alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PRIVITT v. STATE

No. 23652.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 14, 1947.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1947.

John Davenport, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling intoxic.itlng liquor in a dry area and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of one year and a fine of $1,000.

The complaint and information, in addition to charging the primary offense, charged two prior convictions for the purpose of enhancing the punishment.

There is not any statement of the facts accompanying the record. There is, however, what purports to be a statement of the facts proven on the motion for a new trial. This is incorporated in the transcript in violation of Sec. 2 of art. 760 C.C.P., as amended by the 42nd Legislature, Vernon’s Ann.C.GP. art. 760, subd. 2.

Appellant first complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a change of venue. No error is reflected by the bill because the law does not provide for a change of venue in misdemeanor cases. See Duffield v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 43 S.W.2d 104; Patton v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 647, 6S6, 65 S.W.2cl 308.

The testimony heard on the motion for a new trial and which is incorpo*682rated in the transcript does not constitute a bill of exception and cannot be considered. However, if we could consider the same, it fails to show any misconduct on the part of the jury. Consequently, the court was justified in overruling the motion.

No error appearing from the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals arid approved by the Court.
Memorandum of Understanding between
                 the University Business Center and IQ Biometirx

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between
IQ Biometrix hereinafter referred to as IQ and the University Business Center
hereinafter referred to as UBC.

The purpose: to develop multimedia content for the on-line delivery of IQ
Biometirx's training program to law enforcement officers across the country.
Described below are the services to be provided by the UBC and IQ for the
duration of this project starting August 1, 2002 until September 30, 2002.

Project Objective: to develop two multimedia training modules based on the
     content provided by IQ.

Scope of the Project:
     Two modules will be developed with learning subsections. Course content
     will be based on the current IQ face-to-face training. Video segments along
     with power point slides will be developed for each section. The course
     content will be uploaded to IQ's web site where it will be streamed to
     participants that will have passwords and logins to access the materials.
     The web site will also have a pdf file with all the content available for
     download.

Project Timeline:
The development and production of the modules will commence in August with
September 30, launch date (contingent upon the IQ trainers availability).

The term of this agreement will begin upon signature of the MOU by authorized
representatives and will extend through the time required for the UBC's
production cost recovery or no later than August 31, 2003.

Therefore, the UBC agrees to:

1.       Produce the multimedia modules for the IQ's training content;

2.       Provide necessary expertise and resources for completion of the project
         to meet the project objective state above;

3.       Provide the facilities for the development of the multimedia content;

4.       Assist in fine tuning of the current content;

IQ agrees to:

1.       Provide the content materials and other requested information in a
         timely manner;

2.       Upload the develop content onto IQ's web site;

3.       Pay the UBC $35 per student until the 50% of the production costs have
         been recovered; Schedule by Task
This agreement represents the development of the multimedia
content by the UBC for IQ and may only be modified with 30 days written notice.
The parties agree that IQ will pay 50% ($5,000) of the project cost after the
development of the modules have been completed and the remaining 50% ($5,000)
will be paid from the course fee from each student ($35 per student).

In witness thereof, the parties have caused their authorized representatives to
execute this agreement on this day, August 1, 2002.

University Business Center


Amy Chubb                                        Emil Milevoj
Director                                         Business Development Specialist


IQ Biometrix



Greg J. Micek                                        Sylvie Lariviere
Chief Financial Officer                              Executive Vice-President
os UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

‘Re”

San Francisco, CA 94105

OCT 252011

Mr. Robert D. Fletcher

Deputy Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

P.O. Box2815

Sacramento, California 95812

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

Implementation

On May 19, 2011,

Plan

the

(SIP).

California

We

Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the California State

that it fulfills the completeness

have reviewed materials submitted with the following rule and found

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD Rule Rule Title

#

San Joaguin Valley Unified 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule

revisions

This addresses

for action

all revisions

pursuant

in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete

to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4120.

Sincerely,

\

cu

Jordan

Director, Air Division

cc: Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Stationary Source Division
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0773 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 71 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
IB 

Union Calendar No. 1 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 297 

[Report No. 113–3] 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize support for graduate 

medical education programs in children’s hospitals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. BURGESS, and Mrs. CAPPS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Additional sponsors: Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BONNER, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 

LANCE, Mr. HARPER, Mr. RUNYAN, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mrs. 

CHRISTENSEN, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. KING of New York, Ms. CASTOR

of Florida, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. LATTA, 

Mr. STIVERS, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. DENT, Mrs. BEATTY, and Mr. 

MICHAUD

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 297 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize support for graduate medical education programs in children’s hospitals. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 297 RH

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 ‘‘Children’s Hospital 

5 GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN’S HOS7 PITALS THAT OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL 

8 EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 340E of the Public 

10 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256e) is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘through 2005 

12 and each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011’’ and in13 serting ‘‘through 2005, each of fiscal years 2007 

14 through 2011, and each of fiscal years 2013 through 

15 2017’’; 

16 (2) in subsection (f)(1)(A)(iv), by inserting 

17 ‘‘and each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017’’ after 

18 ‘‘2011’’; and 

19 (3) in subsection (f)(2)(D), by inserting ‘‘and 

20 each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017’’ after 

21 ‘‘2011’’. 

