alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sarah Martino, Resp’t, *v.*Cora Kirk, App'lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

1. Physicians—Registry—Laws 1880, chap., 513.

A physician is only required to register in the county where he is practicing, and when once registered his practice is legalized within the state and no new registry is needed to visit a patient out of that county.

2. Same.

The fact that a physician gives two days out of a week out of the county to see patients does not make a new practice in a new county unless intended as a cover for a real change of place.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Action to recover for services as a physician.

Defense, that plaintiff was precluded from recovering for services performed in Westchester county by her failure to register in that county.

*Geo. W.*Stephens, for app’lt; *John*Andrews, for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff is a physician residing in Brooklyn; the defendant lived at Mt. Vernon in Westchester county. The plaintiff made numerous visits to and treated the defendant as her physician at Mt Vernon.

The amount of the bill does not seem to be seriously disputed. The fact appears that the plaintiff was registered as a physician in Brooklyn, but was not so registered in Westchester county.

It is proven that the plaintiff advertised in the Westchester county paper that she would meet patients on certain days at Mt. Vernon where she had an office for the purpose of treating persons for diseases.

The plaintiff was under no obligation to register in Westchester county. She registered and had her office in Brooklyn. She was practicing in Kings county and duly registered there. Chapter 513, Laws of 1880, requires registry in the county where the physician is practicing or intends to commence, the practice with the “ authority for so practicing.” The practice referred to in the act is defined to be “ within the state.” The plain meaning of the law is therefore that the place of practicing is the place to register, and once registered the practice is legalized within the state. Mo new *376registry is needed to visit a patient out of the county. The fact that a physician gives two days in a week out of his county to see patients does not make a new practice in a new county, unless intended as a cover for a real change of place.

It is simply practicing medicine in Kings county with patients in another county. Even if the advertising an office in Westchester county was an offense the plaintiff cannot avail herself of this fact. The contract with the plaintiff was not proven to be a. W estchester contract

The plaintiff was in Brooklyn two or three times and was treated there. The other visits were received at the plaintiff’s own residence in Westchester county. She was never in the Westchester office, was never treated there, and it is not proven that the original contract came from the advertisement in Westchester county.

There is no defense to the claim proven. *Gay*v. *Seibold,*97 N.Y.,472.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs.
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1

Product shipped with losses lower than 

current DOE standard

All DOE in-scope shipped Jun 2010 – Jun 

2011

Wes Patterson, PPTR-NAM, 12 Oct 2011
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2

Circle = 100% of MVA designed Jun 2010 – Jun 2011

Wedges = % lower losses than the DOE standard
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 3

Circle = 100% of MVA shipped Jun 2010 – Jun 2011

Wedges = % lower losses than the DOE standard
#### In the Matter of the Central Tunnel Railway Company.

Order appointing commissioners granted.
#### James A. Starck *v.*United States

No. 7491.

Entry Nos. 191; 442; 526.

Invoices dated Greenfield, England, October 12, 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at Providence, R. I., November 24, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 23, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon oral stipulation' made in open court to the effect that the issues involved herein are similar in all material respects t,o those involved in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

With respect to i eappraisement. 150271-A, the parties have stipulated that the “entered unit value of the merchandise less five per cent is equal to the statutory foreign value under section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, on the date of exportation, and that there was no higher export value on said date of exportation.”

With respect to reappraisement 152049-A, it was stipulated that “the foreign value under section 402 (c) for the item, 44 inches with fine plain lapping, which was entered at 11 shillings 8 pence, had a foreign value on that date of exportation of 10 shillings 7 pence and as to the item 38 inches with fine plain lapping which was entered at 10 shillings and one-half pence, the market value is 9 shillings, one and one-half pence, both items less five per cent, and that there was no higher export value on the date of exportation thereof.”

With respect to reappraisement 152250-A, the parties have stipulated that “the foreign value of the merchandise under section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was 9 shillings one and one-half pence, less five per cent, and that there was no higher export value on the date of exportation thereof.”

*342Upon the agreed facts, I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, tó be the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such values are as stated above.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
J. 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge 

Lamarr Rowell 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8654 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review 

of the Homeland Security Information Network, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Mr. EZELL (for himself, Mr. IVEY, and Mr. PFLUGER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a review of the Homeland Security Information 

Network, 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 ‘‘Streamlining Law En5 forcement Information Sharing Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON THE HOME7 LAND SECURITY INFORMATION NETWORK. 

8 Not later than one year after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

10 States shall submit to the Committee on Homeland SecuVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:15 Jul 23, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8654.IH H8654

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8654 IH

1 rity and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

2 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

3 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Se4 lect Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report that 

5 includes the following: 

6 (1) An examination of how the Homeland Secu7 rity Information Network is used to share informa8 tion with Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial 

9 law enforcement partners. 

10 (2) A comparison of the use, by such law en11 forcement partners, on both desktops and mobile ap12 plications of the Homeland Security Information 

13 Network to the use of other tools, including 

14 JusticeConnect of the Federal Bureau of Investiga15 tion, which facilitate real-time exchanges of intel16 ligence among such law enforcement partners. 

17 (3) An assessment of the cost, effectiveness, 

18 and efficacy of the Homeland Security Information 

19 Network. 

20 (4) An assessment of the current policies of the 

21 Homeland Security Information Network and the ef22 ficacy of such policies in protecting the civil rights, 

23 civil liberties, and privacy of individuals. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8654 IH

1 (5) An analysis of any other information the 

2 Comptroller General determines appropriate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.6

                       SECOND ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                       ---------------------------------


     This Second Allonge to Promissory Note (this "Allonge"), made and entered
into as of March 12, 2001, between Semele Group Inc. (formerly known as Banyan
Strategic Land Fund II), a Delaware corporation (the "Maker"), and Equis
Financial Group Limited Partnership, as assignee of Equis Exchange LLC (the
"Payee"), is firmly affixed to and made a part of that certain Promissory Note
dated May 31, 1997, as amended by that certain First Allonge to Promissory Note
dated March 21, 2000, in the original principal amount of $4,419,500, payable to
the order of the Payee (the "Note").

     For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the Maker and the Payee hereby
agree that, effective as of the date hereof, the Note shall be further amended
as follows:

     1.  The date on which the outstanding principal balance of the Note
together with interest thereon is due and payable shall be April 30, 2003.

     As hereby amended, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in all
respects.

                                             SEMELE GROUP INC.


                                             By: /s/ JAMES A. COYNE
                                                 -------------------------
                                             Title: President & CEO
                                                    ----------------------
The foregoing is accepted:

EQUIS FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED
 PARTNERSHIP

By: Equis Corporation, its General Partner

    By: /s/ GARY D. ENGLE
       --------------------------
    Title: PRESIDENT & CEO
          -----------------------
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8815 

To amend subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to 

ensure that youth and parents with lived experience in the child welfare 

system are consulted on policies, ensuring representation and inclusion 

of their perspectives in State child welfare program planning. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2024 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the Social 

Security Act to ensure that youth and parents with lived 

experience in the child welfare system are consulted on 

policies, ensuring representation and inclusion of their 

perspectives in State child welfare program planning. 

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 ‘‘Youth and Family En5 gagement in Child Welfare Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8815 IH

1 SEC. 2. YOUTH AND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD WEL2 FARE PROGRAM PLANNING. 

3 Section 432(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 629b(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ap6 prove a plan that meets the requirements of sub7 section (a) only if— 

8 ‘‘(A) the plan was developed jointly by the 

9 Secretary and the State, and the State, in de10 veloping the plan, consulted with— 

11 ‘‘(i) appropriate public and nonprofit 

12 private agencies; 

13 ‘‘(ii) community-based organizations 

14 involved in providing services for children 

15 and families in the areas of family preser16 vation, family support, family reunifica17 tion, foster care, kinship, and adoption 

18 promotion and support; 

19 ‘‘(iii) parents with child welfare expe20 rience, foster parents, adoptive parents, 

21 and kinship caregivers; and 

22 ‘‘(iv) children, youth, and young 

23 adults with experience in the child welfare 

24 system, including State boards and coun25 cils comprised of youth with the experience 

26 who represent the diversity of children in 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8815 IH

1 the State to whom the plan would apply; 

2 and 

3 ‘‘(B) the State has made publicly acces4 sible on a website of the State agency a report 

5 that outlines how the State has implemented 

6 the suggestions of the children and youth re7 ferred to in subparagraph (A)(iv);’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

10 on October 1, 2026. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, (the Report) of Innovaro, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Carole R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Carole R. WrightName: Carole R. WrightDate: March 30, 2011
#### In the Matter of "Male” G., Also Known as Brian Keith G.

Family Court, New York County,

October 5, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Hyman Frankel*and *Martin Baron*of counsel), for the Commissioner of Social Services, petitioner. *H. Howard Friedman*for respondent. *Terry Millburn*for *Law Guardian.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph D. Caputo, J.

This is a proceeding under section 384-b of the Social Services Law for an order committing the custody and guardianship of the child "Male” G., also known as Brian Keith G., to the petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services.

On August 18, at the fact-finding hearing, petitioner attempted to introduce the child’s case record maintained by the Bureau of Child Welfare ("BCW”) as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518. The natural mother challenged the record’s admissibility on the ground that at least certain entries in the *284case record were not made "at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter”, as is required by the statute. The present BCW worker assigned to the case testified that it is her practice, and that to her knowledge it is the usual practice of BCW social workers, to keep temporary "day books” upon which case activity is recorded on the same day or at most within a few days after the event takes place. Later, the social worker dictates from the "day books” the case activity onto tapes which are then transcribed by typists into the permanent case record. After entry into the case record, the day books are destroyed and the tapes are erased for future use.

