alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul J. Mademann, Respondent, v John P. Walther et al., Appellants.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

We differ with Special Term’s opinion only to the extent that we would not characterize the plaintiff buyer’s insertion of the mortgage contingency clause in the formal contract prepared by defendants’ counsel as a substantial modification of the terms of the valid and enforceable binder agreement previously entered into by the parties. The record discloses that plaintiff, and counsel on his behalf, made known to defendants and their counsel that the transaction was not conditioned on the buyer obtaining financing, that the mortgage contingency clause remained in the contract (which plaintiff had executed and with a check for $16,400 to satisfy the down payment obligation had returned to defendants’ counsel) only due to an inadvertence, that it was superfluous and could be deleted, and further that plaintiff was ready, willing and able to proceed to close. By adding the mortgage contingency provision plaintiff cannot be said to have deliberately repudiated his intention to perform; hence, defendants’

*966performance was not excused *(see, Breiterman v Breiterman,*239 App Div 709, 710).

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2193 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating to 

the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. TAKANO (for himself, Mr. POCAN, Miss RICE of New York, Mr. SCHIFF, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. COOPER, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities 

relating to the collective bargaining of employees in the 

Veterans Health Administration. 

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 ‘‘VA Employee Fairness 

5 Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2193 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COLLECTIVE 

2 BARGAINING OF EMPLOYEES OF THE VET3 ERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

4 Section 7422 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d); and 

7 (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub8 section (b). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Westbury Small Business Corporation, Appellant, v Robert Ballarine, Respondent.

— In an action to recover the balance due on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spatt, J.), entered September 6, 1985, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the action, after a nonjury trial.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s numerous contentions on this appeal, we find that the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s defense of fraud acts as a complete bar to recovery on the promissory note *(see, Westbury Small Business Corp. v Giglio,*122 AD2d 49; *Tahini Invs. v Bobrowsky,*99 AD2d 489, 490).

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff and Power Test Petroleum Distributors, Inc. (hereinafter Power Test), are arms of each other, and that Power Test fraudulently misrepresented material facts to the defendant to induce him to enter into a franchise agreement for a certain retail gasoline station. The record also indicates that Power Test knowingly failed to provide the defendant with the gallonage volume history and list of names and addresses of any dealers who operated the station during the previous three years as required under General Business Law § 199-b.

Power Test’s failure to disclose and fraudulent misrepresentations not only vitiated the franchise agreement, but also the promissory note executed simultaneously as a part of the same transaction. As the plaintiff is undisputably not a holder in due course, the trial court properly dismissed its action for recovery on the promissory note. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Russell WAYNE, a.k.a. Randy Lance Hall, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10180.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 18, 2007.

Michael T. Morrissey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Philip A. Seplow, Esq., Law Offices of Philip A. Seplow, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Russell Wayne appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 37-month sentence.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Wayne has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Wayne has filed a pro se brief. No government brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record and briefs, pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s order.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2021486EN.01002001.xml

| 3.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 486/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 486/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10247 – CVC / COOPER)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 486/02)

On 22 October 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10247. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10247. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Suarez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered April 27, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no requirement that a trial court instruct the jury that the prosecution’s witnesses are interested as matter of law. It is proper for a trial court to charge that a defendant is an interested witness *(see, People v Ochs,*3 NY2d 54, 56; *People v Stokes,*117 AD2d 693, 694), provided the court also indicates that the prosecution’s witnesses may be interested *(see, People v Reyes,*118 AD2d 666; *People v Astol,*118 AD2d 578; *People v Brabham,*77 AD2d 626; *People v Srbu,*51 AD2d 978). While a trial court must give a balanced charge *(see, People v Bell,*38 NY2d 116, 120), the determination of whether a witness is interested in the outcome of a case is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury’s determination *(see, People v Gerdvine,*210 NY 184, 186; *People v Reyes, supra; People v Srbu, supra).*Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant’s request to charge that the *351prosecution’s police witnesses are interested as a matter of law *(see, People v Simpson,*99 AD2d 555, 556).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Teeter,*47 NY2d 1002) or without merit *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021083EN.01000201.xml

| 12.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10079 — SARP/Suez RV Osis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 83/02)

On 4 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10079. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10079. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2009166EN.01001201.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5517 — BNPPIP/CAAM/Fund Channel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 166/03

On 9 July 2009, 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 French 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 32009M5517. 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 32009M5517. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6212
JIMMY WESTFALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WEST VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS; DOUGLAS STUMP, Chairman of Board; BOB WISE, Governor, Chief Executive Officer, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-02-987-2-2) Submitted: July 7, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Westfall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Westfall seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Westfall has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Thomas R. ANASTASIO, Private First Class, U.S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,347.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Oct. 24, 1975.

*Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Anthony J. Siano,*and *Captain Leslie Wm. Adams*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain Raymond Michael Ripple,*and *Captain James R. Anthony were*on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

At his special court-martial the appellant was advised that, in addition to his detailed *199military counsel and a civilian lawyer retained by himself, he was entitled to request the services of “any particular lawyer from the SJA Office.” Similar advice rendered an accused by a military judge in *United States v. Copes,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 578, 50 C.M.R. 843, 1 M.J. 182 (1975), was viewed by us as “patently erroneous,” as it improperly limited the pool of attorneys from which an accused was entitled to request individual military counsel. *United States*v. *Johnson,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 148, 48 C.M.R. 764 (1974). Prejudice is apparent because there is no way to determine what choice the appellant would have made had he been given the proper advice required by *United States v. Donohew,*18 U.S.M.A. 149, 152, 39 C.M.R. 149, 152 (1969). *United States*v. *Copes, supra.*

The decision of the US Army Court of Military Review is reversed, and the findings and sentence are set aside. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shackleton, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Gorman, J. — grand larceny, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting            Firm**

 

The            Board of Directors and Shareholders

Antares            Pharma, Inc.:

We            consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.            333-20389, 333-40483, 333-64480, 333-111177, 333-134258) on Form S-8, registration            statements (Nos. 333-61950, 333-96739, 333-103958, 333-133218, 333-142323, 333-144748)            on Form S-3 and registration statement (No. 333-109114) on Form S-2 of Antares Pharma,            Inc. of our reports dated March 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance            sheets of Antares Pharma, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and            the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and            comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended            December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear            in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Antares Pharma, Inc.

Our            reports on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company's adoption of            the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),            Share-Based Payment, onJanuary 1, 2006.

 

|   | /s/ KPMG LLP                               |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March            25, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 517]


Delegation of Authority Under Presidential Proclamation (PP) 
10043 To Determine That an Applicant's Entry is in the National 
Interest

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including Section 1 of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and the 
Presidential Proclamation of May 29, 2020 titled Suspension of Entry as 
Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers From the People's 
Republic of China, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for 
Consular Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority under 
section 2(a)(vii) of said Presidential Proclamation to determine that 
an applicant's entry into the United States would be in the national 
interest.
    The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management 
and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management may exercise any 
function or authority delegated by this delegation. The authorities 
delegated herein may be re-delegated, to the extent authorized by law.
    This Delegation of Authority does not supersede or otherwise affect 
any other delegation of authority currently in effect and will be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 25, 2021.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-19933 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
**Basin Data****  % Median Precipitation      **  % Median SWE      **Reservoir Data****  Storage      **  Pool Elevation      **  Inflow      **  Release              Updated: May 14, 2024 14:09**  Rio Grande Basin
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Flow                    
csv

      Ave Diversion                    
csv

      Flow Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Flow                    
json

      Ave Diversion                    
json

      Flow Volume                    
json
AZOTEA TUNNEL OUTLET NEAR CHAMA, NMLatitude: 36.853Longitude: -106.672Elevation: 7635

AZOTEA TUNNEL OUTLET NEAR CHAMA, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LISTINA STRICKLAND, 

 Plaintiff, 

3:15-CV-02205-HZ

vs. 

ORDER

NANCY BERRYHILL, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $6,065.82 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff’s attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this _____ day of ___________________, 2017. 

 _______________________________ 

Marco Hernandez 

United States District Court Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2094 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2094

  To repeal titles I and II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2015

 Mr. Westmoreland introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees 
 on Agriculture, the Judiciary, and 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 repeal titles I and II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Titles I and II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) are hereby repealed, and the 
provisions of law amended or repealed by such titles are restored or 
revived as if such titles had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```