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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1565 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1565

 To delay the effective date of regulations issued by the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development governing the admission of single persons 
           into public and assisted housing for the elderly.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 19 (legislative day, October 13), 1993

  Mr. Wofford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To delay the effective date of regulations issued by the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development governing the admission of single persons 
           into public and assisted housing for the elderly.

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

SECTION 1. TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Older Americans' Housing 
Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITED MORATORIUM.

    (a) Delayed Effective Date.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, effective on the date of enactment of this Act, parts 812, 905, 
912, and 960 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended to 
implement section 573(a) of the National Affordable Housing Act of 
1990, shall not apply to public and assisted housing developed as an 
elderly housing project with the approval of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
``Department'') before the date on which the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
``Secretary'') issues final regulations implementing section 621 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
    (b) Applicable Regulations.--During the period beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which the 
Secretary issues final regulations implementing section 621 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, parts 812, 905, 912, and 
960 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, as such parts existed 
prior to the effective date of the regulations issued to implement 
section 573(a) of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, shall 
apply to public and assisted housing developed as an elderly project 
with the approval of the Department.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony James, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 38]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered May 23, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 26, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The element of physical injury was established by evidence that defendant punched the victim twice in the face during the robbery, causing pain, swelling and headaches (see *People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; *People v Smith,*283 AD2d 208 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 907 [2001]; *Matter of O’Shanna T.,*238 AD2d 287 [1997]).

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. There was no pattern of egregious remarks or misstatements of the record warranting reversal (see *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.
#### David Hayes et al., Appellants, v Douglas Byington et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 764]

*1469Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County (Doran, J.), entered November 7, 2002, awarding plaintiffs damages upon a verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs, the motion is granted, the verdict except insofar as it found that plaintiff Barbara Hayes sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident is set aside, and a new trial is granted on damages only.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs, David Hayes and Barbara Hayes, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Barbara, and for loss of consortium experienced by David, as a consequence of an automobile accident. The action proceeded to trial on the issues of serious injury, causation and damages. The jury found that Barbara sustained a serious injury under the 90/180 category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and awarded her $700 in lost earnings on the basis of her testimony that she missed months of work following the accident. The jury declined to make an award on all other elements of damages sought by plaintiffs, including Barbara’s past and future pain and suffering and past medical expenses, which the parties stipulated amounted to $1,410, as well as David’s derivative cause of action.

Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict except insofar as it found that Barbara sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident as inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial on damages only. The verdict is inconsistent insofar as the jury found that Barbara sustained a substantial and disabling bodily injury or impairment and yet failed to award her any damages for even past pain and suffering *(see Sanfilippo v City of New York,*272 AD2d 201 [2000], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 887 [2000]; *see also Shaw v Jacobs,*279 AD2d 624 [2001]; *Pares v LaPrade*[appeal No. 2], 266 AD2d 852, 852-853 [1999]; *Powell v New York City Tr. Auth.,*186 AD2d 728, 729 [1992]). The verdict is further inconsistent insofar as the jury found that Barbara sustained an accident-related serious injury of a “medically determined” nature (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), but failed to award her past medical expenses in the amount stipulated by the parties *(see Sanfilippo,*272 AD2d 201 [2000]). Moreover, the jury’s denial of any award to Barbara for past medical expenses is against the weight of the evidence, given the parties’ stipulation and the jury’s other findings *(cf. id.).*That part of the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, but rather was “irrational” and “palpably wrong” *(Manna v*
      *1470
      *Hubbard,*254 AD2d 693, 693 [1998]). Therefore, we reverse the judgment, grant plaintiffs’ motion and set aside the verdict except insofar as it found that Barbara sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident, and we grant plaintiffs a new trial on damages only. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton arid Hayes, JJ.
# L_2010160EN.01001001.xml

| 26.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 160/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/10

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX-IRAQ/1/2010

of 22 June 2010

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ

(2010/351/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP of 14 June 2010 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (1) and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 9(2) of Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (hereinafter referred to as ‘EUJUST LEX-IRAQ’), including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 9(2) of Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (hereinafter referred to as ‘EUJUST LEX-IRAQ’), including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | On 15 December 2009, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC adopted Decision 2009/982/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 15 December 2009, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC adopted Decision 2009/982/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.

| (3) | On 16 June 2010, the HR proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ until 30 June 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 16 June 2010, the HR proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ until 30 June 2011.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ is hereby extended from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 June 2010.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairman

C. FERNÁNDEZ-ARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 149, 15.6.2010, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 338, 19.12.2009, p. 92.

2

---
No. 12-8223.

#### Ruffin *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph M. Ramos,
Jr., in my capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|1.
 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
|2.
 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
 covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the
 period covered by the Report.

| |                                                       |  |                        
| | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
| | /s/ Joseph
 M. Ramos, Jr.                             |  | Dated:
 August 14, 2007
| |                                                       |  |                        
| | Joseph M.
 Ramos, Jr.                                 |  |                        
| | Executive
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |                        
| | (principal financial and accounting 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 Siebert Financial Corp. and will be
retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

21

---
# C_2010178EN.01000401.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5781 — Total Holdings Europe SAS/ERG SPA/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 178/02

On 21 May 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5781. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5781. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2011, 

Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated, and Order filed January 31, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01058-CR

____________

KIM BRUCE MATHIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1302752

ORDER

On December 22, 2011, this Court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On 

January 11, 2012, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is granted. 

This Court’s opinion filed December 22, 2011, is withdrawn, and our judgment of 

that date is vacated. The appeal is ordered reinstated.

PER CURIAM
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 303    | 291    | 299    | 345    | 359    | 377   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 300    | 217    | 377    | 346    |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  May 11, 2011 |   |                    |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                          |   |                    |
|                          |   |                    |
|                          | By:    | /s/ Anthony J. Miceli   |
|                          |   | Anthony J. Miceli       |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 2947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Capital Construction Fund Agreement and Certificate.
    Agency Form Number: NOAA 88-14.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0090.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 2,250 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 1,000.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 2.25 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Merchant Marine Act provides for the 
administration of the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) by NOAA. This 
program enables fishermen to construct, reconstruct, or (under limited 
circumstances) acquire fishing vessels with before-tax, rather than 
after-tax, dollars. NOAA collects information from fishermen to 
determine their eligibility to participate in the program and to 
certify completion of the agreement objectives.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: January 2, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-1264 Filed 1-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
No. 12-6053.

#### Decastro *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vicente Paris, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 741]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), rendered May 18, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining that there was an independent source for the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant as his robber and attacker. An in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness is proper, notwithstanding unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, where it is based upon the eyewitness’s independent observation of the defendant *(see People v Cotto,*268 AD2d 441 [2000]; *People v Brown,*187 AD2d 662 [1992]). The victim had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant before he entered the car in question and while he was sitting in the rear of the car, under well-lit conditions, for a lengthy period of time during the commission of the crime. As such, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an independent source for the identification *(see People v Brown,*293 AD2d 686 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.