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

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2015-1)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the first quarter 2015 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The first quarter 2015 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.946. The first quarter 2015 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.405. The first quarter 2015 RCAF-5 is 0.383.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 1, 2015.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site,                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov.*                     Copies of the decision may be purchased by contacting the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS at (800) 877-8339.                

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation.

Decided: December 16, 2014.

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

Jeffrey Herzig,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2014-29863 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### Turner & Gudgel *v.*Licking River Lumber & Mining Co.

Navigable Streams — Right to Use.

A person has a right to use a navigable stream to float his logs in and he is not liable for injury to others in doing so where he is not guilty of negligence or carelessness.

*540APPEAL FROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 23, 1875.

*Jno. T. Hazelrigg, J. E. Cooper, for appellants.*

*J. G. Carlisle, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The appellants’ petition is fatally defective, and the appellee’s demurrer thereto should have been sustained. Licking River, being a navigable stream, the appellee had a right, independent of the charter of the corporation, to use it for floating its logs to such point as it might desire, and could only be made liable for injuries to others, shown to have resulted from its careless or negligent use of the common right to use the river for purposes of navigation.

It is neither alleged in general terms that it was guilty of negligence or carelessness, nor are any facts alleged from which either is necessarily to be inferred. Nor does it appear that the injuries complained of by the appellants resulted from any wrongful act or omission of the appellee. It is true they say that by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant, one boat and its cargo was damaged to the amount of $780, and that another boat was sunk, and they were thereby damaged the sum of $800; but they state no facts which show any connection between any wrongful act of the appellee and the injuries of which'they complain. Whether the logs were against appellants’ boats, or the boats ran against the logs and were injured, or whether the logs blocked up the channel of the river so that the boats could not pass, or whether the injury happened in some other way, is not stated.

The petition being insufficient to' support a verdict for the appellants, if one had been rendered in their favor, it is unnecessary to consider any other question. Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Optic Plus Enterprises, Limited, Appellant, v Bausch & Lomb Incorporated et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[827 NYS2d 895]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered March 22, 2006. The order denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Upon our review of the discovery demands of plaintiff and defendants’ responses, we see no basis to disturb Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Although CPLR 3101 (a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof,” “[a] party’s right to discovery is not unlimited, . . . and may be curtailed when it becomes an unreasonable annoyance and tends to harass and overburden the other party [or parties]” *(Harrison v Bayley Seton Hosp.,*219 AD2d 584, 584 [1995]). Here, the demands at issue are “overly broad and vexatious and tend[ ] to confuse, rather than sharpen, the central issue [s],” and thus the court properly refused to grant plaintiffs motion *(id.).*Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants’ agent properly verified the interrogatory responses *(see*CPLR 3133) and, under the circumstances of this case, the agent could properly verify certain responses upon information and belief. Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thecompany.

 
| Date:  March 10, 2004 |                                                      |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                      |
|                       | /s/ Jirka  Rysavy                                         |   |
|                       |                                                      |
|                       | Jirka Rysavy                                              |
|                       | Chairman of  the Board and Chief Executive Officer        |
|                       |                                                      |
|                       | /s/ Janet  Mathews                                        |   |
|                       |                                                      |
|                       | Janet  Mathews                                            |
|                       | Chief  Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2091 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2091

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
Columbia, Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in 
             the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
Columbia, Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in 
             the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND 
              SECURITY COSTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for District of Columbia, 
Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the 
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $12,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133465 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133465 

 COA: 261729 

Wayne CC: 04-011607-01

MIQUEL PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2007 

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. 

s0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1806 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to modify the requirements 

associated with small business loan data collection, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2023 

Mr. HILL (for himself, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, and Mr. LUETKEMEYER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to modify the 

requirements associated with small business loan data 

collection, 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 ‘‘Small Lenders Exempt 

5 from New Data and Excessive Reporting Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘Small LENDER Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION. 

8 Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

9 (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1806 IH

1 (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(4) COMPLIANCE.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to any 

5 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

6 on or after the date of the enactment of this 

7 paragraph, the Bureau shall provide a financial 

8 institution a 3-year period to comply with such 

9 rule or guidance, regardless of the date on 

10 which such financial institution began its oper11 ations. 

12 ‘‘(B) SAFE HARBOR.—With respect to any 

13 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

14 on or after the date of the enactment of this 

15 paragraph, beginning on the date after the last 

16 day of the 3-year period described in subpara17 graph (A), the Bureau shall provide a 2-year 

18 safe harbor to financial institutions during 

19 which each such financial institution is required 

20 to comply with the rule or guidance but not 

21 subject to any penalties for failure to comply.’’; 

22 and 

23 (2) in subsection (h)— 

24 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert25 ing the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1806 IH

1 ‘‘(1) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.—The term ‘fi2 nancial institution’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) any partnership, company, corpora4 tion, association (incorporated or unincor5 porated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, 

6 or other entity that engages in any financial ac7 tivity; and 

8 ‘‘(B) in each of the two calendar years pre9 ceding the first day of the safe harbor period 

10 described in subsection (g)(4)(B), originated 

11 not less than 500 credit transactions for small 

12 businesses.’’; and 

13 (B) by striking paragraph (2) and insert14 ing the following: 

15 ‘‘(2) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘small busi16 ness’ means any entity with gross annual revenues 

17 of $1,000,000 or less in the most recently completed 

18 fiscal year preceding the first day of the safe harbor 

19 period described in subsection (g)(4)(B).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Judy UU., Appellant, v Troy SS., Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

[973 NYS2d 443]

Lahtinen, J.P.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered May 5, 2011, which dismissed petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to, among other things, hold respondent in violation of a prior order of custody and visitation.

Fetitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) have been involved in protracted proceedings regarding custody and visitation of their now 15-year-old son (see *Matter of Judy UU. v Troy SS.,*80 AD3d 819 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 707 [2011]; *Matter of Troy SS. v Judy UU.,*69 AD3d 1128 [2010], *lv dismissed and denied*14 NY3d 912 [2010]). In March 2011, the mother commenced the two instant proceedings pro se, the first seeking modification of the custody *1250order and the second alleging that the father had violated the custody order. When she appeared with counsel before Family Court regarding the petitions, her counsel acknowledged that more detailed allegations were necessary and asked to be permitted to file amended petitions. Instead, Family Court issued orders in May 2011 dismissing both petitions, without prejudice, and it continued counsel’s assignment to represent the mother. With counsel’s assistance, new petitions have been filed. However, the mother appeals from the two orders of May 2011.

The mother acknowledges in her brief that she is not now challenging the order dismissing the modification petition and, accordingly, her appeal from such order is abandoned *(see Matter of Anesi v Brennan,*75 AD3d 791, 792 n [2010]). Although she argues it was error to dismiss the violation petition, the appeal from that order is moot since a subsequent violation petition predicated upon the same alleged conduct was filed and eventually dismissed, with prejudice, by Family Court (Lalor, J.) in November 2012 *(see generally Matter of King v Jackson,*52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]; *Matter of Baraby v Baraby,*186 AD2d 890, 890 [1992]).

Stein, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order entered May 5, 2011 dismissing the modification petition is affirmed, without costs. Ordered that the appeal from the order entered May 5, 2011 dismissing the violation petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda L. Robinson, Appellant, v Franklin County Department of Social Services, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 108]—

Rose, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 1, 2011, which ruled that claimant’s application for workers’ compensation benefits was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28.

In June 2010, claimant filed an application for workers’ compensation benefits based upon a workplace incident that occurred in March 2008. The self-insured employer submitted a form indicating that the claim was accepted, “without prejudice under [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 21-a,” and payment had not begun because claimant had not lost time from work beyond the waiting period. At the initial hearing, the employer controverted the claim based upon, among other things, Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which provides that the right to workers’ compensation benefits shall be barred if the claim is not filed within two years after the claimant’s workplace accident. Finding that the defense was not waived, the Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the claim as time-barred, prompting this appeal.

Claimant contends that the employer waived the defense of timeliness because it initially accepted the claim without raising the issue. Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 provides that the employer “shall be deemed to have waived the bar of the statute unless the objection to the failure to file the claim within two years is raised on the first hearing on such claim at which all parties in interest are present.” Inasmuch as the record reflects that the defense of untimeliness was raised at the first hearing at which all parties in interest were present, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s determination *(see Matter of Neville v Magazine Distribs., Inc.,*61 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 712 [2009]; *Matter of Petitt v Eaton & Van Winkle,*5 AD3d 822, 823 [2004]; *Matter of Kane v PPG Indus.,*277 AD2d 696, 697 [2000]).

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
XM SATELLITE RADIO HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying
this statement.



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ NATHANIEL A.
DAVIS                                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Nathaniel A. Davis President and Chief
Executive Officer                
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER                                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Joseph J. Euteneuer Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and will be retained by XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Deborah Chestnut, Respondent, v Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Defendant, and Village Care of New York, Inc., *511Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 340]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 3, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Village Care of New York, Inc.’s (VCNY) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues exist as to whether VCNY, the corporate parent to the landowner (a nonparty to the action), assumed a measure of control over the cleaning of the premises, and therefore a duty to maintain the same, by, inter alia, providing staffing for the housecleaning (see *generally Aversano v City of New York,*265 AD2d 437 [2d Dept 1999]; *cf. Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y.,*17 AD3d 252 [1st Dept 2005]). Triable issues were also raised whether alleged inadequate weekend staffing of the maintenance crew constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs slip and fall on a slippery substance. VCNY, as movant for summary judgment, did not establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as it failed to set forth evidence indicating actual cleaning and/or inspections at the subject premises, as per contract requirements, in the days leading up to plaintiff’s slip and fall *(see e.g. Nugent v 1235 Concourse Tenants Corp.,*83 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2011]; *Klerman v Fine Fare Supermarket,*96 AD3d 907 [2d Dept 2012]; *Maldonado v City of New York,*93 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered VCNY’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 3027KU).]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2056 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2056

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Bureau of the Fical Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Bureau of the Fical Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              TREASURY, BUREAU OF THE FICAL SERVICE, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Bureau of the Fical Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $335,936,000.
                                 <all>
```