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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as                           ( print page 57126)                        amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Sex Hormones in Women and Diabetes.                     

*Date:*                         October 27, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         4 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Carol J. Goter-Robinson, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7791,                         *goterrobinsonc@extra.niddk.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-23097 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 948 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 11, 2008.
Whereas on January 3, 2008, the University of Kansas (KU) football team won the 
        2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, defeating Virginia Tech by a score of 24 to 21 
        for the first major bowl victory in university history;
Whereas the KU football team won 12 games this season to set a school record;
Whereas KU ranked seventh in the final Top 25 polls released on January 8, 2008, 
        for the second highest final ranking in school history (the school 
        ranked sixth in 1968);
Whereas the KU football team reached a number 2 ranking on November 18, 2007, 
        their highest national ranking in program history;
Whereas the KU team set the school record for points, an average of 42.77 points 
        per game, and total yards (479.77 yards);
Whereas KU was the only school in the country to rank in the top 5 nationally in 
        both scoring offense (second) and scoring defense (fifth);
Whereas Head Coach Mark Mangino was awarded multiple national coach of the year 
        honors;
Whereas Head Coach Mark Mangino has produced a minimum of 6 wins in 3 straight 
        seasons for the first time in 46 years for the KU football program;
Whereas the KU football team produced 2 first-team All-Americans, cornerback 
        Aqib Talib and offensive tackle Anthony Collins, and 1 second-team All-
        American in defensive tackle James McClinton; and
Whereas the KU football team was also honored to have 2 Academic All-America 
        recipients on the team, Russell Brorsen and John Larson: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates and commends the University of Kansas football 
        team for winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl and for having the most 
        successful year in program history;
            (2) recognizes the significant achievements of the players, coaches, 
        students, alumni, and support staff whose dedication and hard work 
        helped the University of Kansas football team win the FedEx Orange Bowl; 
        and
            (3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
        to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to the following 
        individuals for display:
                    (A) Robert Hemenway, Chancellor of the University of Kansas.
                    (B) Richard Lariviere, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor 
                of the University of Kansas.
                    (C) Lew Perkins, Athletics Director of the University of 
                Kansas.
                    (D) Mark Mangino, Head Coach.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2007: Q4... 8.2 8.1 7.6

2008: Q1... 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... 6.6 6.7 6.4

 Q3... 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q4... 6.2 6.4 6.1

2009: Q1... 6.0 6.1 5.9

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.1 6.2 5.9

 Q4... 5.9 6.1 5.9

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2007: Q4... 8.5 8.2 7.7

2008: Q1... 7.4 7.2 6.7

 Q2... 7.1 6.9 6.6

 Q3... 7.0 6.9 6.5

 Q4... 6.7 6.7 6.4

2009: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.2

 Q2... 6.6 6.5 6.2

 Q3... 6.6 6.6 6.2

 Q4... 6.5 6.5 6.2

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2007: Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.4

2008: Q1... 7.5 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 6.6 6.8 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 7.3 7.1

 Q4... 5.5 5.9 5.8

2009: Q1... 5.7 6.1 6.0

 Q2... 5.9 6.5 6.5

 Q3... 5.9 6.5 6.6

 Q4... 5.9 6.3 6.2

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
#### Ben H. Becker, as Trustee of Neuman Distributors, Inc., Respondent, v Shore Drugs, Inc., Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 492]

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated April 16, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting invoices, corresponding signed delivery receipts, and an account statement showing an outstanding balance of $57,119.89 *(see Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharmacy Corp.,*289 AD2d 310, 311; *Drug Guild Distribs. v 3-9 Drugs,*277 AD2d 197, 198; *Riverhead Bldg. Supply Corp. v Regine Starr, Inc.,*249 AD2d 532).

The affidavit of the defendant’s president submitted in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact warranting the denial of summary judgment, as the affidavit contained conclusory assertions which failed to refute the sale and delivery of goods and the defendant’s nonpayment *(see Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharmacy Corp., supra; Drug Guild Distribs. v 3-9 Drugs, supra; Riverhead Bldg. Supply Corp. v Regine Starr, Inc., supra*at 533).

*516The defendant contends that it was charged for goods that were allegedly returned or never delivered, and that it is entitled to receive a credit. Further, the defendant contends that its claim for credit is an attempt at recoupment. However, the defendant waived its recoupment claim by failing to assert such claim in its answer (see *Kivort Steel v Liberty Leather Corp.,*110 AD2d 950, 952).

