alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Jonathan Rosenzweig and LAURA LIEBERMAN, Respondents, <br><br>against<br><br>Stephen J. Hanna, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered March 3, 2015. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded landlords possession and the principal sum of $7,727 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the petition is dismissed.</p><p>In this nonpayment proceeding, the petition alleges that tenant, a participant in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (<i>see</i> 42 USC ยง 1437f [b] [1]), entered into possession under a written lease for the monthly sum of $2,000 and failed to pay rent for the months of November 2014 through January 2015. At a nonjury trial, tenant asserted, among other things, that the monthly rent was $1,900. Landlords claimed that the lease provided for a monthly rent of $2,000, with a discount of $100 if rent were paid on time. Following the trial, the District Court awarded arrears for the months in question based on a $2,000 monthly rent.</p><p>Pursuant to the petition, which was not amended, landlords were required to prove that a lease existed for the period alleged and that tenant had agreed therein to pay the sum of $2,000 per month in rent (<a href="../2015/2015_50915.htm" target="_blank"><i>see 2268 Church Ave., LLC v Clarke</i>, 48 Misc 3d 127</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50915[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]; <a href="../2014/2014_50525.htm" target="_blank"><i>Longobardi v Martin</i>, 43 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50525[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). A review of the record, as transmitted to this court, indicates that landlords failed to establish the existence of a lease for the period for which arrears were sought, as the last lease appears to have expired in October 2014. Moreover, the record shows that the amount of the rent as determined and approved by the public housing authority in accordance with Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements was $1,900. Under the terms of the applicable Section 8 agreements, the rent could not exceed that amount (<a href="../2012/2012_22325.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Zic v Smith</i>, 38 Misc 3d 439</a>, 442 [Town of Ossining Just Ct 2012]).</p><p>Inasmuch as landlords failed to prove the allegations set forth in the petition, i.e., the existence of a lease for the period in question and that the monthly rent was $2,000, we reverse the final judgment and dismiss the petition. In view of the foregoing, we do not consider tenant's other arguments.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: January 25, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
From: Mr. Paul Kampner [mailto:pkampner@tmarkassociates.com] 

Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 10:10 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

You have clearly taken a major step in the right direction. As a consultant in the industry, 

I am only too well aware of the influence of these people and their ability to avoid being 

held accountable for their actions. 

I would suggest that you expand the definition even further by extending it to those who 

offer target date funds to plans. While the plan sponsor is a fiduciary and has ultimate 

responsibility for the selection and monitoring of all fund options (including target date 

funds), I don't believe they understand their responsibilities when it comes to these funds. 

Most of the time there is no analysis at all of the fund. It is simply chosen because it is 

offered by the record keeper or administrator of the plan that has a vested interest in the 

fund selected. Since the vast majority of these funds are fund-of-funds exclusively 

invested in the proprietary funds of the target date fund manager, there is an inherent 

conflict of interest. Not only is there a conflict, the underlying fund selection is so 

blatantly biased as to guarantee sub par performance for all those that invest in the funds. 

If the managers that construct these funds were considered to be fiduciaries, the 

underlying fund selection will be based on the best available principle rather than the best 

one company has to offer. 

Based on extensive work I have done in analyzing target date funds and the underlying 

funds in which they invest, are accumulating substantially fewer assets than they would if 

the target date fund sponsors were held to a fiduciary standard that would force them into 

an open architecture structure. This is particularly important in view of the fact that 

many of these funds serve as the QDIA for the plan. 

I hope you will consider extending the definition to include the sponsors of these funds. If 

you chose not to designate them as fiduciaries, you should at least emphasize that those 

who recommend or select these funds have a duty -- even though they already have it -- 

to determine what these funds are properly constructed with best interests of plan 

participants in mind. Making this happen could be the difference between a participant 

retiring as anticipated and having to get by on less than needed. 

Thanks for your consideration of this issue. 

Paul Kampner 

____________________ 

Paul Kampner 

TMark Associates, Ltd. 

1300 N. Lake Shore Drive 

Chicago, IL 60610 

Tel 312-787-3518 

Fax 312-278-0816
# Governance center opens in Sab Al Bor

/ Published Dec. 26, 2007

CAMP TAJI, Iraq — Tribal sheiks joined members of the Government of Iraq ministries, officials in the Taji qada (district government council), Taji nahiyah representatives (neighborhood councils), senior ranking Iraqi Security Forces leaders and Coalition troops to open the Sab Al Bor Governance Center of Taji in Sab Al Bor, Iraq, Dec. 13.

The governance center offers the local populace access to government services offices which fall under the Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works that include electricity, water, communications and education, as well as a post office.

 The center also has under its purview two civilian health clinics that staff six doctors and maintain six ambulances, which serve a city that once had only one clinic and one doctor. 

 “We’re providing them capability they haven’t had, which is a single place for the people of Sab Al Bor to go where they can address issues and problems with regards to essential services and education; a place they can go where they expect to get some results,” said Lt. Col. Kevin MacWatters, commander of the 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment.

 MacWatters’ squadron has been working with Iraqi government officials and tribal sheiks along with the 1st “Ironhorse” Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division’s embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team, ePRT Baghdad-5 and the 492nd Civil Affairs Battalion to aid in the reconstruction of infrastructure in Sab Al Bor. 

 “The visibility of this reopening and dedication of the new government center shows the local people and others in the (Baghdad) province that Sab Al Bor is ready to receive residents back home, and that the government is providing a place for them to go to receive government services of all types,” said Col. Mike Bridges, a government group advisor for ePRT Baghdad-5, who hails from Anchorage, Ala. “It is also a visible presentation that the community is returning to life.”

 Sab Al Bor was formerly a retirement community, and at its peak had a population of nearly 65,000 residents. After sectarian violence erupted in the town in 2005 and early 2006, the population fell to 2,600; a level at which it stayed until six months ago.

 According to Bridges, tribal sheiks, Iraqi Security Forces, Iraqi security volunteers, Concerned Local Citizens and Iraqi government officials at all levels working with troops from the 1st Sqd., 7th CAV, the Ironhorse Brigade ePRT, the 492nd Civil Affairs Battalion and Estonian troops have greatly improved security in the city, allowing for a transition from focusing mainly on security-related efforts to those involving the reconstruction of critical infrastructure and essential services. 

 “Now that the security situation has changed so dramatically, people are coming back in large numbers and the population today is anywhere from 25,000 to 28,000 people and growing daily,” said Bridges. “The government of Iraq has identified Sab Al Bor as a key city for the return of displaced persons, and as a model example of that program and the return to normalcy in a community that was once marred by violence.”
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.8 Thorax. ( a ) The thorax consists of the assembly shown as number SA 150 M030 in Figure 1, and conforms to each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150 M030.
( b ) The thorax contains enough unobstructed interior space behind the rib cage to permit the midpoint of the sternum to be depressed 2 inches without contact between the rib cage and other parts of the dummy or its instrumentation, except for instruments specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
( c ) When impacted by a test probe conforming to § 572.11(a) at 14 fps and at 22 fps in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the thorax shall resist with forces measured by the test probe of not more than 1450 pounds and 2250 pounds, respectively, and shall deflect by amounts not greater than 1.1 inches and 1.7 inches, respectively. The internal hysteresis in each impact shall not be less than 50 percent and not more than 70 percent.
( d ) Test procedure: ( 1 ) With the dummy seated without back support on a surface as specified in § 572.11(i) and in the orientation specified in § 572.11(i), adjust the dummy arms and legs until they are extended horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal plane.
( 2 ) Place the longitudinal center line of the test probe so that it is 17.7 ±0.1 inches above the seating surface at impact.
( 3 ) Align the test probe specified in § 572.11(a) so that at impact its longitudinal centerline coincides within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
( 4 ) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area on the thorax immediately adjacent to the projected longitudinal center line of the test probe is vertical. Limb support, as needed to achieve and maintain this orientation, may be provided by placement of a steel rod of any diameter not less than one-quarter of an inch and not more than three-eighths of an inch, with hemispherical ends, vertically under the limb at its projected geometric center.
( 5 ) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that its longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane at the moment of impact.
( 6 ) Guide the probe during impact so that it moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational movement.
( 7 ) Measure the horizontal deflection of the sternum relative to the thoracic spine along the line established by the longitudinal centerline of the probe at the moment of impact, using a potentiometer mounted inside the sternum.
( 8 ) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio of the area between the loading and unloading portions of the force deflection curve to the area under the loading portion of the curve.
[38 FR 20451, Aug. 1, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 7152, Feb. 7, 1977]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040257
<NAME> NEW ZMAX CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,766,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,268,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    253,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,287,489
<PP&E>                                         547,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,124,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,564,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,117
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,515,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,124,011
<SALES>                                      5,106,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,106,645
<CGS>                                        2,442,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,439,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,947,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (251,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (251,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (251,010)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7511
In Re: ANTHONY FEURTADO, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-2582-3-17) Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Feurtado, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Feurtado, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to have this court direct the district court judge to recuse himself. Feurtado’s initial motion to recuse was denied. He then filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment denying the motion to recuse, which also was denied. In addition, he filed motions to reconsider the denial of the motion to recuse and to reconsider the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, both of which were denied. All four rulings were recently affirmed on appeal. Feurtado v. McNair , No. 00-7253, 2001 WL 125289 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001) (unpublished). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). A district judge’s refusal to recuse himself is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. DeTemple , 162 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1137 (1999). Mandamus applies to ministerial, but not discretionary, functions of federal officials. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361 (West 2000). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. See In re: Beard , 811 F.2d at 826. Because the motion to3recuse and subsequent motions for relief from judgment and reconsideration have been denied in the district court and the denial has been affirmed on appeal, Feurtado has not shown a clear right to the relief sought. Therefore, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 223 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 223

