alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.1 Purpose, applicability, and relationship to other laws. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to promote equal opportunity for apprentices and applicants for apprenticeship in registered apprenticeship programs by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, and disability. This part also prescribes affirmative action efforts sponsors must take to ensure equal opportunity for apprentices and applicants for apprenticeship. The regulations set forth the equal opportunity obligations of sponsors, the contents of affirmative action programs, procedures for the filing and processing of complaints, and enforcement procedures. These regulations also establish procedures for deregistration of an apprenticeship program in the event of noncompliance with this part and prescribe the equal opportunity requirements for recognition of State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAA) under part 29.
( b ) *Applicability.* This part applies to all sponsors of apprenticeship programs registered with either the U.S. Department of Labor or a recognized SAA.
( c ) *Relationship to other laws.* This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures under any Federal law or the law of any State or political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for individuals based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability than are afforded by this part. It may be a defense to a charge of a violation of this part that a challenged action is required or necessitated by another Federal law or regulation, or that another Federal law or regulation prohibits an action that would otherwise be required by this part.
#### PHILLIPS etc v HUME et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21846.

Decided Feb. 19, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### VOYTKO v BUNTING, et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22107.

Decided May 21, 1930

Kinkade, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### SHAW ADMR etc v CREBS

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Wayne Co

No. 858.

Decided October 17, 1929

Messrs. Daniel C. Punk and L. R. Critchfield, Wooster, for Shaw, Admr. etc.

Messrs. Weygandt & Ross, Wooster, and John V. Keeler, West Salem, for Crebs.

*682FUNK, PJ.

To entitle plaintiff to have his case submitted to the jury, he was required to show by some evidence that the driver of the truck was operating it in a negligent manner in one or more of the ways alleged in the petition,, and that this negilgence was the proximate cause of the accident.

Sec. 6310-17 GC. provides that “vehicles shall keep to the right side of the road or highway.”

Our Supreme Court, in Elms v. Flick, 100 OS. 186, held that the,term “road” in this connection means the improved part of the road.

It will be observed that plaintiff did not offer the testimony of any eye-witness to this accident. The only evidence in the record to indicate where the respective automobiles were at the time of the collision, if it may be said to be evidence at all as to where said automobiles were at that time, is the evidence as to the scratch in the cement part of the road.

We are clearly of the opinion that there is no evidence in ihis record to show that it was defendant’s negligence alone that was the proximate cause of the collision.

The mere fact that there was a collision is not even presumptive evidence of the negligences of either driver.

Th mere fact that .the driver of the truck changed the tire on its rear left wheel about one-half mile from the place of the collision, is no evidence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck or as to where the truck was or the speed at which it was going at the time of or immediately before or after the accident, neither is it at that distance from the place of the accident any direct evidence that the accident was the cause of the tire going flat; at best there can be only an inference that the collision might have been the cause of the tire becoming flat about a half mile from the place of the accident.

However, since the scratch on'the cement is the only evidence, if it is any evidence at all, as to where either automobile was at the time of the accident, and as this was not over 18 inches from the' westerly side of the cement road, it would seem that it was the negligence of decedent rather than of defendant that caused the accident.

*683. Finding no evidence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, we hold that the trial court was right in directing a verdict for defendant, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
(80 South. 167)

#### STRICKLAND v. TOWN OF SAMSON.

(4 Div. 573.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

• Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

J. W. Strickland was convicted of violating an ordinance of the Town of Samson, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

T. M. Espy, of Dothan, for appellant.

W. O. Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

The judgment in this case is affirmed on authority of Strickland v. Town of Samson, ante, p. 592, 80 South. 166.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 051200D]

Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish 
Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel will hold a work session which is 
open to the public.

DATES: The STAR Panel for Pacific ocean perch and yellowtail rockfish 
will meet beginning at 1 p.m., June 12, 2000 and continue through June 
16, 2000. Except for Monday, June 12, the STAR Panel will meet each 
day, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The STAR Panel for Pacific ocean perch and yellowtail 
rockfish will be held in Building 4, Room 2079 of the NMFS Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth 
Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Waldeck, Fishery Management 
Analyst; telephone: (503) 326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to review 
draft stock assessment documents for Pacific ocean perch and yellowtail 
rockfish and any other pertinent information, work with stock 
assessment teams to make necessary revisions, and produce STAR Panel 
reports for use by the Council family and other interested persons.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the STAR Panel 
agenda may come before the STAR Panel for discussion, those issues may 
not be the subject of formal panel action during this meeting. STAR 
Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in 
this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice 
that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public 
has been notified of the panel's intent to take final action to address 
the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Mr. John Rhoton at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-12967 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEETS AND INCOME STATEMENTS 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>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         797
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               898
<PP&E>                                         583
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,596
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       31
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,583
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,121)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)


</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 96 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas on May 12, 2008, Irena Sendler, a living example 

of social justice, died at the age of 98; 

Whereas Irena Sendler repeatedly risked her life during the 

Holocaust to rescue over 2,500 Jewish children who lived 

in the Warsaw ghetto in Poland from Nazi extermination; 

Whereas Irena Sendler was inspired by her father, a physician who treated poor Jewish patients, to dedicate her 

life to others; 

