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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4798 

To use grant funds to provide identification kits to certain children, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2020 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To use grant funds to provide identification kits to certain 

children, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Child Identi5 fication Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION KITS FOR MISSING CHILDREN. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Section 402 of the Juvenile Justice 

8 and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (34 U.S.C. 

9 11291) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4798 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding after paragraph (7) the following: 

6 ‘‘(8) the proactive collection and central storage 

7 of comprehensive identification information about in8 dividual children by local, State, and Federal law en9 forcement agencies is resource intensive; and 

10 ‘‘(9) the National Child Identification Program, 

11 known as ‘Safety Blitz’— 

12 ‘‘(A) is a national community service ini13 tiative that has partnered with the Department 

14 of Justice, Department of State, Federal Bu15 reau of Investigation, local law enforcement 

16 agencies, nonprofit organizations, and commu17 nity organizations to provide families with an 

18 inkless, in-home fingerprint and DNA identi19 fication kit, which can be turned over to law en20 forcement, by the parent or guardian of a child 

21 to provide information on a missing or traf22 ficked child; and 

23 ‘‘(B) promotes the proactive collection and 

24 storage of comprehensive identification informa25 tion within the home, decentralizing the process 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4798 IS

1 for law enforcement agencies that often lack the 

2 resources to collect and centrally store vital 

3 identification information related to individual 

4 children.’’. 

5 (b) GRANTS.—Section 405 of the Juvenile Justice 

6 and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (34 U.S.C. 

7 11294) is amended by— 

8 (1) redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (8), 

9 and (9) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10), 

10 respectively; and 

11 (2) inserting after paragraph (4) the following: 

12 ‘‘(5) to provide to local law enforcement, for 

13 distribution to parents of children who attend kin14 dergarten or elementary school (as such term is de15 fined in section 8101 of the Elementary and Sec16 ondary Education Act of 1965), inkless, in-home fin17 gerprint and DNA identification kits, which can be 

18 turned over to Federal, State, tribal, or local law en19 forcement in an effort to locate and return missing 

20 or trafficked children;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### §§ 99.19-99.31 [Reserved]
#### The People, *ex rel.*Bender, *v.*Church, Comptroller, &c.

Since the enactment of *ck.*174 o/1859, judgments upon mandamus are to be brought to this court for review by appeal, and not by writ of error.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss 'an appeal. The relator having obtained an alternative mandamus requiring the Comptroller to draw his warrant on the Treasurer for the amount of certain alleged demands against the State mentioned in the appropriation bill of 1859, moved, on the return, for a peremptory writ, which was awarded; and the order was affirmed at general term in the third district on the 16th of September, 1859. The Comptroller thereupon brought this appeal, and the clerk made a return containing the affidavits used on the motion and the several orders in the case.

*The Attorney-General,*for the Comptroller.

*Henry Smith,*for the relator.

Denio, J.

The question whether a final decision of the Supreme Court in proceedings by mandamus, when sought to be reviewed by this court, should be brought before it by appeal *530according *to*the Code, *or*by writ of error, according to the former practice, was decided in *Becker*v. *The People*(18 *N. Y.,*487). We held the writ of error to be the proper method, and refused to dismiss such a writ which had been prosecuted in that case. This was so decided, upon a construction of section 471 of the Code, which declared that, until the Legislature should otherwise provide, the second part of that system should not affect, among other things, proceedings on mandamus or prohibition. It was this second part of the Code which provided that no writ of error should thereafter be prosecuted in any case, and which regulated the forms for bringing cases to this court on appeal. By withdrawing the case of mandamus from the influence of these enactments, it left it to be dealt with on a review, as well as originally, according to the former rules. Hence it was impossible to sustain an appeal as a mode of reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered upon mandamus, as the law then stood. That case was decided in March, 1859; and immediately afterwards, in April of that year, the Legislature changed the practice. *(Laws of*1859, *ch.*174.) Singularly enough, the 1st and 2d sections assume that an appeal was the only proper method of bringing a judgment rendered on mandamus into the Court of Appeals for review; and it thereupon directed that where writs of error had been brought, this court should, nevertheless, hear and determine the cases as though an appeal had been taken, and that it might allow the parties to such writs to amend their proceedings so as to make them conform to proceedings on appeal. As to future judgments upon mandamus, it was declared by the 3d section that the provisions of the Code of Procedure in relation to appeals to the Court of Appeals should apply. The judgment which awarded a peremptory mandamus against the ■Comptroller was rendered in July subsequent to the passage of that act, and he was therefore correct in bringing the case here "by appeal. The motion must be denied.

Motion denied.

EKD OP OASES DECIDED AT DECEMBER TERM.
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

November 20, 2012

p1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145638

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145638

COA: 300630 

Oakland CC: 2010-231214-FH

PENO DERONN WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Jaime Lewis et al., Respondents, v Richard B. Manis, Defendant, and Jones Memorial Hospital, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 428]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion of defendant Jones Memorial Hospital (Hospital) seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim that it is vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of defendant Dr. Richard B. Manis, the attending orthopedic surgeon called in to treat Jaime Lewis (plaintiff). A hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is an independent contractor where the patient presents himself to the hospital emergency room for treatment and “the hospital determines how and by whom the patient will be treated” *(Litwak v Our Lady of Victory Hosp.,*238 AD2d 881; *see also, Henderson v Marx,*251 AD2d 988; *Noble v Porter,*188 AD2d 1066). Plaintiff presented himself to the Hospital and was seen by the emergency room physician, who called in Manis as the orthopedic specialist. At that point, Manis made a diagnosis, and two days later he performed surgery. The Hospital failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it may not be held vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of Manis in making the diagnosis and performing surgery *(see generally,*
      *845
      *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the Hospital met its burden, we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether they could have reasonably believed that the physician was provided by the Hospital or was otherwise acting on the Hospital’s behalf when the surgery was performed *(see, Augeri v Massoff,*134 AD2d 308; *see also, Noble v Porter, supra,*at 1066-1067). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Nenno, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Callahan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                        BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR
                                                        1 AZRIELI CENTER
                                                        TEL AVIV 67021
                                                        P.O.B. 16593, TEL AVIV
                                                        61164
                                                        ISRAEL