Upon reading the memoranda submitted by attorneys for the petitioner and the natural mother and after due deliberation, it is this court’s order, pursuant to CPLR 4518, that such records shall be admissible. Files and records which the Department of Social Services are required by law and regulation to maintain are business records and are admissible *(Kelly v Wasserman,*5 NY2d 425).

The mere fact that a temporary entry is made does not deprive a subsequent entry, made as a permanent record, of its character as a record admissible under the "business records” rule *(McGoldrick v Traphagen,*88 NY 334).

The attorney for the natural mother argues that the entries into the permanent record were made substantially after the events recorded, in some cases months afterwards. However, entries are made in the "day book” at most a few days after the event. The later transcription does not rely on memory, but on a préviously prepared record. "Where the original record is routinely copied into a more permanent form, with the original then being destroyed, the copy may be made at any time the routine of the business requires; since memory is not being relied upon, the concept of contemporaneous entry is not in point” (5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 4518.17).

It is therefore ordered that the BCW case record maintained in connection with the foster case provided to "Male” G., also known as Brian Keith G., shall be admitted into evidence.
## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 1 I. GENERAL
District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD Date Adopted: 4/20/05
Rule No: Rule 900 Regulation Title: Inspection of Public Records - Disclosure Policy Date Submitted To ARB: 2/23/05 Date Last Amended or Revised: 3/8/84 Pollutants Regulated By This Rule (Check): NOx SO2 PM10 VOC

_ TAC (Name of TAC)
Is this rule intended to be sent to the EPA as a SIP revision ? X Yes No. SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES: New rule ? Amended rule Rule Repealed.

II. NET EFFECT ON EMISSIONS Increase Decrease X No change N/A Emissions reduction commitment in SIP for this source category: 0.0 tons/year SCC/CES Code(s) Affected: na Affected SIC Code(s): na Inventory Year to Calculate Changes in Emissions: na Affected Area:
Future Year Control Profile Estimate ( VOC emissions): N/A Tons/Year Baseline Reductions Tons/year Control Percent Control Control Year (increases) Subject to Rule Level Control Level Factor

N/A / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

/ = * 100 = % 1.00 - = / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS District is: Attainment Nonattainment X Split Approximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: na

. Percent in nonattainment area: na

. Number of major ( ? 100 TPY) sources controlled: NONE

. Percent in nonattainment area: 0%

## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 2 Location of Major Sources by City: N/A

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY N/A
Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; X No. If yes, those limits are in Section(s) N/A of the rule. Other methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The rule contains: 1) Emission limits in Section(s) N/A

. 2) Work practice standards in Section(s) na

. 3) Record keeping requirements in Section(s) na

. 4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) na

.

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN X No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts Attainment DISCUSSION:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.F. aka A.N.F. v. Department of Family and 

Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01-20-00722-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-05250J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

This case is a priority, accelerated appeal of a decree terminating the appellant’s parental 

rights to his child, A.F. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE, tit. 2, 

subtit. F—Appendix (appeal from suit terminating the parent-child relationship filed by 

governmental agency must be disposed by court of appeals within 180 days of the filing of notice 

of appeal). The notice of appeal was prematurely filed in this case on October 15, 2020, before 

the trial court signed the final judgment on December 4, 2020. Under Rule 6.2(a), the deadline 

for this Court’s disposition of this appeal is June 2, 2021.

Appellant is indigent, and he is represented by appointed counsel, Angela Ellis. See TEX.

FAM. CODE § 107.013(a)(1) (statutory right of indigent parent to appointed counsel in suit filed 

by governmental entity seeking termination of the parent-child relationship); id. § 107.016(2) 

(indigent parent’s right to counsel continues through exhaustion of appeals). 

We have granted appellant three extensions of time to file a brief, yet his counsel has not 

filed a brief in this court. In the order granting the third extension of time to file a brief, we 

acknowledged Ms. Ellis’s representation that she had been ill with COVID-19, and we ordered 

Ms. Ellis to file a brief or inform this Court that she is unable to continue this representation by 

March 8, 2021. Ms. Ellis did not file a brief or inform this court that she is unable to continue 

representing the father in this appeal. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal, and we order the trial court to take the following 

actions:

(1) The trial court will hold a show-cause hearing on the record within 10 

days of the date of this order to determine whether Ms. Ellis is able to

continue representing the father in this appeal.
(2) If the trial court determines that Ms. Ellis cannot or should not continue 

representing the father in this appeal, the court shall appoint new appellate 

counsel for the father.

(3) The trial court will enter any necessary orders and issue findings of fact 

and conclusions of law within 3 days of the date of the show cause 

hearing.

In addition, we order the court reporter and the trial court clerk to take the following 

action within 5 days from the date of the show cause hearing:

(1) The court reporter will file with this court a supplemental reporter’s record 

of the show cause hearing.

(2) The trial court clerk will file a supplemental clerk’s record including the 

trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and any orders issued

since the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Peter Kelly_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 16, 2021___
No. 38949.

#### Protests 285517-G, etc., of Tausig & Pilcer et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) the atomizers in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.