In any event, the defendant’s claim for credit is a actually a claim for a setoff, which can only be considered as part of the plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding pending in Federal Bankruptcy Court (see 11 USC § 362 [a] [7]; *Matter of Malinowski,*156 F3d 131; *Neuman Distribs. v Falak Pharmacy Corp., supra; Drexel Burnham Lambert v Terex Corp.,*184 AD2d 328, 329). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                                 LEASE AGREEMENT

                                                              LEASE NUMBER   101

                                                        DATE OF LEASE   09-01-97

LESSOR:     LESLIE RUDD INVESTMENT COMPANY
            314 South Galena Street
            Aspen, Colorado 81611
            303-925-5866

LESSEE:     Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc.          LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT
            560 Broadway                        2526 E. 36th St.
            New York, NY   10012                North Circle
            212-226-6800                        Wichita, KS  67219

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


TERM: 36 Months                       COMMENCEMENT DATE:      09-01-97

                             RENTAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE

$6,921.93 per month including sales and use tax for the first 36 months followed
by $2,198.73 per month including sales and use tax until the Lease Agreement is
terminated.


                                SECURITY DEPOSIT

$0 payable at time of signing of the Lease to be applied, if not used, to the
last 0 rental payments, plus sales and use tax, in the inverse order of their
respective maturities.

                              EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
                    (Model #, Serial #, or Other Description)
                         Rapistan Demag Corp - Equipment
                          Conveyor Equipment Installed

<PAGE>



                                LEASE NUMBER 101


                                 LEASE AGREEMENT

This Lease shall constitute an agreement of lease and nothing herein shall be
construed as conveying to Lessee any right, title, or interest in any of the
Equipment. The undersigned agree to all terms and conditions set forth above and
in witness thereof hereby execute this Lease.


                                 NAME OF LESSEE:
                           Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc.


SIGNED BY:  /s/ DANE J. NELLER
            ------------------------------------------------
            Dane J. Neller
            Chief Executive Officer                                     Seal

This Lease shall not become effective until accepted by Lessor.


                                 NAME OF LESSOR:
                         LESLIE RUDD INVESTMENT COMPANY

ACCEPTED DATE:  09-01-97

SIGNED BY: /s/ JON BOWMAN
           -------------------------------------------------
           Jon Bowman
           Secretary

LESSEE'S SIGNATURE IN INK REQUIRED ON ORIGINAL LEASE AND LESSEE'S COPY.




                                       2
#### Robert Josephs, Plaintiff, *v.*News Syndicate Co., Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 9, 1957.

*Charles A. Glick*for plaintiff.

*J. Howard Carter*for defendant.

Felix C. Benvenga, J.

Plaintiff in this libel action moves pursuant to rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out three affirmative defenses for alleged insufficiency.

The first defense is a complete defense, and pleads that the alleged libelous article is a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding and, therefore, privileged. The article relates to the alleged arrest and arraignment of the plaintiff on a charge of burglary. The defense, as pleaded, is sufficient as a matter of law (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 337), even though the article may have been embellished *‘1*with the fair and expectant comment of the story teller, who adds to the recital a little touch, of his piquant pen ” *(Briardiff Lodge Hotel*v. *Citizen-Sentinel Publishers,*260 N. Y. 106, 119). The test is whether the article is substantially a true and fair report of the judicial proceeding *(George*v. *Time, Inc.,*259 App. Div. 324, 328, affd. 287 N. Y. 742). The assertion that plaintiff was found under a bed in the burglarized apartment does not add to or detract from the sting of the charge of burglary. The question still remains *185whether the article is a fair and true report of the judicial proceeding or whether it contains libelous amplifications of what happened. That is a question for the jury; it does not affect the sufficiency of the complaint.

The first partial defense is a defense of partial truth. It merely realleges the allegations of the first complete defense, which, as has been pointed out, are not concerned with the truth of the statements contained in the alleged libelous publication. If the truth of some of the statements therein contained is relied on, the pleading should allege what is claimed to be the truth; a mere reiteration of the libelous words is insufficient (Civ. Prac. Act, § 339; *Meyers*v. *Huschle Bros.,*273 App. Div. 107, 109). In its present form, this defense is insufficiently pleaded.

The second partial defense is asserted in mitigation. It rests on the claim that the article is based on trustworthy information obtained from trustworthy persons; it does not, however, set forth the sources of defendant’s information and the grounds of its belief so as to show the absence of malice. It is thus insufficient (Civ. Prac. Act, § 338; *Meyers*v. *Huschle Bros.,*supra; but see *Goodrow*v. *New York Amer.,*233 App. Div. 37, 39).

The motion is accordingly denied as to the first complete defense, but granted as to the first and second partial defenses, with leave to serve an amended answer within 10 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 99.5**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12130 on Form F-3, No. 333-12780 and 333-12802 on Form S-8 and No. 333-176092 on Form F-9 and to the use of our reports dated March 7, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of BCE Inc. and the effectiveness of BCE Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, and to such reports appearing in and being incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012.

*(signed) Deloitte LLP1*Independent Registered Chartered Professional Accountants

Montréal, Canada March 13, 2013

______________________________1 CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. A104644

 

----
Exhibit 11


                       National Auto Finance Company, Inc.
                    Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                (unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                   Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                                1997                 1996
                                                                           ----------------     ---------------
<S>
<C>                                                                    <C>                  <C>            
Average number of common shares outstanding
                                                                                      6,976
Proforma shares outstanding
                                                                                                          6,726
Common equivalent shares outstanding:
   Stock options
                                                                                          -                   -
Total common and common equivalent shares outstanding
                                                                                      6,976               6,726
Net income before income taxes from reorganization of
   partnership                                                             $          2,058     $         1,040 
                                                                           ================     ===============
                                                                           ================     ===============
Net income (loss)                                                          $                    $
                                                                                     (2,442)                  -
                                                                           ================     ===============
                                                                           ================     ===============
        Earnings per share                                                 $           0.29     $             -
                                                                           
        Earnings per share as adjusted                                     $          (0.36)    $             -
                                                                          
        Proforma earnings per share                                                             $          0.15
                                                                                                ===============
</TABLE>
                                       27
#### The State, ex rel. Stansberger et al., Township Trustees, *v.*Lamneck, Probate Judge.

(No. 24417

— Decided March 14, 1934.)

*Mr. George N. Graham,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. D. Bean McLaughlin,*for relators.

*Mr. J. 8. Hare,*prosecuting attorney, for respondent.

By the Court.

This is an original action in mandamus, presented to this court upon the petition and *36answer. The relators, being trustees of a township in Stark county, filed an action in the Probate Court of Tuscarawas county, under the provisions of Section 3484-1, General Code, asking the court to determine the legal settlement of a certain person residing in Stark county. The petition for mandamus filed herein alleged that the judge of the Probate Court refused to “act upon said petition and * * * to issue summons for the defendants named therein.” The prayer of the petition seeks a writ in mandamus compelling the probate judge to act upon the petition and to cause summons to issue for the defendants in that cause. There is nothing in Section 3484-1, General Code, requiring the judge to issue such summons; the section specificaally providing that summons may be issued as in civil actions. There is more merit in the allegation of the petition that the probate judge “willfully refused, failed, and neglected to act upon said petition.” In view of such allegation, a writ should issue commanding the probate judge to act in that respect.

There is an effort made by both parties seeking in this court a jurisdictional construction of the above section in this mandamus action. This we decline to do for the reason that, when and after the Probate Court has acted, there is provided a full and adequate remedy at law, whereby the parties in the Probate Court may prosecute error to any judgment or final order that may be made therein. If the respondent desires to further plead that such judgment or order has in fact been made, thirty days will be granted for that purpose; otherwise a writ will issue limited to the requirement that the respondent act upon the petition filed in his court.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Mat- . thias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur. ■
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Hoffey, Also Known as Sonnie Matalia, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 257]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered January 9, 2001, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and illegal possession of a vehicle identification number.

In July 1999, defendant was indicted and charged with the crimes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and illegal possession of a vehicle identification number. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the first count of the indictment and IV2 to 3 years on the second count. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that he was improperly convicted of criminal possession of a forged registration sticker inasmuch as there was no evidence as to who, if anyone, stole the sticker, how defendant came into possession thereof and whether the sticker had been forged prior to defendant receiving it. Under these circumstances, defendant asserts, the only way by which his knowledge of the forgery could be established was by means of presumption of such fact from his possession of the sticker, a proposition rejected by the Legislature as well as the Court of Appeals *(see, e.g., People v Johnson,*65 NY2d 556, 560-561). We disagree. The record evidence here reflects *661that the temporary registration sticker was prepared in two different handwritings with two distinct writing implements, and the vehicle identification number was missing several digits. That evidence alone would permit the inference that the instrument indeed was forged. Such evidence, coupled with defendant’s flight, provided the jury a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to find defendant’s knowledge of the forged character of the instrument. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it equally without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00098

- CR

C ANDACE B ELL

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Criminal

Court No. 1

of Denton County ( CR

- 2020

- 01494

- A )

November 23, 2022

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the tria l co urt’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth