alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Artessa et al., Appellants, v City of Utica, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 858]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered March 17, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ proof at trial.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for flooding allegedly caused by the negligent design, maintenance and inspection of defendant’s flood control system. At the close of plaintiffs’ proof at trial, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, which in effect was a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion. We note at the outset that, although the notice of appeal incorrectly states that the appeal is taken from a judgment rather than an order, we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as valid pursuant to CPLR 5520 (c) *(see generally Myers v General Elec. Co.,*132 AD2d 1007, 1008 [1987]).

Plaintiffs contend that the court was required to deny defendant’s motion pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, inasmuch as defendant had made a pretrial motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. We reject that contention *(see Wyoming County Bank v Ackerman,*286 AD2d 884 [2001]; *see also Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp.,*125 AD2d 944, 945 [1986], *affd*70 NY2d 994 [1988], *rearg denied*71 NY2d 995 [1988]). On the merits, we conclude that the court properly granted defendant’s motion. To warrant submission of a negligence case based upon circumstantial evidence to the jury, the evidence need not entirely exclude other causes but the “proof must render those other causes sufficiently ‘remote’ or ‘technical’ to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” *(Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr.,*67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]). Here, even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant was negligent, we conclude that there *1149was no evidence that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the damage to plaintiffs’ properties.

Finally, plaintiffs’ contention that the matter should have been submitted to the jury based upon the theory of res ipsa loquitur is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us *(see Doize v Holiday Inn Ronkonkoma,*6 AD3d 573, 574-575 [2004]; *De Luke v State of New York,*169 AD2d 916, 919 [1991]; *see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd

(Case C-458/06)

(2006/C 326/89)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd

Question referred

Is the alcohol contained in cooking wine to be classified as ethyl alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages? (1)

----

(1)OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

----
PUBLIC LAW 111–368—JAN. 4, 2011 124 STAT. 4067 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6400: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Dec. 7, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–368 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 North 

6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EARL WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Approved January 4, 2011. 

Jan. 4, 2011 

[H.R. 6400] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19784]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0657]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Recommendations for Early Food 
Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant 
Varieties Intended for Food Use

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Recommendations for Early Food 
Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant 
Varieties Intended for Food Use'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of 
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4501242b2c20296b022c31312920362a2b052321246b2d2d366b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9dd9fcf3f4f8f1b3daf4e9e9f1f8eef2f3ddfbf9fcb3f5f5eeb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a> 301-
796-5156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 17, 2009 
(74 FR 17868), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0583. 
The approval expires on July 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-19784 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 31.3306(b)(7)-1 Payments other than in cash for service not in the course of employer's trade or business.

The term “wages” does not include remuneration paid in any medium other than cash for service not in the course of the employer's trade or business. Cash remuneration includes checks and other monetary media of exchange. Remuneration paid in any medium other than cash, such as lodging, food, or other goods or commodities, for service not in the course of the employer's trade or business does not constitute wages. Remuneration paid in any medium other than cash for other types of services does not come within this exclusion from wages. For provisions relating to the circumstances under which service not in the course of the employer's trade or business does not constitute employment, see § 31.3306(c)(3)-1.
#### Diana Conte, Respondent, v Valley Stream Central High School District, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 101]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated December 14, 2004, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim approximately 11 months after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period *(see*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). The accident claim form processed by the defendant two months after the accident failed to apprise the defendant of the plaintiffs claim that the defendant was negligent in supervising and managing its students and in failing to provide adequate safety equipment *(see Matter of del Carmen v Brentwood Union Free School Dist.,*7 AD3d 620 [2004]; *Matter of Conroy v Smithtown Cent. School Dist.,*3 AD3d 492, 493 [2004]; *Corrales v Middle Country Cent. School Dist.,*307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; *Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers,*300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]). The plaintiff also failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay, as there was no nexus between the plaintiffs infancy and the delay in serving the notice *(see Matter of Doe v Goshen Cent. School Dist.,*13 AD3d 526 [2004]; *Matter of Rennell S. v North Jr. High School,*12 AD3d 518, 519 [2004] ; *Matter of Nairne v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*303 AD2d 409 [2003]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant’s assertion that the lengthy delay in this case *329substantially prejudiced its ability to investigate and defend against the claim *(see Matter of Doe v Goshen Cent. School Dist., supra*at 527; *Matter of Landa v City of New York,*252 AD2d 525, 526 [1998]; *Matter of Deegan v City of New York,*227 AD2d 620 [1996]).