Whereas Irena Sendler became an activist at the start of 

World War II, heading the clandestine group Zegota and 

driving an underground movement that provided safe 

passage for Jews from the Warsaw ghetto who faced disease, execution, or deportation to concentration camps; 

Whereas Irena Sendler became 1 of the most successful workers within Zegota, taking charge of the children’s division 

and using her senior position with the welfare department in Warsaw to gain access to and from the ghetto 

to build a network of allies to help ferry Jewish children 

from the Warsaw ghetto; 

Whereas Irena Sendler was arrested by the Gestapo on October 20, 1943, tortured, and sentenced to death by firing 

squad; 
2 

•SCON 96 ES 

Whereas Irena Sendler never revealed details of her contacts, 

escaped from Pawiak prison, and continued her invaluable work with Zegota; 

Whereas in 1965, Irena Sendler was recognized as ‘‘Righteous Among the Nations’’ by the Yad Vashem Holocaust 

Memorial in Israel; 

Whereas in 2006, Irena Sendler was nominated for the Nobel 

Peace Prize; 

Whereas Irena Sendler was awarded the Order of the White 

Eagle, the highest civilian decoration in Poland; 

Whereas ‘‘Tzedek: The Righteous’’, a documentary film, and 

‘‘Life in a Jar’’, a play about the rescue efforts made by 

Irena Sendler, chronicle the life of Irena Sendler; 

Whereas Irena Sendler, a woman who risked everything for 

the lives of others and whose bravery is unimaginable to 

many, expressed guilt for not being able to do more for 

the Jewish people; and 

Whereas the story of Irena Sendler reminds citizens of the 

United States and the world community not only of the 

horrible cruelty at the time of the Holocaust, but also the 

incredible difference 1 person can make: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) mourns the loss of Irena Sendler, a woman 

4 whose bravery and heroic efforts saved over 2,500 

5 Jewish children during the Holocaust; 

6 (2) pays respect and extends condolences to the 

7 Sendler family; 
3 

•SCON 96 ES 

1 (3) honors the legacy of courage, selflessness, 

2 and hope that Irena Sendler exhibited; and 

3 (4) remembers the life and unwavering dedica4 tion to justice and human rights of Irena Sendler. 

Passed the Senate September 22 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 96 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Commemorating Irena Sendler, a woman whose 

age, selflessness, and hope. Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courbravery saved the lives of thousands during the
#### § 1956.21 Procedures for submitting changes.

The procedures contained in part 1953 of this chapter shall be applicable to submission and consideration of developmental, Federal program, evaluation, and State-initiated change supplements to plans approved under this part.
#### Luke Malloy, an Infant, by James Malloy, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, *v.*Hugh L. Scott, Defendant, and Joseph Weidenhoff, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted June 7, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*497
      *Ralph Stout*and *Louis Rothbard*for appellants.

*Dickinson S. Talley*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opimon.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
----

----

I Mitteilungen

Kommission

----

Euro-Wechselkurs (1)

12. August 2004

(2004/C 205/01)

1 Euro= 

----

(1)

Quelle: Von der Europäischen Zentralbank veröffentlichter Referenz-Wechselkurs.

----

III Bekanntmachungen

Kommission

----

MEDIA PLUS — ENTWICKLUNG, VERTRIEB UND ÖFFENTLICHKEITSARBEIT (2001-2005)

Durchführung eines Programms zur Förderung von Entwicklung, Vertrieb und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit hinsichtlich europäischer audiovisueller Werke

Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen EAC/35/2004

Unterstützungsmaßnahmen für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Marktzugang

(2004/C 205/02)

1.   Ziele und Beschreibung

Grundlage der vorliegenden Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen ist der Beschluss 2000/821/EG des Rates zur Durchführung eines Programms zur Förderung von Entwicklung, Vertrieb und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit hinsichtlich europäischer audiovisueller Werke (MEDIA Plus — Entwicklung, Vertrieb und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit — 2001-2005), der vom Rat am 20. Dezember 2000 angenommen und im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 13 vom 17. Januar 2001 veröffentlicht wurde.

Dieser Beschluss umfasst unter anderem folgende Ziele:

2.   Förderfähige Antragsteller

Diese Aufforderung richtet sich an europäische Einrichtungen und Akteure, deren Tätigkeiten zu den oben genannten Zielen beitragen.

Beteiligen können sich Unternehmen, die in einem der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union, der am Programm MEDIA Plus teilnehmenden Länder des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraums (Island, Liechtenstein und Norwegen) oder in einem anderen Land, das die in Artikel 11 des Beschlusses 2000/821/EG festgelegten Bedingungen erfüllt, (Bulgarien) niedergelassen sind.

3.   Budget und Laufzeit des Projekts

Für die vorliegende Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen 35/2004 steht ein Budget von maximal 6,2 Mio. EUR zur Verfügung.

Die Finanzhilfe der Kommission ist auf 50 %/60 % der förderfähigen Projektkosten begrenzt.

Diese Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen bezieht sich nur auf Projekte, die zwischen dem 1. Januar 2005 und dem 31. Dezember 2005 durchgeführt werden.

