alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1106

To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth,

Massachusetts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1995

Mr. STUDDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation,

Falmouth, Massachusetts, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CHANNEL DEAUTHORIZATION, FALMOUTH,

4 MASSACHUSETTS.

5 (a) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The following portion of

6 the project for navigation, Falmouth, Massachusetts, au7 thorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of

8 1948 (62 Stat. 1172), is not authorized after the date of

9 the enactment of this Act: That portion commencing at

10 a point north 199286.41 east 844394.91 a line running
2

•HR 1106 IH

1 north 73 degrees 09 minutes 29.0 seconds east 440.34

2 feet to a point north 199413.99 east 844816.36 thence

3 turning and running north 43 degrees 09 minutes 34.0

4 seconds east 1087.14 feet to a point north 200207.01 east

5 845560.00 thence turning and running north 11 degrees

6 04 minutes 24.3 seconds west 380.08 feet to a point north

7 200580.01 east 845487.00 thence turning and running

8 north 22 degrees 05 minutes 50.8 seconds east 1332.36

9 feet to a point north 201814.50 east 845988.21 thence

10 turning and running north 02 degrees 54 minutes 15.7

11 seconds east 15.0 feet to a point north 201829.48 east

12 845988.97 thence turning and running south 24 degrees

13 56 minutes 42.3 seconds west 1410.29 feet to a point

14 north 200550.75 east 845394.18 thence turning and run15 ning south 21 degrees 40 minutes 12.2 seconds west

16 890.13 feet to a point north 199723.53 east 845065.49

17 thence turning and running south 43 degrees 09 minutes

18 29.3 seconds west 344.52 feet to a point north 199472.21

19 east 844829.83 thence turning and running south 66 de20 grees 52 minutes 03.3 seconds west 472.95 feet returning

21 to a point north 199286.41 east 844349.91.

22 (b) REDESIGNATION.—The portion of the project re23 ferred to in subsection (a) upstream of a line designated

24 by the two points north 199463.13 east 844496.40 and
3

•HR 1106 IH

1 north 199350.36 east 844544.60 is redesignated as an

2 anchorage area.

Æ
39948.

#### GAZAWAY v. ISRAEL.

Decided February 25, 1963.

*George Mitchell, Dan C. Mitchell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jack K. Bohler,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

J. H. Israel sued Bud H. Gazaway for $560 on an alleged note, a copy of which was attached to the petition as follows: “State of Georgia, Fulton County. The undersigned has on this *Sept. 14, 1960,*acknowledged receipt of *I promis*[sic] *J. H. Israel $560.00,*hereinafter called Seller,—Type of *Body—Five Hundred Sixty*dollars—on which there is still due and owing by the undersigned *$560.00,*payable in *one installment of $560.00*each, followed by__________________ installments of *$560.00,*commencing on *March 14, 1961,*one being due on the same day of each successive month thereafter until all are paid. Title to said automobile is and remains in Seller or assignee according to tenor of an agreement executed *390contemporaneously herewith until said price is paid. (Signed) *Bud H. Gazaway, 8934 Baring Rd., Decatur.”*There was no demurrer to the petition. The defendant denied indebtedness in his answer and pleaded that the alleged note was not intended to be an obligation to pay the plaintiff any sum of money and that the defendant prepared the document for the plaintiff by way of instruction as to how to fill out a contract in his duties as salesman for Westbrook Motors. There was no contention on the part of the defendant that there was any usury in connection with signing of the note or that the alleged note on its face did not contain an obligation by the defendant to pay $560 to the plaintiff. See *Code*§§ 57-103, 81-901. The jury found for the plaintiff $560, and the defendant excepts to the overruling of a motion for new trial as amended.

The purported amended grounds of the motion for a new trial are no more than arguments covering the general grounds and present nothing in themselves for consideration. •

If there can be said to be any ambiguity in the contract sued on, the evidence, although in conflict, authorized the jury to find that the instrument sued on was intended as an obligation by the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $500 principal and $60 interest. The evidence was also in conflict as to whether there was any consideration for the note or obligation, but the evidence amply authorized the jury to find that the plaintiff loaned the defendant $500 and that the money loaned, plus $60 interest, constituted the consideration for the note. Since the verdict rendered by the jury was authorized by the evidence, this court is without power to interfere with the finding of the jury. We do not deem citation of authority necessary for this proposition.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial on the general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
(Plolmes County Common Pleas,

1899.)

