised January 15, 2021 through PROCLTR 2021-03)

52.200 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth the texts of all Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD) provisions and

clauses, and for each provision and clause, gives a cross-reference to the location in the DLAD that

prescribes its use.

5452.233-9001 Disputes – Agreement to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) .

As prescribed in 33.21433.214 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)., insert the following provision:

DISPUTES – AGREEMENT TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JUN 2020)

(a) The parties agree to negotiate with each other to try to resolve any disputes that may arise. If

unassisted negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties will use alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

techniques to try to resolve the dispute. Litigation will only be considered as a last resort when ADR

is unsuccessful or has been documented by the party rejecting ADR to be inappropriate for resolving

the dispute.

(b) Before either party determines ADR inappropriate, that party must discuss the use of ADR with

the other party. The documentation rejecting ADR must be signed by an official authorized to bind

the contractor (see FAR 52.233-1), or, for the Agency, by the contracting officer, and approved at a

level above the contracting officer after consultation with the ADR Specialist and legal counsel.

Contractor personnel are also encouraged to include the ADR Specialist in their discussions with the

contracting officer before determining ADR to be inappropriate.

(c) If you wish to opt out of this clause, check here [ ]. Alternate wording may be negotiated with the

contracting officer.

(End of Provision)
#### H. C. MINER LITHOGRAPHING CO. v. SANTLEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Infants (§ 57*)—Guaranty—Ratification.

Where an infant executed a written contract of guaranty, and after he became of age wrote asking that an itemized bill be sent to him, there was no such “ratification” as to make him liable upon the guaranty.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Infants, Gent. Dig. §§ 136-148, 151; Dec. Dig. §' 57.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by the H. C. Miner Lithographing Company against Joseph Santley. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.

Max D. Josephson, of New York City, for appellant.

Joseph A. O’Brien, of Brooklyn (James A. Sheehan, of Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondent.,

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant upon a written contract of guaranty. The defendant pleaded infancy. It is conceded that the defendant was an infant at the time that the contract was made. The plaintiff seeks to overcome this defense by the claim that after the defendant became of age he wrote the plaintiff, asking that an itemized bill be sent to him. This act was not such a ratification of the contract of guaranty as to render the defendant liable upon it. *7222 Cyc. 604, and cases cited; International Text-Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 197, 99 N. E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115.

The defense of infancy having been established, the judgment is reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.
§ 435.300 Green building certification. ( a ) If a Federal agency chooses to use a green building certification system to certify a new Federal building or a Federal building undergoing a major renovation and construction costs for such new building or major renovation are at least $2,500,000 (in 2007 dollars, adjusted for inflation), and design for construction began on or after October 14, 2015:
( b ) The system under which the building is certified must: ( 1 ) Allow assessors and auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement metrics of the system;
( 2 ) Be developed by a certification organization that ( i ) Provides an opportunity for public comment on the system; and
( ii ) Provides an opportunity for development and revision of the system through a consensus-based process;
( 3 ) Be nationally recognized within the building industry;
( 4 ) Be subject to periodic evaluation and assessment of the environmental and energy benefits that result under the rating system; and
( 5 ) Include a verification system for post occupancy assessment of the rated buildings to demonstrate continued energy and water savings at least every four years after initial occupancy.
( c ) *Certification level.* The building must be certified to a level that promotes the high performance sustainable building guidelines referenced in Executive Order 13423 “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management” and Executive Order 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance.”
[79 FR 61571, Oct. 14, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         517,212
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     460,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,212
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,152)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)


</TABLE>
### SERVE D OCTOBE R22 , 201 0 iFPARTMEN T O F : 'lANSPORWIO N :KE TOPERATION S 2 mOC T 2 2 P2 : 1 8

u s DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I NTH EMATTE RO F 

### STUAR T S . MACPHERSO N FA A DOCKE T N o CP10WP000 6 (Civil Penalt

y Action) < | DM S FAA-2010-053 8 ORDE R DENYIN G COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N AN D ACCEPTIN G FILIN G O F RESPONDEN T I issue d a n Orde rt o Sho wCaus e o n Septembe r30 , 201 0 i n respons e t o th e l^otio n t o Dee m Allegation s Admitte d ("Motion" ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant") . Th e Orde rt o Sho wCaus e se t a deadlin e o f Novembe r1 , 201 0 fo rResponden t Stuar t S . MacPherso n ("Respondent" ) t o answe rth e Complain t an d th e Orde rt o Sho wCaus e o rris k sanctions . Unde rdat e o f Octobe r11 , 2010 , Responden t file d a documen t i n th e for m o f a lette rentitle d "Respons e t o Orde rt o Sho wCause. " Th e documen t probe s th e allegation s o f th e Complain t an d take s issu e wit h certai n o f it s allegation s an d conclusions . A s such , I wil l accep t i t a s Respondent' s Answer . WHEREFORE , i n vie wo f th e foregoing : 1 . Respondent' s submissio n date d Octobe r11 , 201 0 entitle d "Respons e t o Orde rt o Sho wCause " i s accepte d fo rfilin g a s it s Answer ; an d

### mmm -•^^•' -

2 . Complainant' s Motio n t o Dee m Allegation s Admitte d I s denied . S O ORDERED .

Rfchar d G . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La wJudg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t

•\'A'''& ^ '-' vFA A Docke t No . CP10WP000 6 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Stuar t S . MacPherson , Responden t P.O . Bo x 80 7 Cardiff , C A 9200 7 TEL : 760-632-662 4 Laur aPonto , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wasl^ngton , D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-986 3 FAX : 202-267-510 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . For

servic e i npersono r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdministration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
# 3.903 Policy.

(5) Complaints shall be forwarded to Office of Counsel.

**Parent topic:**SUBPART 3.9 – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,524
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                        27
<INVENTORY>                                      3,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,802
<PP&E>                                          21,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,150
<SALES>                                         12,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,320
<CGS>                                            9,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
#### Alfred Stettner, Appellant, v. Twin Double TV, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order entered March 31, 1970, denying plaintiff’s application for an order compelling discovery, modified on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and motion granted to the extent of directing the corporate defendant to appear for a further examination by Pascal Perri, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. In response to plaintiff’s notice of examination, defendant produced Schwartzman, its secretary. Schwartzman is actually an attorney with no knowledge of the facts underlying the claim in suit. It further appears that one Perri, now an officer, though only an employee at the time of the transaction, has direct and personal knowledge of the facts. Having produced only a witness who was unable to respond, defendants should be required to appear by a person having the needed information. (See *Parrish é Go.*v. *Applesteim,*28 A D 2d 979; *Gould*v. *Peck Mem. Hosp.,*24 A D 2d 449; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3101.27.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.