alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francine Aaron, Individually and as Administratrix of *382the Estate of Baby Boy Aaron, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Alvin M. Donnenfeld et al., Defendants, and Lenox Hill Hospital, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on March 13, 1989, which denied a motion by defendant-appellant Lenox Hill Hospital and a cross motion by defendant Donnenfeld to dismiss the action for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Lenox Hill Hospital’s 90-day notice to place the action on the calendar, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to dismiss the 90-day notice on the payment of $1,500 to each of the two defense attorneys unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, to provide that the payment of $1,500 be made to defendants instead of the attorneys.

Where the plaintiff fails to comply with a 90-day notice to file a note of issue, the defendant is entitled to an absolute dismissal only when the plaintiff fails to show an adequate excuse for the default and fails to show adequate merit *(Levin v 40 Realty,*80 AD2d 515, *affd*54 NY2d 624). Contrary to the argument advanced by defendant Lenox Hill Hospital, the plaintiffs did, in fact, show adequate merit through the affidavit of a medical expert, which explained the alleged acts of malpractice by the defendants and, in addition, connected those acts to the injuries suffered by plaintiff mother and the allegedly wrongful death of the newborn plaintiff decedent.

As an excuse for the delay, the plaintiffs allege that while a request for judicial intervention and notice of precalendar conference had been filed approximately two years prior to the 90-day notice, the precalendar conference was never scheduled and that no appearance had been made before the medical malpractice panel, which is required before the case can be placed on the calendar. While plaintiffs should have taken some action during the 90-day notice period it cannot be said that the plaintiffs contumaciously ignored the notice. *(Cf., Miranda v Johnson,*80 AD2d 513.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 9, 2009 

d0701 

Order 

 

July 9, 2009 

137560 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137560 

 COA: 274906 

Berrien CC: 2004-404391-FY 

RYAN DERREK ALTHOFF, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8975]



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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Notice of Request for Extension of INV Forms 40-44 Submitted to 
OMB for Clearance

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (title 
44, U.S. Code, chapter 35), this notice announces the reclearance of 
forms used to request information by mail for use in OPM 
investigations. These investigations are conducted to determine 
suitability for Federal employment and/or the ability to hold a 
security clearance, as prescribed in Executive Orders 10450 and 10577 
and 5 U.S.C. 3301.
    INV Form 41, Investigative Request for Employment Data and 
Supervisor Information, is sent to former employers and/or supervisors; 
INV Form 42, Investigative Request for Personal Information, is sent to 
references; INV Form 43, Investigative Request for Educational 
Registrar and Dean of Students Record Data, is sent to educational 
institutions; and INV Form 44, Investigative Request for Law 
Enforcement Data, is sent to local law enforcement agencies. In order 
to accommodate sources for which the collection formats of INV Forms 
41-44 are awkward or inappropriate, INV Form 40, General Request for 
Investigative Data, has been added to the collection.
    It is estimated that 1,065,955 individuals will respond annually 
(186,408 to INV Form 40; 360,115 to INV Form 41; 284,160 to INV Form 
42; 76,152 to INV Form 43; and 159,120 to INV Form 44), and that each 
will require approximately 5 minutes to complete the form, for a total 
burden of 88,830 hours. For copies of this proposal call Doris R. Benz 
on 703-908-8564.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before May 
12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk 
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John J. Lafferty, 202-376-3800.

Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-8975 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6789

CRRC MA Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because granting the request would undermine the objective of the Section 

301 investigation.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5507 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish a Disinformation Governance 

Board. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. ROUZER, and Mr. ELLZEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish a 

Disinformation Governance Board. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A 

4 DISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE BOARD. 

5 No Federal funds authorized to be appropriated or 

6 otherwise made available to the Secretary of Homeland 

7 Security may be made available for the establishment of 

8 a Disinformation Governance Board. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7491

General Motors:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5297 

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 

Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business concerns, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 29, 2023 

Mr. BACON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to include consideration of past performance 

of affiliates of small business concerns, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Defense Small Busi5 ness Past Performance Consideration Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5297 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE OF AF2 FILIATES OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

3 Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense 

4 shall amend section 215.305 of the Department of De5 fense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

6 (or any successor regulation) to— 

7 (1) require that when evaluating a bid from a 

8 small business concern (as defined under section 3 

9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)) for a 

10 Department of Defense contract, the contracting of11 ficer for such contract shall consider the past per12 formance information of affiliates of such concern as 

13 the past performance of such concern; and 

14 (2) ensure that only past performance informa15 tion of such affiliates during the nine-year period 

16 preceding the date on which such concern submitted 

17 a bid described in paragraph (1) is considered as 

18 past performance of such concern. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CAMBER ENERGY, INC.****Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Camber Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank W. Barker, Jr., Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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 |

 

| Date: May 18, 2022 | */s/**Frank W. Barker, Jr.*           |   |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Frank W. Barker, Jr.                       |   |
|               | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
EXHIBIT 31.1

        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
        ----------------------------------------------------

     I, Dr. Anchana Chayawatana, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10KQ-SB of Lam Liang
Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this quarterly report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Lam Liang Corp. including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Lam Liang Corp., Registrant

Dated:  March 13, 2006             /s/ Anchana Chayawatana
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Dr. Anchana Chayawatana, Chief
                                   Executive Officer, President and
                                   Chairman of the Board of Directors
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10003

ERNEST BENTON , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CV

- 15

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ernest Benton, Texas prisoner # 1846243, has applied for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Benton filed the § 2254 petition to ch allenge his jury trial convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller

- El v. Cockrell ,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 26, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10003 Document: 00515427690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2020No. 19

- 10003

2 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). If the district court denies relief on the merits, the petitioner must establish that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong. Slack v

. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If relief is denied on procedural grounds, a COA should issue if the petitioner demonstrates , at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the application “ states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id

. In reliance on Vela v. Estelle , 708 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1983) , Benton contends that the district court erred in determining that his jury misconduct claim was unexhausted. He argues that he can establish cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of the claim based on his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance with respect to the jury misconduct issue, and he asserts that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the district court erred by failing to liberally construe his pro se filings. Benton also renews his claim that the evidence was insufficient to show that he penetrated the sexual organ of the victim. Benton has failed to make the requisite showing. See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, his request for a COA is DENIED. We construe Benton’s motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens , 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and AFFIRM, see Cullen v. Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 181,
185

- 86 (2011). Case: 19-10003 Document: 00515427690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2020
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5271 

To amend section 3702 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 

dollar threshold for requiring certified cost and pricing data, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2023 

Mr. DELUZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 3702 of title 10, United States Code, 

to reduce the dollar threshold for requiring certified cost 

and pricing data, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCE THRESHOLD FOR CERTIFIED COST 

4 AND PRICING DATA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3702 of title 10, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ each place it 

9 appears and inserting ‘‘$750,000’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5271 IH

1 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘contract 

2 if’’ and all that follows and inserting the fol3 lowing: ‘‘contract if the price of the contract to 

4 the United States is expected to exceed 

5 $750,000.’’; and 

6 (2) by repealing subsection (f). 

7 (b) MODIFICATION OF PRIOR CONTRACTS.—Under 

8 subsection (a) of 3702 of title 10, United States Code, 

9 in connection with a prime contract with respect to which 

10 such subsection applies and that was entered into before 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of the 

12 agency that entered into such contract shall modify the 

13 contract as soon as practicable to reflect paragraphs (2) 

14 and (3) of such subsection, as amended by subsection (a) 

15 of this Act, without requiring consideration. 

16 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub17 section (a) of this Act to paragraph (1) of section 3702(a) 

18 of title 10, United States Code, shall apply only with re19 spect to contracts entered into after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Eileen Mimoun et al., Appellants, v Christopher A. Bartlett et al., Defendants, and Clifford A. Barlettt, Jr., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 11, 1988, which upon granting the motion of the defendant Clifford A. Bartlett, Jr., for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ cause of action sounding in negligent entrustment inasmuch as the facts of this case could not, as a matter of law, support that claim *(see, Nolechek v Gesuale,*46 NY2d 332). The defendant Christopher A. Bartlett, the driver of the vehicle which collided with the plaintiffs car, was 20 years old at the time of the accident and thus was not an "infant” *(see,*General Obligations Law § 1-202). As such, his father, the defendant Clifford A. Bartlett, Jr., cannot be found liable, in his capacity as a parent, for any negligent act of his son.

Furthermore, the evidence adduced failed to support the plaintiffs’ claim that Christopher had a propensity to drive recklessly. A single conviction for excessive speeding cannot constitute a propensity sufficient to sustain a claim of negligent entrustment *(see, Deitz v Aronin,*135 AD2d 1009). In *507addition, the evidence conclusively established that the father neither owned nor controlled the vehicle and could not, therefore, have "entrusted” it to his son *(see, Pfenning v Agri Business Brokerage Corp.,*124 AD2d 1013). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, we find that the father’s cosigning of the loan used for the vehicle’s purchase, knowing that his son’s driver’s license had been suspended, does not provide a basis to cast the father in liability. Accordingly, the defendant father was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.