22 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Section 340E(b)(3)(D) 

23 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

24 256e(b)(3)(D)) is amended by striking ‘‘Not later than the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 297 RH

1 end of fiscal year 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than 

2 the end of fiscal year 2016’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 1 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 297 

[Report No. 113–3] 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauprograms in children’s hospitals. thorize support for graduate medical education 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Roland McKay, Appellant, Tara Johnson, Plaintiff,<br><br>against<br><br>Fairfield Manor at Douglaston, LLC Properties, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Roland McKay, appellant pro se.Warren Berger, P.C. (Warren M. Berger of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (Janine A. Barbera-Dalli, J.), enter0ed May 3, 2018. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed so much of the action as was brought by plaintiff Roland McKay.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $5,000, alleging that defendant, their landlord, had leased a one-bedroom apartment to them and had charged them the monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. Plaintiff Roland McKay appeals.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; <i>see</i> UDCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the District Court's determination to dismiss so much of the action as was brought by plaintiff Roland McKay, since it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see </i>UDCA 1804, 1807). McKay did not demonstrate that plaintiffs did not get the exact apartment they had contracted for, which apartment McKay testified he had seen <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>before he had signed the lease. Furthermore, plaintiffs used both the master bedroom and a second room in the apartment as bedrooms, which was how the apartment was advertised and how they had intended to use it when they had signed the lease. Consequently, it is irrelevant that the room plaintiffs used as a second bedroom may have been labeled differently on the architect's plans.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed. </p><p>ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 21, 2019<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>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (177)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,122
<PP&E>                                           9,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,879)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,526
<BONDS>                                          1,635
<COMMON>                                         2,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,755
<SALES>                                         10,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,009
<CGS>                                            6,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    88
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (26)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,121)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
(LOGO)
                                                             HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE
                                                             COMPANY

                                             The Huntington Mortgage Company
                                             7575 Huntington Park Drive
                                             Columbus, Ohio 43235

March 26, 1998

SASCOR
Attn: Master Servicing Dept.
7435 New Technology Way
Frederick, MD 21701

Re: 1997 Annual Reporting

Dear Investor:

In accordance with the servicing agreement between The Huntington Mortgage
Company (HMC) and your firm, this letter will serve as our annual certification
relative to the  portfolio  of  mortgage  loans  administered  on your  behalf.
Enclosed, please find The Huntington BancShares Incorporated and HMC Annual
Reports for 1997.

This letter will also certify that all real estate taxes and insurance premiums
have been paid in  connection  with the mortgage loan  portfolio.  Additionally,
please find Fidelity Bond certificates as well as Errors Omissions declarations
to further protect your interest.

The employees of The Huntington are pleased to be of service to you and we look
forward to continuing the valued business  relationship that we have established
with your  organization.  Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed
statements, please contact me directly at (614)480-6680.

Sincerely,
/s/Bradford C. Northcraft
Bradford C. Northcraft
Vice President
Investor Services Manager



     Take control of your money.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2938 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2938

  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

 Ms. Jenkins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exchange Sunset Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NONAPPLICATION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE 
              ACT.

    (a) Termination of Exchange Requirement.--Section 1311 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Failure To Offer Coverage.--If one or more Exchanges fails to 
accept applications for enrollment in qualified health plans beginning 
on October 1, 2013, the requirements of this section shall cease to 
apply, and any other provisions of this Act (or an amendment made by 
this Act) relating to Exchanges shall not be applicable.''.
    (b) Requirement of Coverage.--Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall terminate 
on October 1, 2013, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that 
one or more Exchanges fails to accept applications for enrollment in 
qualified health plans on such date.''.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

498 

CA 12-02137 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

SAMUEL TOMAINO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS MAROTTA, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (RYON D. FLEMING OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County

(Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 13, 2012. The order,

among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the

verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that he

sustained injuries as a result of exposure to lead paint in a house

owned by defendant. Following trial, the jury concluded that

defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial

factor in causing injury to plaintiff. Supreme Court properly denied

plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as inconsistent. “A jury

finding that a party was negligent but that such negligence was not a

proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent . . . only when the

issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically

impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause”

(Skowronski v Mordino, 4 AD3d 782, 783 [internal quotation marks

omitted]; see Ellis v Borzilleri, 41 AD3d 1170, 1170-1171). Here,

defendant’s expert testified that plaintiff was not damaged at all by

his exposure to lead paint. The fact that the jury found that

defendant was negligent but that his negligence was not a substantial

factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries thus is not logically

impossible (see Cunningham v Anderson, 85 AD3d 1370, 1373-1375, lv

dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 948). The jury was

entitled to conclude that any effects of lead poisoning only minimally

affected plaintiff and that any injuries sustained by him could have

been caused by other factors (see id. at 1375).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court