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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release of 12.27 acres of excess land at the Manassas Regional Airport; Manassas, Virginia. There are no impacts to the Airport and the land is not needed for airport development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. The excess surplus property is located beyond the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 16L and appropriate restrictions will encumber the released property to  ensure compatible land use.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Terry J. Page, Manager, FAA Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 20166.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Juan E. Rivera, Airport Director, Manassas Regional Airport, at the following address; Mr. Juan E. Rivera, Airport Director, P.O. Box 560, Manassas Regional Airport, Manassas, Virginia 20108.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Terry Page, Manager, Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 20166; telephone (703) 661-1354, fax (703) 661-1370, email Terry.Page@faa.gov.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) requires that a 30-day public notice must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed on an interest in surplus property.

Issued in Chantilly, Virginia on April 23, 2001.

Terry J. Page,

Manager, Washington Airports District Office, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 01-10843 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Murray Skidelsky, Doing Business as Esco Trading Company, Respondent, v James Merendino et al., Defendants, and Patricia Merendino, Appellant.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Patricia Merendino appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated March 25, 1986, which denied her motion to vacate and set aside a default judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 17, 1984.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Even if the appellant could show excusable default in failing to appear in the action, she has not been able to show a meritorious defense to the action. Therefore, vacatur of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) is not warranted *(see, e.g., Gray v B.R. Trucking Co.,*59 NY2d 649, *rearg dismissed*59 NY2d 966, 60 NY2d 586).

On December 19, 1978, the appellant and her husband James Merendino gave a mortgage on their one-family residence to the plaintiff to collaterally secure the $90,000 balance of the price owed by Mr. Merendino for the purchase of a pizzeria business from the plaintiff. Although at that time the maximum rate of interest on a loan to an individual was 9.5% per annum (General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; 3 NYCRR 4.1), the note and mortgage were to bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

The law in New York is that a purchase-money mortgage does not constitute a "loan or forbearance” within the meaning of General Obligations Law § 5-501 (1). The mortgage in this case was a purchase-money mortgage even though it was *150given as collateral security for the purchase of other property, namely, the pizzeria business *(see, Barone v Frie,*99 AD2d 129, 131-132). Since the mortgage in question was a purchase-money mortgage, the interest rate on the loan was not usurious *(see, e.g., Mandelino v Fribourg,*23 NY2d 145; *Barone v Frie, supra; see also,*38 NY Jur, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 7, at 25-26).

We have reviewed the appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60116 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER LONNELL BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95CR14PS

- - - - - - - - - - September 18, 1996 Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Christopher Brown appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Brown contends that: 1) the district court erred by accepting expert testimony from an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) on the issue of the place of manufacture of the firearm; 2) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the districtNo. 96-60116 - 2 - court should have granted his motion for judgment as a matter of law; and 3) that the district court erred by denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the expert testimony of the ATF agent. See United States v. Shaw , 920 F.2d 1225, 1229 (5th Cir. 1991). The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Polk , 56 F.3d 613, 619 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not clearly err by denying Brown a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,025,343
<SECURITIES>                                 1,323,706
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,319,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (950,821)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,398,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,302,543
<PP&E>                                       7,133,475
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,204,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,654,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,102,590
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,412
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,227,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,654,452
<SALES>                                     18,943,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,943,519
<CGS>                                        6,632,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,632,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,999,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               776,242
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             186,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                256,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            256,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   256,815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NO T FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A

STAR AUTO GLASS, LLC A/A/O ALEX GORR , A ppellant,

v. Case No. 5D22

- 832 LT Case No

. 2020

- SC

- 2619 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY , A ppellee. /

O pinion filed December 30, 2022

N onfinal Appeal from the C ounty Court for Seminole County, James J. DeKleva , Judge.

C had A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

K urt T. Koehler, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. , Jacksonville, for Appellee.

O N CONFESSION OF ERROR

P ER CURIAM.

P ursuant to Appellee’s confession of error based on At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Insurance Co., 345 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022),2 and our own review of the record, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAMBERT, C.J ., COHEN and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Cardia, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Berke, J.), rendered June 27, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Dachenhausen, J.), without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it is sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the third degree *(see, People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 382; *People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381).

Concerning the defendant’s contention that his assigned counsel was ineffective, we find that the defendant makes the twofold error of (1) confusing ineffectiveness with losing tactics and (2) granting undue significance to retrospective analysis *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146). After a review of the record in its entirety, we conclude that the defendant’s trial counsel provided meaningful assistance *(People v Baldi, supra,*at 147).

The court was correct in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence without a hearing because the defendant’s motion papers did not allege a factual basis to support suppression (CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; see, *People v Weaver,*49 NY2d 1012, 1013; *see also, People v Ponder,*54 NY2d 160, 165-166). The defendant denied any possessory interest in the car in which the stolen items were found and thus did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy *(see, People v Ponder, supra,*at 165-166).

The prosecutor’s challenged comment during summation was invited by the defense counsel’s closing argument *(see,*
      *776
      *People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, 77-78, *cert denied*362 US 912) and was, in any event, innocuous.

The defendant’s final contention was not preserved for appellate review. Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1







Board of Directors
FirstBingo.com
Toronto, Ontario
Canada



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the use of our report dated March 30, 2005, on the financial statements of FirstBingo.com as of December 31, 2004 and the period then ended, incorporated in the Form 10-KSB and to be incorporated by reference to the Form SB-2 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, file number 333-119490.





/s/Williams & Webster, P.S.

Williams & Webster, P.S.Certified Public AccountantsSpokane, Washington

April 14, 2005











|Members of Private Companies Practice Section, SEC Practice Section, AICPA and WSCPA
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bank of America Financial Center * 601 W. Riverside, Suite 1940 * Spokane, WA 99201 
|Phone (509) 838-5111 * Fax (509) 838-5114 * www.williams-webster.com                



---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A STAR AUTO GLASS, LLC 

A/A/O ALEX GORR, 

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-832

LT Case No. 2020-SC-2619

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Appellee.

/ 

Opinion filed December 30, 2022

Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court

for Seminole County, 

James J. DeKleva, Judge.

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, 

Altamonte Springs, for Appellant. 

Kurt T. Koehler, of Cole, Scott 

& Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville,

for Appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Appellee’s confession of error based on At Home Auto 

Glass, LLC v. Mendota Insurance Co., 345 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), 
2

and our own review of the record, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAMBERT, C.J., COHEN and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
#### Patricia Lynn N., Respondent, v Vincent Michael N., Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 20, 1986, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered February 2, 1988, as denied his cross motion for a protective order against disclosure of information about the parties’ children to the plaintiff wife.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although the plaintiff, at present, is not being permitted to *549have any physical contact with the infant issue of the marriage *(see, Patricia Lynn N. v Vincent Michael N,*152 AD2d 549 [decided herewith]), we see no reason why she should be denied information concerning their progress in school and medical reports concerning their physical well-being "when such medical reports involve serious physical injury to either child”. Thus, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

We note that for some reason the defendant’s attorney saw fit to file separate records and briefs respecting his appeal from different portions of the same order *(see, Patricia Lynn N. v Vincent Michael N,*152 AD2d 549 [decided herewith]). We strongly disapprove of this practice whereby the defendant has, in effect, bifurcated his appeal, and caution counsel that such a practice in the future may result in a dismissal of the later-filed "appeal” as abandoned. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
United States Department of Agriculture

**Penny Brown Reynolds, Ph.D.**

**Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights**

**Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights**

**______________________________________________________________________________**

**Speaking Request Form**

**Program Date:**(Date, Time, when would Dr. Brown Reynolds be expected to be there.) 

**Host Organization:**

**Event Theme:**

**Background:**

**Event Description:**

**Location:**		(Address/Photo if available) 

**Event Type:** —  In person  — Online — Hybrid  

**Expected Audience Size:**

**Program Features:******

**Event Contact:**(Who will be our point of contact day of event, Name, Email, Cellphone)

**Graphics & Media contact:** (If we have graphics to use, who do we send them to) 

**Media: 		(**Will media be present?)

**Social Media:**(Will there be social media coverage of the event that we should be aware of) 

**Panelist/Keynote Speaker:**(In what capacity will Dr. Brown Reynolds Appear)

**Podium:**— Yes —           — No —

**Microphone:**(Yes/No, what kind of microphone, on podium, lapel, other)

**Addt’l Details** 	(Please provide any additional details not listed here that are necessary) 

**Addt’l Documents**	 (Please provide any additional documents necessary) 

**Run of Show:**Please attach that says arrival time, program timeline, who will be introducing Dr. Brown Reynolds and expected end of the event**.**

3

1

# image1.png
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; 
Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary will periodically publish summaries of proposed information 
collections projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the 
requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of 
the information collection plans and instruments, call the OS Reports 
Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.
    Proposed Projects 1. HHS Procurement: Solicitations and Contracts--
Extension--0990-0115--This clearance request covers the general 
information collection requirements of the procurement process such as 
technical proposals and statements of work. Respondents: State or local 
governments, businesses or other for-profit, non-profit institutions, 
small businesses. Annual Number of Respondents: 5,660; Frequency of 
Response: one time; Average Burden per Response: 253.41 hours; 
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,434,300 hours.
    Please send comments to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance 
Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received within 60 
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 24, 2001.
Kerry Weems,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 01-10902 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
Exhibit 23

            Independent Auditors' Consent and Report on Schedule



The Board of Directors
Syncor International Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-7325, 33-39251, 33-57762, 33-52607, 333-18373, 333-18375, 333-18377, 333-
9999, 333-40117, 333-62091, 333-62093, 333-68277 and 333-78681) on Form S-8,
of Syncor International Corporation of our report dated February 16, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Syncor International
Corporation as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999,
which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of
Syncor International Corporation.


/s/KPMG LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 29, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6146 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6146

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent home loan 
guaranty programs for veterans regarding adjustable rate mortgages and 
                   hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2010

 Ms. Giffords introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent home loan 
guaranty programs for veterans regarding adjustable rate mortgages and 
                   hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.

    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 ``Warrior Home Loan Act''.

SEC. 2. MAKING PERMANENT CERTAIN HOME LOAN GUARANTY PROGRAMS FOR 
              VETERANS.

    (a) Extension of Demonstration Project on Adjustable Rate 
Mortgages.--Section 3707(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``carry out a demonstration project under this section 
during fiscal years 1993 through 2012'' and inserting ``carry out a 
program''.
    (b) Extension of Demonstration Project on Hybrid Adjustable Rate 
Mortgages.--Section 3707A(a) of such title is amended by striking 
``carry out a demonstration project under this section during fiscal 
years 2004 through 2012'' and inserting ``carry out a program''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Christopher Paul CAMBRON, Appellant v. Barack OBAMA, President/White House, Appellee.

No. 10-5431.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 28, 2011.

Christopher Paul Cambrón, Milford, ME, pro se.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 28, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.