                                                        TEL: +972 (3) 608 5555
                                                        FAX: +972 (3) 609 4022
                                                        info@deloitte.co.il
                                                        www.deloitte.com

           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRATION PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-130168) of InkSure Technologies Inc. (the
"Company"), our report, dated March 16, 2006, relating to our audit of the
financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2005 and for the year
ended December 31, 2005 contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR & CO.,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,
A MEMBER FIRM OF DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 30, 2006
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0496 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0496

**98/496/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Portugal (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/5) (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 223 , 11/08/1998 P. 0011 - 0011 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Portugal (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/5) (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/496/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1) thereof,

Whereas Portugal forwarded to the Commission, in a document dated 26 November 1997, a plan specifying the national measures to be implemented during 1998 for the detection of certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products; whereas that plan was amended by a document dated 4 March and 6 May 1998, in accordance with the Commission's request, bringing it into line with the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC in live animals and animal products presented by Portugal is hereby approved.

Article 2

Portugal shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978

              														Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, November 10, 1978.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1042,			accessed on September 4, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 102.22 Extension of time for filing.

Upon the Regional Director's own motion or upon proper cause shown by any other party, the Regional Director issuing the complaint may by written order extend the time within which the answer must be filed.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R2484 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R2484

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2484/96 of 20 December 1996 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 341 , 30/12/1996 P. 0001 - 0034 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2484/96 of 20 December 1996 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 28 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1),

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to the said Regulation;

Whereas the products referred to in the said Regulation, for which it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties or for which it is necessary to amend the description in the light of technical developments, must be withdrawn from the list in the Annex thereto;

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The products set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96. The autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on these products shall be suspended at the rate indicated for each product.

Article 2

The products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall be removed from the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1997.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1996.

For the Council

The President

S. BARRETT

(1) OJ No L 158, 29. 6. 1996, p. 1.

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANNEX II

>TABLE>
§ 1641.2 Exchange of information. ( a ) EEOC and OFCCP shall share any information relating to the employment policies and practices of employers holding government contracts or subcontracts that may assist each office in carrying out its responsibilities. Such information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, affirmative action programs, annual employment reports, complaints, charges, investigative files, and compliance review reports and files.
( b ) All requests by third parties for disclosure of the information described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be coordinated with the agency which initially compiled or collected the information.
( c ) Paragraph (b) of this section is not applicable to requests for data in EEOC files made by any State or local agency designated as a “FEP agency” with which EEOC has a charge resolution contract and a work-sharing agreement containing the confidentiality requirements of sections 706(b) and 709(e) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*). However, such an agency shall not disclose any of the information, initially compiled by OFCCP, to the public without express written approval by the Director of OFCCP.
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 28.1

                    [Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. Logo]

Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
Wilmington, DE

March 15, 2000



Management   Report  on  Internal   Control  Over   Servicing  of  Securitized
Automobile Financing Receivables

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is responsible for establishing
and maintaining an effective system of internal control over servicing of
securitized automobile financing receivables, which is designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the proper servicing of securitized automobile
financing receivables. The system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and
actions are taken to correct deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal
control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or
overriding of controls. Accordingly, even an effective internal control system
can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, the
effectiveness of an internal control system may vary over time.

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. assessed its system of internal
control over servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables as of
December 31, 1999 in relation to criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this
assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 1999, the Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables.

                                          /s/Keith Schuck
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Keith Schuck
                                          Vice President
                                          Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
#### § 102.165 Cost shifting.

Costs incurred by the Agency in connection with referral of debts for administrative offset will be added to the debt and thus increase the amount of the offset. Such costs may include administrative costs and attorneys fees.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R0761 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R0761

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 761/94 of 6 April 1994 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 adopting provisions for the applicaton of the Scheme of Joint International Inspection and Surveillance adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization **

*
Official Journal L 090 , 07/04/1994 P. 0007 - 0007 Finnish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 6 P. 0050 Swedish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 6 P. 0050 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 761/94 of 6 April 1994 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 adopting provisions for the applicaton of the Scheme of Joint International Inspection and Surveillance adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a Community Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 (2), last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 436/92 (3) implements the Scheme of Joint International Inspection and Surveillance adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Fisheries Commission on 10 February 1988;

Whereas the NAFO Fisheries Commission adopted on 10 September 1993 a proposal to amend the Scheme;

Whereas pursuant to Article XI of the NAFO Convention the proposal will, in the absence of objections, become a measure binding upon Contracting parties with effect from 16 December 1993;

Whereas the modified scheme is acceptable to the Community;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 is modified as follows:

1. A second subparagraph with the following text shall be inserted in paragraph 5 (ii) of the Annex:

'When an inspection vessel has signalled that an inspection party is about to commence boarding a fishing vessel which has begun or is about to begin hauling its nets, the master of that fishing vessel shall ensure that the net is not retrieved for a period of 30 minutes after receiving the signal.'

2. The penultimate line of paragraph 5 (ii) is amended as follows:

'In either case' is replaced by 'In all cases'.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 6 April 1994.

For the Commission

Yannis PALEOKRASSAS

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 175, 6. 7. 1988, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 54, 28. 2. 1992, p. 1.