We have not considered the affidavit improperly submitted by the plaintiff for the first time with her papers in reply to the opposition to the cross motion *(see Rengifo v City of New York,*7 AD3d 773 [2004]; *Perre v Town of Poughkeepsie,*300 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]; *Constantine v Premier Cab Corp.,*295 AD2d 303, 304 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1290 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 235
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1290

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal 
Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT EXTENSION DEADLINE.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and notwithstanding 
the time period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 
U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission project numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the request 
of the licensee for the project, reinstate the permit effective May 23, 
1993, and extend the time period during which the licensee is required 
to commence the construction of the project so as to terminate on May 
25, 1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 235

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1290

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal 
Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
# L_2020230EN.01003701.xml

| 17.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/37

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2019/796 of 17 May 2019 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 129 I of 17 May 2019
  )

On page 4, Article 4(1), point (a):

for:

| ‘(a) | necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural persons listed in Annex I ...’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural persons listed in Annex I ...’,

read:

| ‘(a) | necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I ...’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I ...’.

---
#### § 1.674(d)-1 Excepted powers exercisable by any trustee other than grantor or spouse.

Section 674(d) provides an additional exception to the general rule of section 674(a) for a power to distribute, apportion, or accumulate income to or for a beneficiary or beneficiaries or to, for, or within a class of beneficiaries, whether or not the conditions of section 674(b) (6) or (7) are satisfied, if the power is solely exercisable (without the approval or consent of any other person) by a trustee or trustees none of whom is the grantor or spouse living with the grantor, and if the power is limited by a reasonably definite external standard set forth in the trust instrument (see paragraph (b)(5) of § 1.674(b)-1 with respect to what constitutes a reasonably definite standard). See, however, the limitations set forth in § 1.674(d)-2.
# L_2019235EN.01001101.xml

| 12.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 235/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 235/11

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1090 of 26 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance dimethoate, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 173, 27 June 2019
  )

On page 40, in recital 15:

for:

‘
  17 October 2019
  ’,

read:

‘
  30 September 2019
  ’;

for:

‘
  17 July 2020
  ’,

read:

‘
  30 June 2020
  ’.

On page 41, in Article 3:

for:

‘
  17 January 2020
  ’,

read:

‘
  31 December 2019
  ’.

On page 41, in Article 4:

for:

‘
  17 October 2019
  ’,

read:

‘
  30 September 2019
  ’;

for:

‘
  17 July 2020
  ’,

read:

‘
  30 June 2020
  ’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,028,994
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          16,371
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,270,057
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,588,932
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      27,234,939
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        27,248,205
<LOANS>                                    101,175,060
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,208,782
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,141,972
<DEPOSITS>                                 112,229,857
<SHORT-TERM>                                14,295,367
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,058,394
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,262,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,913
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,273,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             152,141,972
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,284,735
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              559,643
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                66,552
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,910,930
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,138,640
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,363,410
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,547,520
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,067,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                694,608
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     452,126
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   452,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.30
<LOANS-NON>                                    217,476
<LOANS-PAST>                                    32,705
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                494,149
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,185,672
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   12,759
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,869
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,208,782
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,208,782
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 31.3121(d)-2 Who are employers. ( a ) Every person is an employer if he employs one or more employees. Neither the number of employees employed nor the period during which any such employee is employed is material for the purpose of determining whether the person for whom the services are performed is an employer.
( b ) An employer may be an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, an estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, group, or entity. A trust or estate, rather than the fiduciary acting for on behalf of the trust or estate, is generally the employer.
( c ) Although a person may be an employer under this section, services performed in his employ may be of such a nature, or performed under such circumstances, as not to constitute employment (see § 31.3121(b)-3).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1133

To provide that pay for Members of Congress may not be increased by

any adjustment scheduled to take effect in a year immediately following

a fiscal year in which a deficit in the budget of the United States

Government exists.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1995

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and, in addition, to the Committee on House Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that pay for Members of Congress may not be

increased by any adjustment scheduled to take effect

in a year immediately following a fiscal year in which

a deficit in the budget of the United States Government

exists.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deficit Accountability

5 Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 1133 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECT OF A BUDGET DEFICIT.

2 Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

3 of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ‘‘Subject to

5 subparagraph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to sub6 paragraph (B) and paragraph (3),’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(3)(A) An adjustment under paragraph (2) which

9 is scheduled to take effect in a calendar year shall not

10 be made if the budget of the United States Government

11 was in deficit for the last fiscal year ending before the

12 start of such calendar year, as determined under subpara13 graph (B).

14 ‘‘(B) Not later than 2 months after the end of each

15 fiscal year, the Director of the Office of Management and

16 Budget shall—

17 ‘‘(i) determine whether the budget of the Unit18 ed States Government was in deficit for such fiscal

19 year; and

20 ‘‘(ii) submit a written report to the Congress as

21 to its findings under this subparagraph.

22 A failure to make a timely determination under the pre23 ceding sentence shall be treated as a determination under

24 this subparagraph that the budget of the United States

25 Government was in deficit for the fiscal year involved.’’.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 256.0 What does this part cover?

This part applies to payments made by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) pursuant to the Judgment Fund statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304.
Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Todd J. James, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/Todd J. James
--------------------------------
Todd J. James
Executive Vice President and CFO
November 7, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. and will
be retained by Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 25.101 OMB control number.

The reporting requirements in this part have been approved under the Office of Management and Budget control number 1505-0109.