alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Kudrick, Respondent, v. Republic Aviation Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, P. J.

Appeal from a decision of the Work*614men’s Compensation Board, filed April 30, 1969. Claimant sustained four 'compensable back injuries: in October, 1944, on June 15, 1955, March 9, 1961 and October 5, 1965. The first three accidents occurred while claimant was employed by appellant Republic Aviation Corp., while the last injury occurred while he was employed by appellant Fairchild Hiller Corp., *successor*to Republic Aviation Corp. Appellant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was the insurance carrier on the 1955 and 1961 claims, while appellant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company was the carrier on the 1965 claim. The appeals in question are from the board’s supplemental memorandum of decision dated and filed on April 30, 1969, wherein the board found that “claimant has an overall disability of 75%, *y2*of which is causally related to the 1944 accident, % causally related, in equal proportion to the accidents of 1955, 1961 and 1965. Based on the average weekly wage of $177.40 previously established, this would yield an overall loss of earning capacity in the amount of $133.05, *y2*of which or $66.53, due to the combined accidents of 1955, 1961 and 1965, or $22.17 to each of these cases. The compensation rate is therefore $20 in case #06408066, $20 in ease #16523848 and $14.78 in case #05591194”. This appeal has been taken upon a shortened record limited to “ the question of the correct mathematical computation of the compensation rate in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law”. The question of a proper rate directly affects the amount of money to be received by the claimant, but he has not filed a brief upon this appeal. It appears that the board may have attempted to impose a minimum rate in each of the cases while apportioning the overall disability award in this case and, if so, such is error. In the recent case of *Matter of Burch*v. *General Elec. Go.*(33 A D 2d 613) the proper method of determining a maximum award was considered. The present award does not conform thereto and therefore this ease must be reversed and remanded to the board. It is noted that the claimant sought to reopen the 1944 claim and that while the application for reopening was pending the March 9, 1961 accident occurred. Further, it appears that compensation was awarded in the 1961 claim for an aggravation of a prior back injury, and that the last injury apparently occurred while employed by a *successor*corporation to Republic Aviation. While we do not consider the 1944 case upon this appeal, it appears that the board still has the power to give further consideration to that claim. ¡(Of. *Matter of Leonescu*v. *Star Liq. Dealers,*25 A D 2d 932, affd. 20 N Y 2d 956.) Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further consideration. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, P.- J.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 852 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 852

Expressing support for the designation of May 3, 2018, as a ``National 
    Day of Reason'' and recognizing the importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2018

   Mr. Huffman (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pocan, and Ms. Lofgren) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 3, 2018, as a ``National 
    Day of Reason'' and recognizing the importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

Whereas the application of reason has proven to offer hope for human survival 
        upon Earth, improving conditions within the universe, and cultivating 
        intelligent, moral, and ethical interactions among people and their 
        environments;
Whereas those who wrote the Constitution, the basic document for governing the 
        affairs of humankind within the United States, based it upon principles 
        delineated within the philosophies distinguishing the historical Age of 
        Reason;
Whereas most citizens of the United States purport to value reason and its 
        application;
Whereas it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to promote the 
        development and application of reason; and
Whereas May 3, 2018, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ``National 
        Day of Reason'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Day of 
        Reason''; and
            (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visitors to 
        join in observing this day and focusing upon the employment of 
        reason, critical thought, the scientific method, and free 
        inquiry to the resolution of human problems and for the welfare 
        of humankind.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 821 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 821

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 19, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the military quality of life 
functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for 
title IV. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committe of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether 
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of 
the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 
the previous question shall be considereed as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 1401.205 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by DOI or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the Departmental rules at 43 CFR part 12, subpart C, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.”
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.,* any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
(logo) DHGDIXON HUGHES GOODMAN LLP  **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**  To the Board of Managers of C-III Capital Partners LLC, the Sole Member of C-III Asset Management LLC: We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that C-III Asset Management LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as servicerinvolving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i) – 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicingcriteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures 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 eachasset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basisfor our opinion.Our examination does not providea legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 is fairly stated, in all material aspects.  /s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLPAsheville, North Carolina March 1, 2016
# EUR-Lex - 31978R3130 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31978R3130

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3130/78 of 28 December 1978 determining intervention centres for olive oil **

*
Official Journal L 370 , 30/12/1978 P. 0058 - 0059 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0155 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 23 P. 0239 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0155 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0103 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0103 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3130/78 of 28 December 1978 determining intervention centres for olive oil

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1562/78 (2), and in particular Article 12 (4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78 of 23 November 1978 on intervention in the olive oil sector (3),

Whereas rules for the determination of intervention centres for olive oil were laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78 ; whereas application of these rules leads to the choice of the places listed in the Annex as intervention centres;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The intervention centres for olive oil shall be those places listed in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1979.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 December 1978.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66. (2)OJ No L 185, 7.7.1978, p. 1. (3)OJ No L 331, 28.11.1978, p. 13.

ANNEX

>PIC FILE= "T0014372">
#### GINSBERG v. TRIANGLE WAIST CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 26, 1915.)

Action by Henrietta Ginsberg against the Triangle Waist Company.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
```

[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 33683]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-6]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1215

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2009-0064]

 
Third Party Testing for Certain Children's Products; Infant Bath 
Seats: Requirements for Accreditation of Third Party Conformity

Correction

    In rule document 2010-13080 beginning on page 31688 in the issue of 
Friday, June 4, 2010 make the following corrections:
    1. On page 31689, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, 
in the fourth and fifth lines, ``December 1, 2010'' should read 
``December 6, 2010''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, in the same paragraph, in 
the 10th and 11th lines, ``December 2, 2010'' should read ``December 7, 
2010''.
    3. On page 31691, in the first column, in the second line from the 
top, ``December 1, 2010'' should read ``December 7, 2010''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-13080 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### Crystal House Manor, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Anthony Totura et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 467]

In an action, inter alia, to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated May 3, 2005, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a protective order denying the defendants’ request to conduct DNA testing of the plaintiff James K. Rogers, which had been determined in an order of the same court dated February 1, 2005.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew, since they failed to establish either that the alleged new evidence was previously unavailable, or that there was a reasonable justification for their failure to present the proffered additional facts in opposition to the original motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e]; *see e.g. Gohrig v Porcelli,*17 AD3d 314 [2005]; *Hannalyn Realty Co. v McLaughlin, 10*AD3d 409 [2004]; *Hart v City of New York, 5**934AD3d 438 [2004]; *Ortiz v Tusa,*300 AD2d 288 [2002]). Moreover, the proffered “new evidence” failed to negate the speculative nature of the defendants’ request to conduct DNA testing of the plaintiff James K. Rogers. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
### Fw: Slides for tomorrow's briefing Michael Stewart to:Tricia Crabtree 04/29/2010 04:48 PM
Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/29/2010 04:48 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Heid King" <hking@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Karen Martin" <martin.karen@epa.gov>, "Nealson Watkins" <Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov> Date: 04/29/2010 04:45 PM Subject: Slides for tomorrow's briefing
Heidi, Here are the slides we plan to use in tomorrow's 9 AM briefing on SO2. Lydia Michael Stewart ----- Original Message ----- **From:** Michael Stewart **Sent:** 04/29/2010 04:38 PM EDT **To:** Lydia Wegman; Rosalina Rodriguez **Cc:** Karen Martin; Kristal Mozingo; Margaret Morrison **Subject:** Fw: Slides for tomorrow's OMB briefing The file attached below has all the slides that will be used at tomorrow's OMB meeting. This is the same file I sent to Karen and cc'd you on at 12:42- there haven't been any other changes. I've already sent to Nealson, Larry and others.

Thanks, Mike

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                          96,450
<SECURITIES>                                       400
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,630
<PP&E>                                       3,011,349
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,056,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,081,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,914,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,081,453
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,477
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63


</TABLE>
#### SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. SCHMUL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by John Sullivan against Herman Schmul.

No opinion. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the proof adduced by plaintiff at the close of his case presented as a question of fact for the jury whether the father of plaintiff had emancipated the plaintiff,, or had con-wasps that plalntiíÉ “Rght receive his own wages-
#### Ruth B. Young, Appellant-Respondent, v. Robert W. Young, Jr., Respondent-Appellant.

Judgment entered June 19, 1969 granting plaintiff separation from defendant and related relief• unanimously modified on the law and on the facts to the extent of allocating the sum awarded for the support and maintenance of plaintiff and the children to provide the sum of $300 per week for plaintiff’s support and $200 per week for the children’s support, and otherwise in all respects affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The trial court in its findings specifically allocated the support payments but improperly failed to do so in the judgment; and accordingly the judgment should be corrected properly to reflect the allocations as indicated above. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
#### DE MITRY v. OLIN J. STEPHENS, Inc. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Actions by Cecelia De Mitry and by Ulisse De Mitry against Olin J. Stephens, Incorporated.

No opinion. Motions denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. 150 N. Y. 1082.
# EUR-Lex - 31985R1365 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985R1365

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1365/85 of 24 May 1985 amending Regulations (EEC) No 2191/81 and (EEC) No 2192/81 as regards the amount of aid for butter **

*
Official Journal L 139 , 27/05/1985 P. 0020 - 0020 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0247 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0247 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0182 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0182 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1365/85

of 24 May 1985

amending Regulations (EEC) No 2191/81 and (EEC) No 2192/81 as regards the amount of aid for butter

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1298/85 (2), and in particular Article 12 (3) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2191/81 (3) and (EEC) No 2192/81 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1375/84 (5), fixed the level of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organizations and by the armies and similar forces of the Member States; whereas, in view of market trends, it seems necessary to adjust the amount of this aid;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 and in Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2192/81, '157 ECU' is in each case hereby replaced by '150,5 ECU'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 June 1985.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 May 1985.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ No L 137, 27. 5. 1985, p. 5.

(3) OJ No L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 20.

(4) OJ No L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 24.

(5) OJ No L 132, 18. 5. 1984, p. 30.
#### § 1120.1 Purpose of this part.

This part of the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations (DoDGARs) establishes a standard award format for DoD Components' grants and cooperative agreements. It thereby makes the content easier for a recipient to locate in different DoD Components' awards.
#### In re HEINSHEIMER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

In the matter of Norbert Heinsheimer.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 160 App. Div. 880, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1120.