alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Luis Romero, Respondent, v John’s Fruits and Vegetables, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party PlaintiffsAppellants. V & L Construction Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 772]

*365In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Colar, J.), dated September 8, 2003, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the separate motion of the third-party defendants for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the separate motion of the third-party defendants and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff, payable by the defendants third-party plaintiffs, and one bill of costs to the defendants third-party plaintiffs, payable by the third-party defendants, and the third-party complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell from a horizontal beam, on which he was walking, while performing construction work at premises owned by the defendants. It is undisputed that the defendants failed to provide any safety devices at the construction site, which established a prima facie case that they violated Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts,*65 NY2d 513, 523 [1985]). Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiff’s status as an illegal alien does not constitute a bar to his recovery under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Mazur v Rock-McGraw, Inc.,*246 AD2d 515 [1998]; *see also Majlinger v Cassino Contr. Corp.,*25 AD3d 14 [2005]; *Nizamuddowlah v Bengal Cabaret,*69 AD2d 875 [1979]), nor did the defendants present any other claims which raise a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover under the statute. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

The third-party defendants failed to show good cause for their lengthy delay in moving for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint *(see Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Therefore, their motion, although decided before *Brill v City of New York (supra),*should have been denied. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6407-1 Date of allowance of refund or credit.

The date on which the district director or the director of the regional service center, or an authorized certifying officer designated by either of them, first certifies the allowance of an overassessment in respect of any internal revenue tax shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax.
#### Xiaowen Feng et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 276]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated April 23, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Xiaowen Feng did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Xiaowen Feng did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494 [2005]; *Grant v Fofana,*10 AD3d 446 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Xiaowen Feng sustained a serious injury, since they failed to submit competent medical evidence in admissible form (see *Grasso v Angerami,*79 NY2d 813, 814 [1991]; *Fisher v Williams,*289 AD2d 288, 289 [2001]; see *also Luckey v Bauch,*17 AD3d 411 [2005]; *Kivlan v Acevedo,*17 AD3d 321, 322 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          56,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,176,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,948,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,530,000
<PP&E>                                         529,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,478,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,339,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,856,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,478,000
<SALES>                                      7,921,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,921,000
<CGS>                                        3,777,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,740,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (411,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (185,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (185,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (185,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis A. Black, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 912]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 31, 2004, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered February 3, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to *Apprendi v New Jersey*(530 US 466 [2000]), is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61 [2005], *cert denied*— US —, 126 S Ct 564 [Oct. 31, 2005]; *People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]).

*491The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 28.0

                      FIRST PATRIOT BANKSHARES CORPORATION

                                  NEWS RELEASE



For Immediate Release                                         September 13, 1996


The Board of Directors of First Patriot Bankshares Corporation announced today
that it had formed a special committee for the purpose of exploring methods of
enhancing shareholder value and, if appropriate, making recommendations to the
full Board of Directors.  The Committee has engaged the investment banking firm
of Baxter Fentriss and Company to assist the committee in identifying and
assessing alternative value enhancement strategies.  The Committee hopes to
complete its study by the end of 1996.

First Patriot Bankshares Corporation is the $180 million holding company for
First Patriot National Bank.  The bank is headquartered in Reston, Virginia and
has offices throughout Northern Virginia.


Contact: Carroll C. Markley, President & C.E.O.  (703) 442-7199





                                       19
#### § 31.6011(a)-8 Composite return in lieu of specified form.

The Commissioner may authorize the use, at the option of the employer, of a composite return in lieu of any form specified in this part for use by an employer, subject to such conditions, limitations, and special rules governing the preparation, execution, filing, and correction thereof as the Commissioner may deem appropriate. Such composite return shall consist of a form prescribed ty the Commissioner and an attachment or attachments of magnetic tape or other approved media. Notwithstanding any provisions in this part to the contrary, a single form and attachment may comprise the returns of more than one employer. To the extent that the use of a compsoite return has been authorized by the Commissioner, references in this part to a specific form for use by the employer shall be deemed to refer also to a composite return under this section.

[T.D. 7200, 37 FR 16544, Aug. 16, 1972]
----

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-293/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste-water treatment - Province of Varese)

(2006/C 331/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant: Italy (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, M. Fiorilli, avoccato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Insufficiently stringent treatment of urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

----
#### § 48.6416(b)(2)-1 Certain exportations, uses, sales, or resales causing overpayments of tax.

In the case of any payment of tax under section 4041 (a)(1) or (a)(2) (diesel fuel and special fuels tax) or under chapter 32 (manufacturers tax) that is determined to be an overpayment by reason of certain exportations, uses, sales, or resales described in section 6416(b)(2) and § 48.6416(b)(2)-2, the person who paid the tax may file a claim for refund of the overpayment or, in the case of overpayments under chapter 32, may claim credit for the overpayment on any return of tax under this subpart which the person subsequently files. However, under the circumstances described in section 6416(c) and § 48.6416(e)-1, the overpayments under chapter 32 may be refunded to an exporter or shipper. No interest shall be paid on any credit or refund allowed under this section. For provisions relating to the evidence required in support of a claim for credit or refund under this section, see § 301.6402-2 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration) and §§ 48.6416(b)(2)-3 and 48.6416(b)(2)-4. For provisions authorizing the taking of a credit in lieu of filing a claim for refund, see section 6416(d) and § 48.6416(f)-1.