    Authorizing the cleaning and repair of the mace of the House of 
            Representatives by the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2001

Mr. Armey submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Authorizing the cleaning and repair of the mace of the House of 
            Representatives by the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives is 
authorized and directed, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to deliver 
the mace of the House of Representatives, following an adjournment of the House 
pursuant to concurrent resolution, to the Smithsonian Institution only for the 
purpose of having necessary repairs made to the mace and under such 
circumstances as will assure that the mace is properly safeguarded: Provided, 
however, That the mace shall be returned to the House of Representatives before 
noon on the day before the House next reconvenes pursuant to concurrent 
resolution or at any sooner time when so directed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
# Sept. 27: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Sept. 27, 2015

September 27, 2015,Release # 20150927-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** On Sept. 26, coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, coalition military forces conducted three airstrike using bomber and fighter aircraft. Separately in Iraq, coalition military forces conducted 20 airstrikes coordinated with and in support of the Government of Iraq using bomber, fighter, fighter-attack, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL targets.The following is a summary of the strikes conducted against ISIL since the last press release:**Syria**• Near Al Hasakah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL structure.• Near Abu Kamal, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.• Near Mar’a, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL staging area.**Iraq**• Near Al Huwayjah, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 27 ISIL fighting positions.• Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL staging area and damaged an ISIL artillery piece.• Near Hit, five airstrikes destroyed an ISIL VBIED facility, an ISIL command and control facility, and an ISIL headquarters.• Near Kirkuk, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.• Near Mosul, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL armored vehicle, and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.• Near Ramadi, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL buildings and denied terrain to ISIL forces.• Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL armored vehicles.• Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL mortar tubes, an ISIL fighting position, and an ISIL vehicle.Strike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community.The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the U.S.
Sl()-l()()4()7-()23 

25 •iOM 

SOIfllfWESTERM 

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

Southwestern Electric 

Power Company 

PO Boi 21100 

Shrcvcpori, LA 711560001 

oep.com 

(Month date), 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-«Hk 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express (my/our) support for the application for antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to 

compete effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. This increased interalliance 

competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy -

first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further 

liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, (I/we) encourage the Department of Transportation to approve 

this application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely 

together to deliver highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL 

alliance will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, 

scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit 

from having three competitive air alliances to choose from. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

I T.Hubbard 

' SWEPCO 

428 Travis St. 

Shreveport, La. 71101 

jthubbard@aep.com
USS Oscar Austin aids stranded Iranian mariners
 By None  , Combined Maritime Forces
  CENTCOM
 USS OSCAR AUSTIN, Persian Gulf (Nov. 18, 2010) — USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79) located and provided assistance to two Iranian mariners who were spotted floating in a life raft in the Persian Gulf, Nov. 18. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Organization (UKMTO) contacted Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) at approximately 3:30 a.m. (Bahrain time) after it had been notified by a merchant vessel that they had seen a flare launched from a life raft. CMF notified Combined Task Force (CTF) 152 which then dispatched Oscar Austin to locate the vessel. Oscar Austin located the life raft around 5 a.m., approximately 1,000 yards outside of Iranian territorial waters. After providing the two distressed mariners food and water, a rigid hulled inflatable boat from Oscar Austin towed the life raft closer to the ship in the event the men required any urgent aid or further assistance. CMF contacted the Omani Navy and asked them to assist in communicating the location of the life raft to the Iranian Coast Guard. According to the two men, their dhow sank the night before, and they did not know the disposition of any other crew members. Oscar Austin remained on scene until 12:30 p.m., when the mariners were picked up by an Iranian Coast Guard search and rescue vessel. “The response and assistance provided are excellent examples of the training and coordination between members of CTF 152,” said Lt Cdr. Steve Ansuinni, CTF 152’s future operations officer. “We’re glad that we were able to coordinate the rescue of the mariners with the Iranian Coast Guard.” The Iranian Coast Guard crew thanked Oscar Austin for their assistance and departed the area.