alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Bounded by 97th Place and Other Streets as a Site for School and Recreational Purposes, in the Borough of Queens. David Minkin et al., Appellants.

In a condemnation proceeding, claimants with respect to Damage Parcels 1 and 2 appeal from a final decree of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 20, 1967 and made after a nonjury trial, which awarded them $367,000. Decree modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the award from $367,000 to $440,000. As so modified, decree *783affirmed, with costs to appellants. In our opinion, the award of $367,000, predicated upon an apparent allowance of about $8.35 per square foot for a plot of 44,000 square feet, was inadequate. Under the credible proof of value, we find that the subject property had a fair market value of $10 a square foot, considering particularly the reasonable possibility for its undisputed highest and best use for a high-rise multiple dwelling improvement, a factor which the trial court should have, but did not, include in its valuation (cf. *Matter of City of New York [Shorefront High School*— *Rudnick],*25 N Y 2d 146, 148-149). While the condemnor city’s expert was free to consider the lack of financing for high-rise improvements before and at the time of vesting (p. 149), that ephemeral factor could not serve to detract from the value of the claimants’ land for such improvement *(Matter of City of New York [Clearview Expressway],*9 N Y 2d 439, 445). Moreover, the city, both at Special Term and in this court, conceded that, by reason of corner and plottage increments, the subject property should be enhanced to an assumed compensable area of 50,600 square feet. The learned Justice at Special Term did state that his award was inclusive of corner influences, frontages and plottage increments, but his calculation of $8.35 per square foot does not in our opinion adequately allow for the inclusion of those increments. Under the circumstances, the award should be increased to $440,000, applying the value of $10 per square foot to the physical dimensions of the subject property. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
2007-1887.

#### Dambolena v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 88881, 2007-Ohio-4435. Discretionary appeal accepted and cause held for the decision in 2006-1914, *Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp.*

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
PGI 211.274-2 Policy for unique item identification.       (b)(2)(ii) Send the copy of the determination and findings required by DFARS 211.274- 2(b)(2)(i) to DPAP/Program Development and Implementation, Deputy Director, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 3B855, Washington, DC 20301-3060; or via email to: osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.pdi@mail.mil             .    **Parent topic:** PGI 211.274 Item identification and valuation requirements.
§ 745.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 745.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 745.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 745.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 745.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 745.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 745.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 745.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 745.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
227 So.2d 593

#### Lucille G. HAYES v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 50107.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Orleans Parish School Board applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish o i' Orleans. 225 So.2d 131.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
§ 60.121 Requirements for ownership and control of interests in land. ( a ) *Ownership of land.* ( 1 ) Both the geologic repository operations area and the postclosure controlled area shall be located in and on lands that are either acquired lands under the jurisdiction and control of DOE, or lands permanently withdrawn and reserved for its use.
( 2 ) These lands shall be held free and clear of all encumbrances, if significant, such as: ( i ) Rights arising under the general mining laws;
( ii ) easements for right-of-way; and
( iii ) all other rights arising under lease, rights of entry, deed, patent, mortgage, appropriation, prescription, or otherwise.
( b ) *Additional controls.* Appropriate controls shall be established outside of the postclosure controlled area. DOE shall exercise any jurisdiction and control over surface and subsurface estates necessary to prevent adverse human actions that could significantly reduce the geologic repository's ability to achieve isolation. The rights of DOE may take the form of appropriate possessory interests, servitudes, or withdrawals from location or patent under the general mining laws.
( c ) *Water rights.* ( 1 ) DOE shall also have obtained such water rights as may be needed to accomplish the purpose of the geologic repository operations area.
( 2 ) Water rights are included in the additional controls to be established under paragraph (b) of this section.
[48 FR 28222, June 21, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 64268, Dec. 4, 1996]
#### MARSHALL, Respondent, v. MARSHALL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by Mary Marshall against Matthew Marshall.

G. P. Breekenridge, of New York City, for appellant.

J. N. Schultz, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40866

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-2437-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury found Gerardo Garcia guilty of one count of conspiring to posses

with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, one count

of possessing with intentto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine,

and one count of importing more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Because

he had previously been convicted of two qualifying drug crimes, he received a

mandatory prison sentence of life. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). On appeal, he

challenges the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a mistrial or, in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40866 Document: 00511573107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
No. 10-40866

alternative, to exclude audio recordings of phone calls he made from prison that

undercut his defense of duress. He argues that the Government violated Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(B)(i) when it made the recordings available

to him only a few days before trial was set to begin.

Under Rule 16 (a)(1)(B)(i), upon the defendant’s request, the Government

must disclose recorded statements made by the defendant if the statements are

in the Government’s possession, custody, or control and if the prosecutor knows

or could know that the statements exist. The record does not reveal, and Garcia

does not assert, that he requested that the Government disclose the recordings. 

Moreover, the Government made the recordings available to the defense within

two days after it obtained them. Cf. United States v. Doucette, 979 F.2d 1042,

1045 (5th Cir. 1992) (suggesting that the Government did not withhold

fingerprint cards and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports under

Rule 16 where the Government did not receive them until the day of trial). 

Because Garcia has not established that the Government committed a discovery

violation, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in not

granting the relief he sought. See United States v. Garcia, 567 F.3d 721, 734

(5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-40866 Document: 00511573107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 534 

Recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent Iraqi judiciary 

in the formation of a new and democratic Iraq. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 4, 2005 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. 

BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mr. COLE

of Oklahoma, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. ISSA, 

Mr. FEENEY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GINGREY, 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. JINDAL, Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. 

RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. 

WESTMORELAND, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International 

Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent 

Iraqi judiciary in the formation of a new and democratic 

Iraq. 

Whereas the United States is supportive of a sovereign governing body in Iraq, including the current government as 

well as future duly elected governments and appointed officials; 

Whereas Iraq, as do all sovereign nations, has the duty and 

responsibility to indict, prosecute, and punish criminals 

within its jurisdiction; 
2 

•HRES 534 IH 

Whereas the Iraqi Special Tribunal holds the sovereign power 

to prosecute criminals; 

Whereas certain accused individuals have allegedly committed 

egregious crimes against humanity, genocide, and war 

crimes; 

Whereas the people of a free and democratic Iraq deserve justice for the horrific crimes inflicted upon them; and 

Whereas the Iraqi Special Tribunal is empaneled to bring 

swift and impartial justice for the people, victims, and 

the nation of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives fully 

2 supports an independent Iraqi judiciary and its efforts to 

3 serve the cause of justice in a free and democratic Iraq. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 694 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 694

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 18, 2018.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4712) to amend title 18, United States 
Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper 
degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted 
abortion. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from January 22, 2018, 
through January 26, 2018--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 603.400 Competitive procedures. DOE policy is to award a TIA using competitive procedures and a merit-based selection process, as described in 10 CFR 600.6 and 600.13, respectively: ( a ) In every case where required by statute; and
( b ) To the maximum extent feasible, in all other cases. If it is not feasible to use competitive procedures, the contracting officer must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 600.6(c).
#### BURGER v. AGNEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Action by Clarence L. Burger against George B. Agney.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1078.
2006-1025.

#### Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Bogle.

Cuyahoga App. No. 86339, 166 Ohio App.3d 449, 2006-Ohio-1540. Reported at 115 Ohio St.3d 455, 2007- Ohio-5248, 875 N.E.2d 919. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
#### Beard, Wright & Hamil *v.*Woodard.

*Attachment for Advances to Malee Crop.*

1. *Sufficiency of affidavit.*— An affidavit for an attachment, to enforce a statutory lien for advances to make a crop (Code, § 3286), must state the nature or kind of articles advanced, whether mules, horses, oxen, necessary provisions, &c.; and a general averment that advances were made to enable the defendant to make a crop, is insufficient.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dale.

Tried before the ILon. Henry D. Clayton.

This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, against A. C. <& H. S. Woodard, and was commenced by attachment sued out on the 2d November, 1883. The affidavit for the attachment stated, that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $310, “which amount is due by crop-lien note executed by the defendants on the 15th day of January, 1883, and due on the 15th day of October, 1883; which note was given by defendants to plaintiffs for advances to enable them to make a crop for the year 1883, and it was declared in said note that said advances were obtained by them *honafide*for the purpose of making a crop, and that without such advances it would not be in the power of the said A. C. *&*H. S. Woodard to procure the necessary teams, provisions, and farming implements to make a crop ; that the said defendants made a crop in Dale county, Alabama, during the year 1883, and have removed a part of the crop from the premises, without paying the amount which is due for advances,” &c. The defendants craved oyer of the affidavit, and pleaded in abatement of the attachment, “because said affidavit .fails to state that the ‘advances were made in horses, mules, oxen, necessary provisions or farming tools and implements, or money to purchase the same.” The plaintiffs demurred to*this plea, but the court overruled the demurrer; and they declining to plead over, judgment was rendered quashing the at*318tacliment. The judgment on the demurrer is now assigned as error.

M. N. Carlisle, for appellants,

cited *Dawson v. Higgins,*50 Ala. 49; *Corner v.*Jackson, 74 Ala. 465; *Schuessler v. Gaines,*68 Ala. 556.

*W.*I). Roberts, *contra,*

cited *F learner v. Dickerson,*65 Ala. 129; *Schuessler v.*Gaines,8 Ala. 556.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The question raised in this case was expressly decided in *Flexner v. Dickerson,*65 Ala. 129. It was there held that, in an attachment proceeding, issued to enforce the statutory lien for advances to make a crop,, under section .3286 of the Code, the affidavit must state the facts which bring the case within the law, by showing, among other averments, the nature of the articles advanced, whether “horses, tnules, oxen, or necessary provisions, farming tools and implements, or money to purchase the same.” The general averment, in such an affidavit, that the plaintiff' made advances to enable the defendant to make a crop for the current year, without averring in what such advances consisted, is insufficient.

The plea in abatement was properly sustained, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Thomas J. Valentine, Respondent, v. Morris A. Barone and Gloria T. Barone, Appellants, et al., Respondent.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the Party position of member of .the Westchester Republican County Committee from the 7th Election District of the 4th Ward of the City of New Rochelle, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 10, 1969, *804which adjudged the designating petitions void and directed appellants’ names to be stricken as such candidates. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ.; concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 614 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 614

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend the Fair 
 Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal 
                             minimum wage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2005

 Mr. Barrow submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend the Fair 
 Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal 
                             minimum wage.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall without intervention of any point of order consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill 
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                 <all>
```
§ 501.166 Hearings and conferences. ( a ) *When a civil penalty is proposed* — ( 1 ) *Hearing alternative in civil penalty assessment proceedings.* Unless the recipient of a notice of violation elects in writing to have the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply, OFE will commence a proceeding to assess a penalty and, prior to a final determination on the violation and assessment of a penalty, provide an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 554 before an Administrative Law Judge.
( 2 ) *Election alternative in civil penalty assessment proceedings.* The recipient of a notice of violation in which a civil penalty assessment has been proposed may elect, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, to waive the administrative proceedings described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. OFE will make a determination on the proposed civil penalty assessment and issue a final order to that effect within forty-five (45) days after receiving notice of the exercise of this election.
( b ) *When a civil penalty is not proposed—opportunity to request a conference.* If a person has received a notice of violation in which a civil penalty has not been proposed, he may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, request a conference with OFE to discuss the notice. In order to request a conference he must comply with the instructions set forth in the notice.
§ 611.205 Period of award availability. An award under section 611.204 shall apply to— ( a ) Facilities and equipment placed in service before December 30, 2020; and
( b ) Engineering integration costs incurred during the period beginning on December 19, 2007 and ending on December 30, 2020.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25E0007. JHON LEIGH PROPERTIES, INC. v. DAVIS.

Jhon Leigh Properties, Inc., has filed this emergency motion for an extension

of time to file an application for discretionary review pursuant to Court of Appeals

Rule 40 (b). Having reviewed the motion, we hereby GRANT an extension until

August 13, 2024, in which to file an application for discretionary review.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 13, 2024

08/13/2024
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 23

- 973 LT Case No. 2022

- 301032

- CFDB

_____________________________
J EREMIAH A. S IMMIONS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Karen A. Foxman , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender
, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

March 5, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E DWARDS , C.J., and M AKAR , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________