[T.D. 8043, 50 FR 32026, Aug. 8, 1985, as amended by T.D. 8879, 65 FR 17160, Mar. 31, 2000]
#### § 25.2512-8 Transfers for insufficient consideration.

Transfers reached by the gift tax are not confined to those only which, being without a valuable consideration, accord with the common law concept of gifts, but embrace as well sales, exchanges, and other dispositions of property for a consideration to the extent that the value of the property transferred by the donor exceeds the value in money or money's worth of the consideration given therefor. However, a sale, exchange, or other transfer of property made in the ordinary course of business (a transaction which is bona fide, at arm's length, and free from any donative intent), will be considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth. A consideration not reducible to a value in money or money's worth, as love and affection, promise of marriage, etc., is to be wholly disregarded, and the entire value of the property transferred constitutes the amount of the gift. Similarly, a relinquishment or promised relinquishment of dower or curtesy, or of a statutory estate created in lieu of dower or curtesy, or of other marital rights in the spouse's property or estate, shall not be considered to any extent a consideration “in money or money's worth.” See, however, section 2516 and the regulations thereunder with respect to certain transfers incident to a divorce. See also sections 2701, 2702, 2703 and 2704 and the regulations at §§ 25.2701-0 through 25.2704-3 for special rules for valuing transfers of business interests, transfers in trust, and transfers pursuant to options and purchase agreements.

[T.D. 6334, 23 FR 8904, Nov. 15, 1958; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 8395, 57 FR 4255, Feb. 4, 1992]
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 25 Codification Rule, Technical Correction 51 FR 19176-19177 May28,1986 (HSWA Cluster I) Note: On July 15,1985, (50 FR 28702, Revision Checklist 17 F), §265.314(d) was inadvertently reserved. Thissection was originally promulgated on April 30, 1985, at 50 FR 18370 (see RCRA Revision Checklist 16). This rule correctsthe July 15 language by removing the "reserved' reference to paragraph (d). Paragraph (d) remains as originally promulgated on April 30, 1985.

.
BROADFEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS: MORE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN ALENT GENT SCOPE PART 265 -INTERIM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS .WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SUBPART N - LANDFILLS • SPECIALREQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS -400(3)

. paint filter test 265.314(dl -140(4)(b)(iiil X



# • May 28, 1986 - Page 1 of 1
§ 31.3121(b)(18)-1 Services performed by a resident of the Republic of the Philippines while temporarily in Guam. ( a ) Services performed after 1960 by a resident of the Republic of the Philippines while in Guam on a temporary basis as a nonimmigrant alien admitted to Guam pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) are excepted from employment.
( b ) Section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides as follows:
Sec. 101. *Definitions.* [Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 166)] (a) As used in this chapter— (15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens— (H) An alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning (i) who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services of an exceptional nature requiring merit and ability; or (ii) who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform other temporary services or labor, if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country; or (iii) who is coming temporarily to the United States as an industrial trainee;
[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8313, July 2, 1964]
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Uraniferous phosphatic lake beds of Eocene age in 
intermontane basins of Wyoming and Utah

#### Professional Paper 474-E

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 4**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 5**                                
    (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp474E 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:37
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6229(b)-2 Special rule with respect to debtors in title 11 cases. ( a ) *In general.* Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, if an agreement is entered into under section 6229(b)(1)(B), and the agreement is signed by a person who would be the tax matters partner but for the fact that, at the time that the agreement is executed, the person is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding under title 11 of the United States Code, such agreement shall be binding on all partners in the partnership unless the Internal Revenue Service has been notified of the bankruptcy proceeding in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Procedures for notifying the Internal Revenue Service of a partner's bankruptcy proceeding.* ( 1 ) The Internal Revenue Service shall be notified of the bankruptcy proceeding of the tax matters partner in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 301.6223(c)-1.
( 2 ) In addition to the information specified in § 301.6223(c)-1, notification that a person is (or was) a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding shall include the date the bankruptcy proceeding was filed, the name and address of the court in which the bankruptcy proceeding exists (or took place), the caption of the bankruptcy proceeding (including the docket number or other identification number used by the court), and the status of the proceeding as of the date of notification.
( c ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6229(b)-2T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50555, Oct. 4, 2001]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 171 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 171

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in 
                     elections for Federal office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1996

Mr. Lantos submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in 
                     elections for Federal office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on 
expenditures made by, in support of, or in opposition to the nomination 
or election of any person to Federal office.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on 
contributions by individuals or entities by, in support of, or in 
opposition to the nomination or election of any person to Federal 
office.
    ``Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.''.
                                 <all>
```