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

*

*

*

* Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the

Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FAT AA) of 2016; including the health

and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
*

*

* Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the

Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FAT AA) of 2016; including the health

and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
*

*

*

* Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the

Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FAT AA) of 2016; including the health

and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
*

*

*

*

* Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the

Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FAT AA) of 2016; including the health

and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
#### Maureen Burke, Appellant, v Steven M. Santoro, Respondent.

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated July 27, 1989 which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As the plaintiff failed to object to the trial court’s charge, her contention that the trial court improperly applied the New York City Traffic Regulations instead of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to an accident which involved a pedestrian hit by a car in Manhattan is unpreserved for appellate review *(Niedelman v Jacoby,*127 AD2d 640; *Emmons v Country Lincoln Mercury Sales,*111 AD2d 213). In any event, that contention is without merit.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1640 confers authority upon cities to enact regulations for the governance of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The statute clearly states that provisions of those local regulations shall supersede the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law where inconsistent or in conflict with respect to matters involving the right-of-way of vehicles and pedestrians and the regulation of traffic *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1642). The New York City Traffic Regulations applied by the trial court therefore superseded the Vehicle and Traffic Law in this instance.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3695

To establish requirements relating to the issuance and review of regulations

by Federal agencies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. KASICH, Mr. COX, and Mr. FRANKS

of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To establish requirements relating to the issuance and review

of regulations by Federal agencies.

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 ‘‘Federal Regulation

5 Cost-Benefit Assessment Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO

7 THE ISSUANCE AND REVIEW OF REGULA8 TIONS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in

10 this section, Executive Order 12291 of February 17, 1981,
2

•HR 3695 IH

1 as in effect on that date (in this Act referred to as the

2 ‘‘Order’’), shall apply to each agency (as that term is de3 fined in the Order).

4 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—In the application of the Order—

5 (1) ‘‘rules in effect on the date of the enact6 ment of the Federal Regulation Cost-Benefit Assess7 ment Act of 1993’’ shall be substituted for ‘‘cur8 rently effective rules’’; and

9 (2) ‘‘the date of the enactment of the Federal

10 Regulation Cost-Benefit Assessment Act of 1993’’

11 shall be substituted for ‘‘the date of this Order’’.

Æ
# C_2015229EN.01000201.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/2

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons and an entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2015/C 229/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Sergey Valeryevich AKSYONOV (No 1), Mr Rustam Ilmirovich TEMIRGALIEV (No 3), Mr Deniz Valentinovich BEREZOVSKIY (No 4), Mr Yuriy ZHEREBTSOV (No 7), Mr Sergey Pavlovych TSEKOV (No 8), Mr Oleg Evgenevich PANTELEEV, (No 15), Mr Mikhail MALYSHEV (No 30), Mr Valery MEDVEDEV (No 31), Mr LTL. Gen. Igor TURCHENYUK (No 32), Ms Elena Borisovna MIZULINA (No 33), Mr Sergei Ivanovich MENYAILO (No 37), Mr German PROKOPIV (No 42), Mr Igor STRELKOV (No 47), Mr Petr Grigorievich JAROSH (No 51), Mr Oleg Grigorievich KOZYURA (No 52), Mr Roman LYAGIN (No 57), Mr Igor Sergeievich SHEVCHENKO (No 60), Mr Aleksandr Vitalievich KHRYAKOV (No 64), Mr Marat Faatovich BASHIROV (No 65), Mr Alexander Nikolayevich TKACHYOV (No 80), Mr Vladimir ANTYUFEYEV (No 86), Mr Aleksandr Akimovich KARAMAN (No 102), Mr Vladimir Stepanovich NIKITIN (No 110), Mr Oleg BUGROV (No 126), Ms Lesya LAPTEVA (No 127), Mr Zaur ISMAILOV (No 145) and Prizrak brigade (entity listed under No 33), appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

1

2

The Council intends to amend the statements of reasons for the listing of the above-mentioned persons and entity. Those persons and entity are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, before 31 July 2015, to the following address:

before 31 July 2015

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

2

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06388]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8241]

Notice of Public Meeting on FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions 
Program

    There will be a meeting on the President's FY 2014 U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Department of State's Harry S. Truman 
Building's George C. Marshall Conference Room, 2201 C Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20520. The meeting's purpose is to hear the views of 
attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2014 U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program.
    Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 
p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, to reserve a seat. Persons wishing to 
present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 
8, 2013 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.
    The use of any video or audio recording device, photographing 
device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for 
similar purposes is prohibited at this event.
    If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact 
Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 453-9257. 
Information about the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program may be found at 
http://www.state.gov/g/prm/ g/prm/.

    Dated: March 12, 2013.
David Robinson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
and Migration, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-06388 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-33-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of our reports,
dated May 10, 1999, relating to the March 31, 1999 consolidated statements of
income, shareholders' equity and cash flows and Schedule II of PEMSTAR Inc. We
also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-44044) pertaining to PEMSTAR Inc. of our reports dated May 10,
1999, with respect to the March 31, 1999 conslidated financial statements and
schedule II of PEMSTAR Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                       /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Rochester, Minnesota
June 27, 2001
February 24, 2016

Mr. Gregory S. Winton

The Aviation Law Firm Counsel to Leading Ed ge Associates Inc. 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Mr. Winton:

This letter is to inform you that we are re scinding the December 11, 2015 Grant of Exemption

No. 11530A.

On December 11, 2015, the Federal Aviation Ad ministration (FAA) issued Exemption No. 11530A to Leading Edge Associates, Inc. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315( a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), an d 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), added the Leadin g Edge Precision Vision 30 aircraft to their existing exemption. After reviewing this grant of amendment, the FAA is rescinding Exemption No. 11530A.

On July 1, 2015, Leading Edge Associates, Inc. submitted a petition to amend Exemption No. 11530A to add the Leading Edge Precision Vision 30 aircraft and the app lication of larvacides and adulticides for mosquito control to thei r existing exemption, orig inally issued May 11,

2015 for aerial data collec tion with the Leading Edge Precisi on Vision 10 aircraft. On January 6, 2016, the FAA received a letter from Rep. Mark Meadows inquiring about the omission of the request to add the applicati on of larvacides and adulticides for mosquito control to their exemption. Upon review of the grant of amendm ent, the FAA determined that the amendment indeed did not address the petitioner’s request to add the application of larvacides and adulticides for mosquito control. Additionally, the FAA determined that the amendment was issued in error, and will need to take appropriate action to rescind the amendment issued on December 11, 2015.

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112

− 95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consider ation of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft a nd its operation, the Secret ary of Transportation

must determine that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. This determination has not been made for the Leading Edge Precision Vision 30 aircraft. Consistent with prior practice, when notified of these types of erro rs, the FAA will act to rectify the situation.2

The FAA is evaluating the amendment request da ted July 1, 2015 for additional aircraft and operations is hereby under at this time. When the FAA completes its review, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be requir ed by the petitioner. The FAA will contact the petitioner if additional in formation is needed to process the request.

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that Exemption No. 11530A was granted in error. Therefore, pursuant to the authority c ontained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Ex emption No. 11530A is rescinded effective immediately.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3041

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Montez Deonta Quinn

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

 ____________

 Submitted: March 30, 2022

Filed: April 4, 2022 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Montez Quinn appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, pursuant to a plea

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri.
agreement that includes an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

district court erred in failing to award an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,

and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d

702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside

the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 30, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01154-CV 

STEVEN BROWDER AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants 

V. 

DFW PROPERTY GUARDIAN, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 005-01793-2015 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee in this case is past due. By postcard dated September 22, 2015, we notified 

appellants the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellants to remit the filing fee within ten 

days and expressly cautioned appellants that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the 

appeal. Also by postcard dated September 22, 2015, we notified appellants the docketing 

statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellants to file the docketing statement 

within ten days. We cautioned appellants that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this 

appeal. To date, appellants have not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c). 

151154F.P05 

 /Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

STEVEN BROWDER AND ALL 

OCCUPANTS, Appellants 

No. 05-15-01154-CV V. 

DFW PROPERTY GUARDIAN, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 005-01793-2015. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee DFW PROPERTY GUARDIAN recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants STEVEN BROWDER AND ALL OCCUPANTS. 

Judgment entered November 30, 2015.