alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 1117

- 18T3

IN THE MATTER OF MODESTO MIRANDA, D eceased.

_______________________

Argued September 18, 2019

– Decided

Before Judges Haas and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. P

000 102

- 18.

Joanna R. Adu argued the cause for appellant Victor M iranda (Lyons & Associates, PC , attorneys; Joanna R. Adu, on the briefs).

Colin M. Quinn argued the cause for respondent Maria Miranda.

PER CURIAM

In this will contest matter, plaintiff Victor Miranda appeals from the

Chancery Division's September 26, 2018 order dismissing his complaint which NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

September 25, 20192 A

- 1117

- 18T3

sought to set aside the last will and testament of his father, Modesto Miranda, 1

and revoke the letters testamen tary issued to his sister, defendant Maria

Miranda, as the executrix of Modesto's estate. In his cogent written decision,

Judge James J. DeLuca found that plaintiff's complaint was untimely under Rule

4:85

- 1 because plaintiff did not file it within four m onths after Modesto's will

was probated. The judge also determined that plaintiff failed to establish

exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50

- 1(f) to warrant reopening the

judgment admitting Modesto's will to probate, or the relaxation of the Rule 4:85

-

1 time limitations.

On appeal, plaintiff raises the following contentions:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT.

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE.

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ESTABLISH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING RELIEF PURSUANT TO RULE 4:50

- 1.

1 Because the plaintiff and defendant share the same name as their deceased father, we refer to the decedent as "Modesto" in this opinion. In doing so, we intend no disrespect.3 A

- 1117

- 18T3 II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE WARRANT RELAXATION OF THE TIME LIMITATION SET FORTH IN RULE 4:85

- 1, PURSUANT TO RULE 1:1

- 2(a).

We conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). We affirm

substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge DeLuca in his thoughtful

written decision that thoroughly addressed plaintiff's claims.

Affirmed.
§ 1303.05 Estimation of Diversion. ( a ) In establishing any quota under the sections in this part for a covered controlled substance, the Administrator shall estimate the amount of diversion of the covered controlled substance that occurs in the United States.
( b ) In estimating diversion under the sections in this part, the Administrator: ( 1 ) Shall consider information the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, determines reliable on rates of overdose deaths and abuse and overall public health impact related to the covered controlled substance in the United States; and
( 2 ) May take into consideration whatever other sources of information the Administrator determines reliable.
( c ) After estimating the amount of diversion of a covered controlled substance, the Administrator shall make appropriate quota reductions, as determined by the Administrator, from the quota the Administrator would have otherwise established had such diversion not been considered.
( d ) For purposes of this Part, the term “covered controlled substances” refers to fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and hydromorphone.
[88 FR 60139, Aug. 31, 2023]
§ 1250.38 Toilet and lavatory facilities for use of food-handling employees. ( a ) Toilet and lavatory facilities of suitable design and construction shall be provided for use of food-handling employees. Railroad dining car crew lavatory facilities are regulated under § 1250.45.
( b ) Signs directing food-handling employees to wash their hands after each use of toilet facilities shall be posted so as to be readily observable by such employees. Hand washing facilities shall include soap, sanitary towels and hot and cold running water or warm running water in lieu of hot and cold running water.
( c ) All toilet rooms shall be maintained in a clean condition.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.2 Exclusions. ( a ) This part does not apply to work at a DOE site: ( 1 ) Regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; or
( 2 ) Operated under the authority of the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, pursuant to Executive Order 12344, as set forth in Public Law 98-525, 42 U.S.C. 7158 note.
( b ) This part does not apply to radiological hazards or nuclear explosives operations to the extent regulated by 10 CFR Parts 20, 820, 830 or 835.
( c ) This part does not apply to transportation to or from a DOE site.
( d ) This part does not require compliance with any Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for beryllium or beryllium compounds except as provided in 10 CFR part 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.”
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 69566, Nov. 10, 2015; 88 FR 86815, Dec. 15, 2023]
H. Res. 648

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

February 1, 2006.

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS. 

Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian of the House; or a 

former elected officer of the House or former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of the House shall not 

be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of the 

House and rooms leading thereto if he or she—

‘‘(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 

principal as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule 

XXV; 

‘‘(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest 

in any legislative measure pending before the House or 

reported by a committee; or 
2

•HRES 648 EH 

‘‘(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or 

organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or 

indirectly, the passage, defeat, or amendment of any legislative proposal. 

‘‘(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MEMBER EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR LOBBYISTS WHO ARE FORMER MEMBERS OR OFFICERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The House of Representatives may 

not provide access to any exercise facility which is made 

available exclusively to Members and former Members, officers and former officers of the House of Representatives, and 

their spouses to any former Member, former officer, or 

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute or agent of a 

foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Member of the House of Representatives’’ includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner 

to the Congress. 
3

•HRES 648 EH 

(b) REGULATIONS.—The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 131
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 131 appear at 63 FR 14035, Mar. 24, 1998.

§ 131.155 Light cream. ( a ) *Description.* Light cream is cream which contains not less than 18 percent but less than 30 percent milkfat. It is pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized, and may be homogenized.
( b ) *Optional ingredients.* The following safe and suitable ingredients may be used: ( 1 ) Stabilizers.
( 2 ) Emulsifiers.
( 3 ) Nutritive sweeteners.
( 4 ) Characterizing flavoring ingredients (with or without coloring) as follows: ( i ) Fruit and fruit juice (including concentrated fruit and fruit juice).
( ii ) Natural and artificial food flavoring.
( c ) *Methods of analysis.* The milkfat content is determined by the method prescribed in “Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,” 13th Ed. (1980), sections 16.156 and 16.059, under “Fat, Roese-Gottlieb Method—Official Final Action,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( d ) *Nomenclature.* The name of the food is “Light cream”, or alternatively “Coffee cream” or “Table cream”. The name of the food shall be accompanied on the label by a declaration indicating the presence of any characterizing flavoring, as specified in § 101.22 of this chapter. ( 1 ) The following terms shall accompany the name of the food wherever it appears on the principal display panel or panels of the label in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters used in such name: ( i ) The word “ultra-pasteurized” if the food has been ultra-pasteurized.
( ii ) The word “sweetened” if no characterizing flavoring ingredients are used, but nutritive sweetener is added.
( 2 ) The following terms may appear on the label: ( i ) The word “pasteurized” if the food has been pasteurized.
( ii ) The word “homogenized” if the food has been homogenized.
( e ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14360, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 11824, Mar. 19, 1982; 49 FR 10092, Mar. 1, 1984; 54 FR 24893, June 12, 1989; 58 FR 2891, Jan. 6, 1993]
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 928 

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to 

transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives 

relating to the President’s use of the pardon power under article II, 

section 2 of the Constitution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2018 

Mr. TED LIEU of California (for himself and Mr. PASCRELL) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively, certain documents 

to the House of Representatives relating to the President’s use of the pardon power under article II, section 

2 of the Constitution. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested, and Attor2 ney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, 

3 respectively, to the House of Representatives, not later 

4 than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolu5 tion, copies of any document, record, audio recording, 

6 memorandum, correspondence, or other communication in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 928 IH 

1 their possession, or any portion of any such communica2 tion, that refers or relates to the following: 

3 (1) Any pardon issued by the President on or 

4 after January 20, 2017. 

5 (2) Any pardon under consideration by the 

6 President, including pardons under consideration for 

7 any of the following individuals: 

8 (A) Michael Cohen, the President’s per9 sonal attorney. 

10 (B) Paul Manafort, former chairman of 

11 the Trump Presidential campaign. 

12 (C) Richard Gates, former deputy chair13 man of the Trump Presidential campaign. 

14 (D) Former National Security Advisor Mi15 chael Flynn. 

16 (E) George Papadopoulos, advisor to the 

17 Trump Presidential campaign. 

18 (F) Alex van der Zwaan, attorney and 

19 former associate of Paul Manafort. 

20 (3) Any consideration of the President’s power 

21 to pardon himself, including his assertion that he 

22 has the ‘‘absolute right’’ to pardon himself. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 928 IH 

1 (4) President Trump’s decision to issue pardons 

2 without first consulting the Office of the Pardon At3 torney of the Department of Justice. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
§ 111.475 Under this subpart M, what records must you make and keep? ( a ) You must make and keep records required under this subpart M in accordance with subpart P of this part.
( b ) You must make and keep the following records: ( 1 ) Written procedures for holding and distributing operations; and
( 2 ) Records of product distribution.
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

E X C E P T I ON

A L C H I L D C E

N T E R , I N C .; I N C L U S I ON , I N C .; T O M O R

R O W ’ S H O P E S A T E L L I T E S E R V I C E S , I N C

. ; W DB , I N C .; L I V I

N G I N D E P E N D E N T L Y F O R E V E R

Y ON E , I N C ., Plaintiffs-Appellees ,

v
. R I C H A R D A R M S T R O N G ; L E S L I E C L E M E N T , Defendants-Appellants

. N o. 12-35382
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00634- B L W

ORDER

On Remand F rom The United States Supreme Court

F iled May

14, 2015

B efore: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. B ea, Circuit J udg es, and Stephen J oseph Murphy , * District J u dg e.

* T h e Ho n o rab le Step h e n J o sep h Mu rp h y III, Un ited States District J u d g e f o r th e Eastern District o f

Mich ig an , sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.E X C E P T I O N A L C H I L D C T R

. V

. A R M S T R ON G 2
ORDER
The orig inal decision e ntered by this c ourt, re p o rted at 567 F

. App’x 4 96, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the U nited States. The Court held that the Supremacy Cla u s e does not provide an implied private rig ht of action a n d t h at Medicaid providers do not otherwise h a v e the ability to proceed in equity for e n forcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015). Ac c o rding ly , the Supreme Court has n ow specifically addressed the q u e s t ion o ur court had previously address e d , and the opinion upon w hich we relied, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry , 543 F .3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2008), is no long er valid and is overruled. S e e M iller v

. Gammie , 335 F .3d 889, 893 ( 9 t h C i r. 2003) (en banc). I n accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the distric t c o u rt’s injunction, and r emand with direction to the district court to dismiss the Complaint for failure to establish
a claim over which we have subject matter jurisdiction under F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
(87 Misc. Rep. 79)

#### In re ELDER’S ESTATE.

(Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County.

September, 1914.)

Executors and Administrators (§ 17*)—Risht to Letters of Administration—Interest of Applicant.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2588, as amended in 1914, limiting the right to administer to persons interested, a sister oí decedent, who, by reason of the survival of infant children, was not entitled to share in decedent’s personal estate, was not entitled to letters of administration.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 43-59; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]

Petition for letters of administration on the estate of William C. Elder, deceased. Decreed according to opinion.

J. Chester Johnson, of Brooklyn, for petitioner.

*

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

SCHULZ, S.

The children of the decédent, under the circumstances set forth in the petition, would be entitled to letters of administration if they were of full age. Where all of the persons entitled to take the personal estate are infants, as in this case, letters may be granted to the general guardian. Code Civ. Proc. § 2588. Recently in Matter of D’Adamo, 212 N. Y. 214, 106 N. E. 81, the Court of Appeals held that the case of Lathrop v. Smith, 35 Barb. 64, and 24 N. Y. 417, established the proper construction of section 2660 of the Code (as it was before amendments hereinafter referred to), and is applicable to that section of the Code as it was to the Revised Statutes, but stated that the result of the amendments to the Code contained in chapter 443 of the Laws of 1914, which took effect on September 1, 1914, would be to establish a new rule hereafter.

This proceeding, having been brought subsequently to September 1, 1914, is governed by the provisions of section 2588 of the Code, and, as the construction established by Lathrop v. Smith is not applicable to the new rule, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, who is the sister of the decedent, and not entitled to take or share in the personal property of the decedent, cannot have letters granted to her. The language Of the section, I think, is clearly to the effect that the right to administer is given only to persons interested, and such was the intention of the commission to revise the practice and procedure in Surrogates’ Courts, whose efforts resulted in the amendment of chapter 18 of the Code, as will appear from the note to the above section in their report submitted to the Legislature and dated February 9," 1914.

Letters must therefore be granted to the guardian of one or both of the infants, and if there be no guardian, and none be appointed who makes application, then letters should issue to the public administrator.

Decreed, accordingly.
§ 1271.210 Supplies and reagents. ( a ) *Verification.* You must not use supplies and reagents until they have been verified to meet specifications designed to prevent circumstances that increase the risk of the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases. Verification may be accomplished by the establishment that uses the supply or reagent, or by the vendor of the supply or reagent.
( b ) *Reagents.* Reagents used in processing and preservation of HCT/Ps must be sterile, where appropriate.
( c ) *In-house reagents.* You must validate and/or verify the processes used for production of in-house reagents.
( d ) *Records.* You must maintain the following records pertaining to supplies and reagents: ( 1 ) Records of the receipt of each supply or reagent, including the type, quantity, manufacturer, lot number, date of receipt, and expiration date;
( 2 ) Records of the verification of each supply or reagent, including test results or, in the case of vendor verification, a certificate of analysis from the vendor; and
( 3 ) Records of the lot of supply or reagent used in the manufacture of each HCT/P.
Dear Sir; 

I support the Medical Exemption Docket Number FAA-20 12-03 50. 

I am a 55 year old CFI, and have been a pilot for 39 years. My flight hours total S<nf? Ijf]Y!a~C~ssna)J7:}: 

with !50 horsepower 25 hours per year. The airport I fly out of is Bult Field, a privately owned non-tower 

airport , located just south of Chicago, II. 

Before I fly, I always check how I feel physically for the upcoming flight. The education course included in 

this exemption would help me evaluate if I am fit to fly. 

My family owned a general aviation facility, which went by the name of Sanger Airport, for 58 years. We 

sold it to an individual who I taught how to fly. He expanded to more than double in size from when we 

owned it. 

Allowing this option that reduces the burden of the 3rd_ Class medical certificate for pilots who fly 

recreationally, would help increase the number of pilots flying at this airport. 

I know many pilots who sold their airplanes, when trying to obtain a 3rd. Class physical became too 

burdensome. 

I successfully completed the FAA Aviation Learning Center Online Course, Navigating The D.C. ADIZ/ 

SFRA and TFRs and SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE. A valuable benefit of these courses are theE-mails I get 

from the FAA for T.F.R.s, when president Obama is in the area. These happen frequently in the Chicago 

area. 

Sincerely Yours, V. __ . ~ 

~n~~~ 1627 Markey Lane 

Flossmoor, II. 60422-1933 

E-mail : sangerair@att.net 

June 19,2012
§ 1271.23 How is a waiver from the electronic format requirements requested? ( a ) You may request a waiver from the requirement in § 1271.22 that information must be provided to FDA in electronic format. Submission of a request for waiver does not excuse timely compliance with the registration and listing requirements. FDA will grant a waiver request if FDA determines that the use of electronic means for submission of registration and listing information is not reasonable for the registrant making the waiver request.
( b ) Waiver requests under this section must be submitted in writing and must include the specific reasons why electronic submission is not reasonable for the registrant and a U.S. telephone number and mailing address where FDA can contact the registrant. Waiver requests may be sent to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Document Control Center (see addresses in § 600.2 of this chapter).
( c ) If FDA grants the waiver request, FDA may limit its duration and will specify terms of the waiver and provide information on how to submit establishment registration, listings, other information, and updates, as applicable.
[81 FR 60224, Aug. 31, 2016]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

d0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

141049-51(74) 

ROBIN DECKER, as Next Friend of ERIC 

DECKER, a Minor, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141049-51 

 COA: 284155; 285870; 290633 

Montcalm CC: 06-007819-NH 

MICHAEL STOIKO, M.D., SPECTRUM 

HEALTH HOSPITALS, INC., d/b/a 

BUTTERWORTH HOSPITAL, and 

SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS, INC., 

d/b/a DEVOS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

MICHAEL ROCHOWIAK, D.O., ALBERTO 

BETANCOURT, M.D., CARSON CITY 

HOSPITAL, d/b/a CENTER FOR 

WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE, and CARSON 

CITY HOSPITAL, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, 

Intervening Plaintiff. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

22, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
#### In the Matter of Richard K. Lahm, Respondent, v Michael R. Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Richard K. Lahm, Appellant, v Michael R. Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[817 NYS2d 5]

*462Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered April 29, 2004, which granted petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying him accidental disability retirement benefits and awarded petitioner such benefits, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 16, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application to hold respondents in civil contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the credible medical evidence in the record that petitioner’s cancer did not result from his exposure to dust, smoke and debris at the time of the collapse of the World Trade Center and its aftermath, the Board of Trustees’ denial of accidental disability retirement benefits had a rational basis. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ. *[See*4 Misc 3d 530 (2004).]