4.   Antragsfrist

Schlusstermine für die Einreichung von Vorschlägen:

5.   Ausführliche Informationen

Die ausführliche Fassung dieser Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen und die Antragsformulare finden Sie im Internet unter:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/promo_fr.html.

Die Anträge müssen unter Einhaltung der in der ausführlichen Fassung genannten Bedingungen auf den vorgesehenen Formularen gestellt werden.

----
#### Gizella Lowensohn, Appellant, v Bedford Garden Caterers, Inc., Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 526]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 27, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 24, 1999, which denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 24, *2671999, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 27, 1998, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, and the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to create an issue of fact as to whether the defendant allowed a dangerous condition to exist on its property *(see, Breem v Long Is. Light. Co.,*256 AD2d 294; *Miller v City of New York,*214 AD2d 657).

Additionally, although the plaintiff denominated her subsequent motion as one to renew, there was no reasonable explanation as to why the alleged new evidence was not submitted to the court in opposition to the original motion *(see, Caffee v Arnold,*104 AD2d 352). Accordingly, the motion was in actuality one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable *(see, Vaynshteyn v Cohen,*266 AD2d 280 [decided herewith]). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 37.32 When must the notice required by §§ 37.29 and 37.30 be provided?

The notice required by §§ 37.29 and 37.30 must be initially provided within 90 days of the effective date of this part, or of the date this part first applies to the recipient, whichever comes later.
§ 2700.60 Subpoenas. ( a ) *Compulsory attendance of witnesses and production of documents.* The Commission and its Judges are authorized to issue subpoenas, on their own motion or on the oral or written application of a party, requiring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents or physical evidence. A subpoena may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age. A subpoena may also be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, but, in such case, any risk of delivery is on the serving party. A copy of the subpoena bearing a certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission or the Judge.
( b ) *Fees payable to witnesses.* Subpoenaed witnesses shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid in the district courts of the United States. The witness fees and mileage shall be paid by the party at whose request the witness appears, or by the Commission if a witness is subpoenaed on the motion of the Commission or a Judge. This paragraph does not apply to Government employees who are called as witnesses by the Government.
( c ) *Motions to revoke or modify subpoenas.* Any person served with a subpoena may move within 5 days of service or at the hearing, whichever is sooner, to revoke or modify the subpoena. The Commission or the Judge, as appropriate, shall revoke or modify the subpoena if it seeks information outside the proper scope of discovery as set forth in § 2700.56(b); or if it does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence required to be produced; or if for any other reason it is found to be invalid or unreasonable. The Commission or the Judge shall set forth a concise statement of the grounds for such ruling.
( d ) *Availability of transcript.* Persons compelled to submit evidence at a public proceeding are entitled to obtain, on payment of prescribed costs, a transcript of that part of the proceeding that sets forth their testimony or refers to their production of evidence.
( e ) *Failure to comply.* Upon the failure of any person to comply with an order to testify or with a subpoena issued by the Commission or the Judge, the Judge or the Commission's General Counsel, at the request of the Judge or at the direction of the Commission, may undertake to initiate proceedings in the appropriate district court of the United States for the enforcement of the subpoena.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ray Charles Hawkins, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00123

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 007

- 1533

- 17 ).
M emorandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Moseley* participating. *Justice M oseley, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment
of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect the proper level of

offense as a third

- degree felony, with the punishment range enhanced to the level of a second

degree felony. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Ray Charles Hawkins, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 9, 2019
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### JENKINS et v NICHOLS etc

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2283.

Decided Jan 27, 1930

A. J. Croll, Toledo, for Jenkins, et.

Meek & Meek, Toledo, for Nichols, etc.

WILLIAMS, J.

Section 10280 GC provides as follows: (Here follows quotation)

.Under the provisions of 1579-296 GC, subdivision 6, which is a part of the act establishing the municipal court in the City of Toledo, 10280 GC and other provisions relating to practice and procedure in the justice’s courts not inconsistent are made applicable to such municipal court. *116Section 1579-310 GC provides for giving of an appeal bond in the municipal court of Toledo, but there is nothing therein inconsistent with the provisions of 10280 GC. Section 10279 GC provides that on appeal from a justice’s court, the attachment shall continue in force and be determined in the court of common pleas.

In view of the fact that there was a personal service upon the defendant and that upon trial judgment was entered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs on the cross-petition, the plaintiffs had a right to appeal from the judgment without regard to the attachment and as the-appeal bond was in double the amount of the judgment and costs as required by statute it was effective to appeal the cause so' far as that cause related to the issues made upon the pleadings and the only course within the jurisdiction of the court pf common pleas was to order the discharge of the attachment and release of the property attached upon failure to file the new appeal bond. As on appeal, the attachment remained in force, the appellants had no right to have it continue in force Without giving the new bond as ordered; but as the giving of bond with a penalty twice the appraised value of the attached property related only to the right to have the attachment remain in force, the order of. the court should have been that, upon failure to give such new bond, the attachment would be discharged and the attached property released.

The court erred in ordering the appeal dismissed upon failure to give the new appeal bond. For such error the judgment of. the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.