alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AJUSTE ADECUADO DE EQUIPOS PARA LAS MUJERES EN LA CONSTRUCCIÓN

Junio del 2020

En el 2019 

las mujeres 

constituyeron el 

10% 

de la fuerza laboral en la construcción

Los arneses de protección 

contra caídas mal ajustados 

son ineficaces 

y pueden causar 

lesiones por 

caídas

EL EQUIPO DE PROTECCIÓN 

PERSONAL (EPP)

está disponible en 

tamaños y diseños

adecuados para 

las mujeres 

LOS EMPLEADORES 

DEBEN

proporcionar a todas 

las trabajadoras 

EPP QUE SE AJUSTE 

ADECUADAMENTE

TOME MEDIDAS Y ADQUIERA EPP QUE SE AJUSTE ADECUADAMENTE

EPP para mujeres 

en la construcción: 

http://bit.ly/2Q1A7ko

Fabricantes de EPP 

para mujeres: 

http://bit.ly/2TVtHV2

PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ADIESTRE.

Tres pasos sencillos para prevenir caídas.

¡Únase a la campaña para 

acabar con las caídas 

en la construcción!

www.stopconstructionfalls.com

Descargo de responsabilidad: La mención de cualquier empresa o producto no constituye respaldo alguno del Instituto Nacional 

para la Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades. Haga una pausa laboral para la seguridad.
No. 10-7145.

#### Johnathan Gaines, Petitioner v. Scott A. Middlebrooks, Warden.

562 U.S. 1074, 131 S. Ct. 674,

178 L. Ed. 2d 501,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9340.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 812.
#### People v Brooks (Shantee)

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 751 (Queens)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
No. 10-6049.

#### Edward Charles Nocero, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 478,

178 L. Ed. 2d 303,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7969.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, denied.

Same case below, 223 Ariz. 222, 221 P.3d 1036.
#### People v Forbes

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 572 (NY)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 277 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 277

  To adjust collateral requirements under the Small Business Act for 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2019

  Ms. Velazquez (for herself and Mr. Chabot) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To adjust collateral requirements under the Small Business Act for 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Access to Sufficient Capital for 
Everyone in Natural Disaster areas Act of 2019'' or the ``ASCEND Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISASTER LOANS UNDER THE SMALL 
              BUSINESS ACT.

    (a) Amendment to the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015.--Section 2102 
of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-88) is amended 
be striking subsections (b) and (c).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as though enacted as part of the RISE After Disaster Act of 
2015.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Conrad Wicks, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 596]

*286Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered October 5, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the conviction relating to a defaced weapon (Penal Law § 265.02 [3]) to 31/2 to 7 years, and otherwise affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 25, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count *(see People v Spence,*290 AD2d 223 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 641 [2002]; *People v Kulakov,*278 AD2d 519 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 785 [2001]).

As the People correctly concede, defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender on the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02 (3), which relates to defaced weapons, since weapon possession under that subdivision is not classified as a violent felony (Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]), and we reduce the sentence accordingly. The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for any other reduction of sentence.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment. The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental submissions. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.
No. 10-6164.

#### Mihaela Illiana Popa, Petitioner v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

562 U.S. 986, 131 S. Ct. 425,

178 L. Ed. 2d 331,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8212.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17507]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33613]


Savannah Port Terminal Railroad, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Georgia Ports Authority and Savannah State Docks Railroad

    Savannah Port Terminal Railroad, Inc. (SAPT), a noncarrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire 
the exclusive easement over and operate approximately 23 miles of rail 
line (consisting of approximately 1 mile of common use tracks, and 22 
miles of yard tracks, industrial leads, and other related trackage over 
which the Board might not have jurisdiction) owned by the Georgia Ports 
Authority (GPA).<SUP>1</SUP> The rail line involved in this acquisition 
transaction is located within the Garden City Terminal, Garden City, 
GA. The line is currently operated by Savannah State Docks Railroad 
(SSDRR). Following the acquisition transaction, SSDRR will permanently 
relinquish its right to operate as a common carrier railroad over the 
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rail lines are located within a terminal area and do not 
have designated mileposts. SAPT certifies that its projected 
revenues will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III 
railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after 
June 8, 1998.
    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 33615, 
Genesee & Wyoming Inc.--Continuance in Control Exemption--Savannah Port 
Terminal Railroad, Inc. and Golden Isles Terminal Railroad, Inc., 
wherein Genesee & Wyoming Inc., has concurrently filed a verified 
notice of exemption to continue in control of SAPT upon its becoming a 
Class III rail carrier.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33613, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Eric M. Hocky, Esquire, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., 213 
West Miner Street, P.O. Box 796, West Chester, PA 19381-0796.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 24, 1998.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17507 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
# DLA Finance absorbs Audit Task Force’s responsibility for audit readiness

/ Published Oct. 4, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The work of a task force created in October 2018 to synchronize audit-readiness efforts and drive the agency toward achieving a clean audit opinion on DLA’s financial statements realigned Sept. 30 under Defense Logistics Agency Finance. 

“The Audit Task Force served a valuable purpose and there’s no question it helped the agency find its way forward, but most of the functions are organic to DLA Finance,” said DLA Finance Deputy Director Jeff Zottola. “Task forces are established with a shelf life in mind as a general rule, and the conditions are right for us to fold the mission back into DLA Finance where we’re focused on audit response and audit compliance.” 

Cross-functional teams and enterprise business process owners will continue to be responsible for developing policies and procedures that support corrective action plans in their areas, he added. 

DLA Finance plans to replicate the Audit Task Force’s Program Management Office to manage taskings and workloads, some of which span multiple process areas and parts of the agency.

“The program office and cross-functional teams were absolutely essential in terms of communicating with all the different stakeholders and ensuring that numerous reporting requirements were always met whether that was internal governance or external governance,” Zottola said. 

He also credited the task force for providing a common, agencywide view of the agency’s audit efforts and for resulting in solutions to some deficiencies.  Dissolving the task force isn’t a sign that DLA’s audit work is nearing completion or that DLA’s commitment to audit readiness is waning, he added. 

“DLA absolutely still places an incredible importance on the financial statement audit, so much so that it’s part of our Strategic Plan,” he continued. “You can always tell an organization’s real priorities by following the money in terms of establishing priorities and allocating resources, and I think DLA is doing that.”
No. 09-11430.

#### Derrick Kingsley Walker, Petitioner v. Don Jarriel, Warden.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 693,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9132.

178 L. Ed. 2d 523,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 197, 178 L. Ed. 2d 119, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6988.
No. 09-991.

#### Gale Garriott, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 812,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9560.

178 L. Ed. 2d 529,

December 6, 2010.

Motion of petitioner Arizona Christian School Tuition *530Organization for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.
***Exhibit 32.1***

 

**Section 1350 Certification,**

**As Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2769 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Council 

of the District of Columbia to enact laws with respect to the organization 

and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit 

the Council of the District of Columbia to enact laws 

with respect to the organization and jurisdiction of the 

District of Columbia courts. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Courts Home Rule Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2769 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OF COLUM2 BIA TO ENACT LAWS WITH RESPECT TO DIS3 TRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. 

4 Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home 

5 Rule Act (sec. 1–206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is amend6 ed by striking paragraph (4). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                         5,896,000
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    413,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      59,000
<INVENTORY>                                                       18,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               6,401,000
<PP&E>                                                           612,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   177,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 7,579,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          1,130,000
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                        2,000
<COMMON>                                                          64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                     5,540,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   7,579,000
<SALES>                                                          775,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 890,000
<CGS>                                                             52,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    345,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               4,222,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             1,567,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (5,026,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (5,026,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 2,154,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (2,872,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (0.49)



</TABLE>
#### People v Carney

App Div, 4th Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 68898(U) (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
U.S. Dept. ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration AGL-7B 2010-GL-70-0109

To whom it may concern, Timothy Gauna 2516 Lincoln St. Evanston, IL. 60201 July 19, 2012

I would like to request a formal hearing in regard tothe matterat hand. I believe I have been unfairlyjudged and subsequently overfined giving the circumstances surroundingthis incident. I have neverappeared before any committee ofthis nature and am unsure if I must provide legal assistance or will one be provided for me. Thank you for considering my request. Sincerely,



# RECEIVED JUL2 52012 

# HEARING DOCKET
No. 10-5162.

#### Steven Pinder, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 1055, 131 S. Ct. 628,

178 L. Ed. 2d 457,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9019.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 252, 178 L. Ed. 2d 167, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6850.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVIN CLYDE HARSHAW,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15510

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01776-BAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Melvin Clyde Harshaw appeals the district court’s order affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance

FILED

SEP 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social

Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harshaw contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing

to consider his pes planus, sciatica, post-traumatic stress disorder, and personality

disorder when determining at step two whether his impairments were severe. 

Harshaw waived this issue by raising it for the first time before the district court. 

See Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999). The existence of some

evidence in the medical records regarding these conditions is not sufficient to have

put the ALJ and the Appeals Council on notice that Harshaw claimed specifically

that these conditions constituted severe impairments. The step two determination

is a finding of fact and not a pure question of law for which the waiver rule may be

excused. See Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257, 1260 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam). 

In any event, the record fails to show that these conditions caused limitations

beyond those already considered by the ALJ in the assessment of Harshaw’s

residual functional capacity and in the sequential analysis of Harshaw’s claim.

AFFIRMED.

2
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34920-34921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-050-1040-00]


Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, notice is hereby given that the next meeting 
of the Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) will be held on 
July 13, 1998 in Salida, Colorado.
    The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. at the Chaffee County 
Fairgrounds, 10165 County Road 120, Salida, Colorado. RAC members will 
tour the Badger Creek Ecosystem Management Area. As part of the tour 
they will also review and comment on the latest Draft of the Colorado 
Recreation Guidelines. They will return to the Fairgrounds by 4 p.m. to 
adjourn.
    All Resource Advisory Council meetings are open to the public, 
however anyone wanting to go on the tour may need to provide their own 
transportation.
    Interested persons may make oral statements to the Council at 9:15 
a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's 
consideration. The District Manager may limit the length of oral 
presentations depending on the number of people wishing to speak.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 13, 1998 from 9 a.m. 
to 4 p.m.

ADDRESS: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Canon City District Office, 
3170 East Main Street, Canon City Colorado 81212; Telephone (719) 269-
8500; TDD (719) 269-8597.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Smith at (719) 269-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary minutes for the Council meeting will 
be maintained in the Canon City District Office and will be available 
for public

[[Page 34921]]

inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty 
(30) days following the meeting.
Stuart L. Freer,
Associate District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-17124 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE CHAMBERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-94-89) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Chambers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Chambers , No. CR-94-89 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED