alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Valerie Van Inwegen, Appellant, v Eugene Lucia et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.), dated March 15, 1989, which granted the separate motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs noncompliance with CPLR 3406 (a), and (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 25, 1989, which denied her motion for renewal.

Ordered that the order dated May 25, 1989, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion for renewal is granted and, upon renewal, the order dated March 15, 1989, is vacated, the motions by the defendants to dismiss the complaint are denied, and the plaintiffs proposed notice of dental malpractice action is deemed served and filed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 15, 1989, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated May 25, 1989.

Upon the plaintiffs failure to timely file a notice of dental malpractice action with the clerk of the court as provided in CPLR 3406 (a), the defendants sought and obtained a dismissal of the action for the plaintiffs noncompliance with this rule, on the authority of *Tewari v Tsoutsouras*(140 AD2d 104).

However, the Court of Appeals has since reversed the holding of the Appellate Division in *Tewari v Tsoutsouras*(140 AD2d 104, *supra, revd*75 NY2d 1), finding that the Legisla*444ture did not authorize the sanction of dismissal of a complaint in the first instance upon a plaintiff’s failure to timely serve and file a notice of malpractice action. In light of the holding of the Court of Appeals, we reinstate the complaint and deem the plaintiff’s proposed notice of dental malpractice action served and filed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1537 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1537

  To extend until January 1, 1996, the existing suspension of duty on 
  machines designed for heat-set, stretch texturing of continuous man-
                              made fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1993

    Mr. Payne  of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1996, the existing suspension of duty on 
  machines designed for heat-set, stretch texturing of continuous man-
                              made fibers.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON MACHINES 
              DESIGNED FOR HEAT-SET, STRETCH TEXTURING OF CONTINUOUS 
              MAN-MADE FIBERS.

    Heading 9902.84.44 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/95''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been a lower duty if the 
amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or withdrawal, 
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
No. 72-1287.

#### Mager et ux. *v.*Hilltown Township.

Appeal from Pa. Commw. Ct. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Cheatham, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered November 7, 1988, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *259from 3 to 6 years, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and in the interest of justice, to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing and, except as so modified, affirmed.

The basis of defendant’s status as a predicate felon was his conviction in New Jersey, on a plea of guilty, of theft "from the person of the victim”, a felony in that State (NJ Stat Annot § 2C:20-2 [b] [2] [d]). Defendant argues that his New Jersey conviction is not based on an offense which, if committed in New York, would be a felony and that it thus does not qualify as a predicate felony for the purpose of sentencing him as a second felony offender. *(See, People v Sailor,*65 NY2d 224, 237, *cert denied*474 US 982.) While the. analogous New York felony, grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]), requires a taking " 'from the *person*of another’ ” *(People v Asch,*107 AD2d 941, 943 [emphasis in original]), the New Jersey statute, as judicially interpreted, is satisfied by the theft of property which is "within the immediate custody and control of the victim” *(State v Blow,*132 NJ Super 487, 491, 334 A2d 341, 343, *cert denied*68 NJ 152, 343 A2d 440; *State v Link,*197 NJ Super 615, 485 A2d 1069, *cert denied*101 NJ 234, 501 A2d 911). Therefore, we agree with defendant that the latter is incompatible with the former. *(See, People v Asch, supra,*at 943.) While the People urge that since defendant failed to argue this specific issue before the trial court he has not preserved the point, in view of his exception to the court’s ruling that the New Jersey crime would be classified as a felony in New York, we reach the issue in the interest of justice.

The People also argue that the New York courts have found larceny "from the person of another” where the property taken was "appurtenant to or immediately next to the physical person of the victim”. However, all of the cases which they cite involved physical contact between the victim and either the property taken or, at least, the article from which the property was taken *(see, People v Davis,*71 AD2d 607; *People v Cunningham,*73 AD2d 976; *People v Evans,*131 AD2d 502). As we read the New Jersey cases, there is no similar requirement there. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30660]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 75235]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of government owned invention available for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Agriculture and is available for 
licensing. U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/637,031 entitled 
``Magnetostrictive Precipitation Gage'' is available for licensing in 
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR 404 to achieve expeditious 
commercialization of results of Federally funded research and 
development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend 
market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for 
licensing.

DATES: (Federal Register) Comments must be received on or before 
January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
this invention may be obtained by writing to: Janet I. Stockhausen of 
the USDA Forest Service, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 
53705-2398; telephone 608-231-9502; fax: 608-231-9508; or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1bbb8a2a5beb2bab991b7b0b2a2a5b0b7b7ffa6b8a2b2ffb4b5a4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f75766c6b707c74775f797e7c6c6b7e79793168766c7c317a7b6a">[email protected]</span></a>. Issued patents may be obtained from the 
Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, 
DC 20231.

June Blalock,
Technology Licensing Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 00-30660 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS****CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES — OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned certify that, to their knowledge, the Form 10-K of Wilmington Trust Corporation(“Wilmington Trust”) for 2007 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in that report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Wilmington Trust.     February 28, 2008 /s/ Ted T. Cecala     Ted T. Cecala    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer         /s/ David R. Gibson     Ted T. Cecala    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
II 

Calendar No. 125 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 167 

[Report No. 115–95] 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen Educators at the National 

Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2017 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JUNE 8, 2017 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen Educators at 

the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas. 

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 ‘‘National Memorial to 

5 Fallen Educators Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 167 RS

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds that— 

3 (1) from 1764 to the date of enactment of this 

4 Act, more than 119 educators from 36 States have 

5 lost their lives in the United States while performing 

6 professional duties; 

7 (2) the United States lacks a national memorial 

8 dedicated to fallen educators; and 

9 (3) a memorial to fallen educators at the Na10 tional Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas— 

11 (A) was dedicated on June 12, 2014; and 

12 (B) will honor educators who have lost 

13 their lives in the line of professional service. 

14 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

15 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—The memorial to fallen educators 

17 located at the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Empo18 ria, Kansas, is designated as the ‘‘National Memorial to 

19 Fallen Educators’’. 

20 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo21 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

22 Park System and the designation of the National Memo23 rial to Fallen Educators shall not require or permit Fed24 eral funds to be expended for any purpose related to that 

25 national memorial. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 125 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 167 

[Report No. 115–95] 

A BILL 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen EduEmporia, Kansas. cators at the National Teachers Hall of Fame in 

JUNE 8, 2017 

Reported with an amendment 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               REGAN HOLDING CORP.
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I am the Chief  Financial  Officer of Regan Holding Corp., a California
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Company's  annual  report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2003
("Form 10-K").

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I hereby  certify  that,  to the best of my
knowledge,  the Form 10-K fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained  in the Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 30, 2004
                                         /s/ G. Steven Taylor
                                         -------------------------------
                                         G. Steven Taylor
                                         Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906 has been  provided to Regan  Holding
Corp.  and  will be  retained  by  Regan  Holding  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       53
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1822 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit amounts paid 

for programs to obtain a recognized postsecondary credential or a license 

to be treated as qualified higher education expenses for purposes of 

a 529 account. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. HEITKAMP, and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

amounts paid for programs to obtain a recognized postsecondary credential or a license to be treated as qualified higher education expenses for purposes of a 529 

account. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1822 IS

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAREER TRAINING EXPENSES TREAT2 ED AS QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION EX3 PENSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 529(e) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add6 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN CAREER TRAINING EX8 PENSES.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an 

10 individual who is enrolled in or attending a 

11 program to obtain a recognized postsec12 ondary credential or occupational license, 

13 the term ‘qualified higher education ex14 penses’ includes expenses similar to the ex15 penses described in subparagraph (A) 

16 which are required for such program. 

17 ‘‘(ii) PROGRAM TO OBTAIN A RECOG18 NIZED POSTSECONDARY CREDENTIAL.— 

19 For purposes of this subparagraph— 

20 ‘‘(I) the term ‘recognized postsec21 ondary credential’ has the meaning 

22 given the term in section 3(52) of the 

23 Workforce Innovation and Oppor24 tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102(52)), and 

25 ‘‘(II) when used with respect to 

26 obtaining such a credential, the term 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1822 IS

1 ‘program’ means only a program 

2 which is included, and is offered by a 

3 provider which is included, on the list 

4 described in section 122(d) of the 

5 Workforce Innovation and Oppor6 tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3152(d)).’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to expenses paid or incurred in 

9 taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     $323,675
<SECURITIES>                                                     $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                $3,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     $0
<INVENTORY>                                                 $67,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           $396,309
<PP&E>                                                       $1,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             $397,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      $179,629
<BONDS>                                                          $0
<COMMON>                                                     $1,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            $0
<PREFERRED>                                                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 $216,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               $397,820
<SALES>                                                     $65,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            $65,165
<CGS>                                                       $46,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               $46,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           $(36,523)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               $0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            $(13,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        $(13,524)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  $0
<CHANGES>                                                        $0
<NET-INCOME>                                               $(13,524)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   $(.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 $(.01)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0327 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THOMAS JAMES LUCERO ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2021

12/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0327
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 5 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 10th and Main Streets in 
Richmond, Virginia, is designated as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any references in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph T. Gee, Appellant.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, Jr., J.), rendered March 26, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated; however, he forfeited his statutory speedy trial claim by his guilty plea *(see, People v O’Brien,*56 NY2d 1009). Further, considering the factors set forth in *People v Taranovich*(37 NY2d 442, 445), we find no violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial in the nine-month delay between County Court’s order for an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and its decision based on that inspection. There is also no merit to defendant’s contention that his sentence of 3 to 6 years, the most lenient sentence possible in view of his criminal history and the crime to which he entered his guilty plea, is harsh and excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.