#### PROSECUTING ATTORNEY v. G. W. SPENCER.

1 *Suit to recover county funds illegally*drawn—

. The prosecuting attorney has authority without consent of county commissioners to-i bring suit to recover money illegally drawn by county officers.

■ Maxwell, J.

Mode of collecting the amounts found to have been illegally drawn by county officers, as shown by the examiners sent out by the- ; state auditor.

! It has been a question whether the prosecuting attorney or county commissioners are to bring the suit. Suit was brought by the prosecutor in his own name on behalf of the county against G. W. Spencer, ex-county commissioner, for the amount found against him in the Musser report. Held, that the prosecutor is authorized tobring the suit at his will' and pleasure, without first getting the author-I ity from the commissioners.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41183

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO RAMOS-ANTONIO, also known as Aliver Eden FernandezCamacho,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1999-1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio RamosAntonio has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramos-Antonio has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41183 Document: 00512751413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
No. 13-41183

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-41183 Document: 00512751413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
#### § 44.6151-1 Time and place for paying taxes.

The taxes imposed by sections 4401 and 4411 shall, without assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the returns are required to be filed at the time fixed for filing returns. For provisions relating to the time for filing returns, see section 6071 and § 44.6071-1. For provisions relating to the place for filing returns, see section 6091 and § 44.6091-1.
#### Brenda L. Powers et al., Appellants, v Faxton Hospital, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[803 NYS2d 871]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County *1106(John G. Ringrose, A.J.), entered July 8, 2004. The order, inter alia, denied in part plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order compelling defendant Faxton Hospital to produce certain records.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their cross motion seeking access to portions of the credentialing and privileging files of defendant Faxton Hospital (Hospital) concerning defendant Gary Gaines, M.D. We reject that contention. The record establishes that the Hospital obtained and maintained the information sought as part of its medical quality assessment and review process in compliance with Public Health Law §§ 2805-j and 2805-k, and thus the information is confidential and exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m (2) *(see Logue v Velez,*92 NY2d 13, 18 [1998]; *Bernholc v Kitain,*294 AD2d 387 [2002]). The court therefore properly denied that part of the cross motion seeking access to those portions of the credentialing and privileging files.

We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court should have ordered an in camera review of the credentialing and privileging files at issue. Plaintiffs established no basis for an in camera review because there is no evidence that any part of the information sought is outside the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m (2) *(cf. Mong v Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo,*259 AD2d 1038 [1999]). Plaintiffs’ further contention regarding the possible failure of the Hospital to comply with 45 CFR 60.10 and 60.11 is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review *(see generally Ring v Jones,*13 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2004]; *Oram v Capone,*206 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PETE'S
BREWING COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AS
SHOWN IN THE 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,532
<SECURITIES>                                    15,937
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                       240
<INVENTORY>                                      4,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,199
<PP&E>                                           4,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,934
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,555
<OTHER-SE>                                        (80)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,637
<SALES>                                         12,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,204
<CGS>                                            6,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,190)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,370)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,820)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,820)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.68 Motions and requests. ( a ) *Motions* — ( 1 ) *In general.* At any time after the filing of the complaint, any party may file a motion with the Administrative Law Judge. Unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, motions must be in writing and must be served on the opposing party as provided in § 10.63(b). A motion must concisely specify its grounds and the relief sought, and, if appropriate, must contain a memorandum of facts and law in support.
( 2 ) *Summary adjudication.* Either party may move for a summary adjudication upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. If the non-moving party opposes summary adjudication in the moving party's favor, the non-moving party must file a written response within 30 days unless ordered otherwise by the Administrative Law Judge.
( 3 ) *Good Faith.* A party filing a motion for extension of time, a motion for postponement of a hearing, or any other non-dispositive or procedural motion must first contact the other party to determine whether there is any objection to the motion, and must state in the motion whether the other party has an objection.
( b ) *Response.* Unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, the nonmoving party is not required to file a response to a motion. If the Administrative Law Judge does not order the nonmoving party to file a response, and the nonmoving party files no response, the nonmoving party is deemed to oppose the motion. If a nonmoving party does not respond within 30 days of the filing of a motion for decision by default for failure to file a timely answer or for failure to prosecute, the nonmoving party is deemed not to oppose the motion.
( c ) *Oral motions; oral argument.* ( 1 ) The Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause and with notice to the parties, permit oral motions and oral opposition to motions.
( 2 ) The Administrative Law Judge may, within his or her discretion, permit oral argument on any motion.
( d ) *Orders.* The Administrative Law Judge should issue written orders disposing of any motion or request and any response thereto.
( e ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable on September 26, 2007.
[T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54552, Sept. 26, 2007]
II

Calendar No. 276

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Reported by Mr. WARNER, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr.

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in
2

HJ 110 RS

1 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

2 reason of the expiration of the term of Jeannine Smith

3 Clark of the District of Columbia on August 25, 1995,

4 is filled by the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. of

5 the District of Columbia. The appointment is for a term

6 of six years and shall take effect on the date on which

7 this joint resolution becomes law.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 276

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Howard H.

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.Baker, Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant, v Alegret Guillaume, Respondent. State Farm Insurance Company et al., Proposed Additional Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 761]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.H.O.), dated November 26, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

*380Ordered, that the order is affirmed with costs.

The petitioner, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), issued an automobile insurance policy to the respondent, Alegret Guillaume, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 10, 2003, with an automobile owned and operated by Michael Lespinasse. State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) issued an automobile insurance policy to Lespinasse which was in effect on the date of the accident. However, State Farm disclaimed coverage to Lespinasse based upon his alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation of the claim in accordance with the terms of the policy. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court determined that State Farm had demonstrated noncompliance by its insured and denied the petition.

“An insurer who seeks to disclaim coverage on the ground of noncooperation must demonstrate that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s co-operation . . . that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s co-operation . . . and that the attitude of the insured, after his [or her] cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction” *(Matter of Metlife Auto & Home v Burgos,*4 AD3d 477 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *see Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co.,*19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]; *Coleman v New Amsterdam Cas. Co.,*247 NY 271, 276 [1928]; *State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Imeri,*182 AD2d 683 [1992]).

State Farm demonstrated that it met the requirements set forth in *Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co. (supra)*to disclaim coverage on the ground of lack of cooperation of its insured, Lespinasse *(see Allstate Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co.,*16 AD3d 605 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 708 [2005]). Accordingly, the Lespinasse vehicle was uninsured and, as such, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Antoinette Varela, CSR 2100 Bloomdale Road, Suite 30146 McKinney, TX 75071 Phone: 972.548. 4572 Email: avarela@co.collin.tx.us

March 23 , 2015

Sent via e lectronically

Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court Fifth Court of Appeals 600 Commerce Street 2 nd Floor Dallas, TX 75202

Re: Trial C ourt Cause Number 005

- 00782

- 2014 , Court of Appeals Cause Number 05

- 15

- 00209

- CV
, Discover Bank v. Rita Chacon

Ms. Matz
,
The Reporter’s Record for the above

- entitled and

– numbered case on appeal is due March 23, 2015 . As of today’ s date there has been no designation of record filed and financial arrangements have not been

.
Thank you for your time in advance.

Sincerely, Antoinette Varela, CSR 7590
#### § 49.4271-2 Aircraft management services.

For rules regarding the exemption for certain amounts paid by aircraft owners for aircraft management services, see § 49.4261-10. This section applies to amounts paid on and after January 19, 2021. For rules that apply before that date, *see* 26 CFR part 49, revised as of April 1, 2020.

[T.D. 9948, 86 FR 5008, Jan. 19, 2021]
www.gpo.gov

### §5352. Quadrennial reports on foreign treatment of United States financial institutions

Not less frequently than every 4 years, beginning December 1, 1990, the Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Commerce, shall report to the Congress on (1) the foreign countries from which foreign financial services institutions have entered into the business of providing financial services in the United States, (2) the kinds of financial services which are being offered, (3) the extent to which foreign countries deny national treatment to United States banking organizations and securities companies, and (4) the efforts undertaken by the United States to eliminate such discrimination. The report shall focus on those countries in which there are significant denials of national treatment which impact United States financial firms. The report shall also describe the progress of discussions pursuant to section 5353 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, §3602, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1387.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended April 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                  1,224
<SECURITIES>                           23,112
<RECEIVABLES>                             159
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,383
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         24,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      68
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             24,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           24,894
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,468
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,026
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,026
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.84
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1025.330 Reports relating to currency in excess of $10,000 received in a trade or business.

Refer to § 1010.330 of this chapter for rules regarding the filing of reports relating to currency in excess of $10,000 received by insurance companies.