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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2491 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain shearing 

machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on certain shearing machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SHEARING MACHINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.81 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain shearing machines) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting the following: ‘‘Shearing machines used to 

9 cut metallic tissue, numerically controlled, the fore10 going certified for use in production of radial tires 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2491 IS

1 designed for off-the-highway use with a rim meas2 uring 63.5 cm or more in diameter (provided for in 

3 subheading 4011.20.10, 4011.61.00, 4011.63.00, 

4 4011.69.00, 4011.92.00, 4011.94.40, or 

5 4011.99.45), and parts thereof (provided for in sub6 heading 8462.31.00 or 8466.94.85)’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

11 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
-  Home 
        -  Health Information 
        -  For Health Professionals 
        -  Diabetes Discoveries & Practice Blog 
        -  Archive Results 

Diabetes Discoveries & Practice Blog

## Archive Results

                Results 1 - 3 of 3 for:                     **July 2019**

## Pre-visit Planning Saves Time

July 24, 20190 Comments
              - Practice Transformation

            Learn about some pre-visit planning strategies that can make office visits more efficient, productive, and meaningful for both the health care team and patient.            Read more

## Every Person with Diabetes Needs Ongoing Self-Management Education and Support

July 10, 20190 Comments
              - Patient Self-Management
              - Medication and Monitoring
              - Patient Communication

            You prescribe medications for type 2 diabetes, but what about diabetes education and support? It can be just as essential.            Read more

## Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Expands Access to Evidence-based Community Intervention

July 3, 20190 Comments
              - Diabetes Prevention
              - Community Health

            The MDPP expanded model aims to prevent type 2 diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries with prediabetes.            Read more

## Blog Tools

### Subscribe

Subscribe to get blog updates.

### Share this page

FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest

### Search

### About

**Diabetes Discoveries and Practice Blog**

### Tags

Patient Communication64

Research Advancements45

Complications of Diabetes35

Medication and Monitoring29

Practice Transformation25

Diabetes Prevention24

Patient Self-Management22

Obesity and Weight Management20

Social Determinants of Health19

New Technologies17

Diabetic Kidney Disease15

Type 1 Diabetes15

Nutrition12

Shared Decision-Making12

Community Health8

### Archive

April 20241

March 20241

Feb. 20241

Jan. 20241

Dec. 20231

Nov. 20231

Oct. 20231

Aug. 20231

July 20231

June 20232

May 20231

April 20231

March 20231

Feb. 20231

Jan. 20232

Dec. 20221

Nov. 20222

Oct. 20222

Sept. 20222

Aug. 20223

July 20222

June 20222

May 20222

April 20222

March 20222

Feb. 20222

Jan. 20222

Dec. 20212

Nov. 20211

Oct. 20212

Sept. 20212

Aug. 20212

July 20212

June 20213

May 20212

April 20212

March 20212

Feb. 20212

Jan. 20211

Dec. 20202

Nov. 20202

Oct. 20204

Sept. 20205

Aug. 20204

July 20203

June 20202

May 20202

April 20201

March 20202

Feb. 20203

Jan. 20202

Dec. 20193

Nov. 20192

Oct. 20192

Sept. 20193

Aug. 20193

July 20193

June 20192

May 20194

April 20192

March 20192

Feb. 20191

Jan. 20192

Dec. 20182

Nov. 20184

Oct. 20184

Sept. 20182

Aug. 20185

July 20183

June 20184

May 20185

April 20184

March 20183

Feb. 20184

Jan. 20183

Dec. 20173

Nov. 20174

Oct. 20172

Sept. 20174

### Disclaimer

We welcome comments; all comments must follow our comment policy.

Blog posts written by individuals from outside the government may be owned by the writer and graphics may be owned by their creator. In such cases, it is necessary to contact the writer, artist, or publisher to obtain permission for reuse.
#### Martin *against*Stillwell.

plaS¡Dgwt¡^ dyXul/isac^““bis'taing iEce ,d!nTMivt E“oral tur£"'

THIS was an action of slander. The declaration contained six counts. In the first four counts the plaintiff alleged a special damage, in the proof of which she failed on the trial. In the fifth count, the words charged to have been spoken by the defendant were, “ Mrs. *Martin*(the plaintiff) kept a bawdy house in *George’s-street,”*meaning a certain street in the city of *New-York:*and in the sixth count', the words charged were, “she kept a bawdy house in *George’s-street.”*At the trial, before Mr. Justice *Platt,*at the *Essex*circuit, in *June,*1815, a verdict was . found for the plaintiff on the two last counts : and it was now moved to arrest the judgment, on the ground that the words were not actionable.

*Skinner,*in support of the motion.

*Z. R. Shepherd,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

In *Brooker v. Coffin,*(5 *Johns. Rep.*191.,) on demurrer to the first count in the declaration, &c., the words were, “ she is a common prostitute, and I can prove it;” and this court decided that those words were not actionable. The law, as to what words are actionable, is settled in that case, and the following rule was laid down as the safest, and one which the cases warranted, viz: “ In case the charge, if true, would subject the party charged to an indictment for a crime involving moral turpitude, or subject him to an infamous punishment, then the words would be, in themselves, actionable.’’

If this rule is to govern the decision in this cause, then the present motion must be denied, because, there is no doubt that keeping a *bawdy house*is a common nuisance, and that the person keeping it is liable to an indictment. The words here, as laid in the 5th and 6th counts of the declaration, are, “ MrSi> *Martin*kept a bawdy house in *George’s-street.” “*She kept a bawdy house in *George’s-street,”*which words (if true) would have subjected her to an indictment; and,although the punishment for this offence could not have been infamous, yet, accord*276ing to the above rule, it would have been for a crime evidently involving moral turpitude; these words are, consequently, in themselves qctionable, and the motion in arrest must be denied.

Motion denied, (a)

(a)

**Vide *Widrig*v. *Oyer,*ante, 124.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,079,802
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      66,590,791
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,310,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 33,170,615
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,342,044
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,280,535
<LOANS>                                     63,765,546
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,359,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             126,649,600
<DEPOSITS>                                 101,495,796
<SHORT-TERM>                                   858,988
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,285,681
<LONG-TERM>                                 10,898,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,089,659
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,020,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             126,649,600
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,687,102
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,884,337
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,242
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,573,681
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,750,731
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,282,276
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,291,405
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  257,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,874,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,585,671
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,585,671
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,008,371
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.32
<LOANS-NON>                                    933,446
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,334,079
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,277,141
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  293,105
<RECOVERIES>                                   118,008
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,359,044
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,359,004
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Gloria Blaze, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 667]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim, where plaintiff offered no excuse for her failure to file a timely notice of claim; failed to demonstrate that defendant acquired actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter; and failed in her burden to demonstrate that defendant would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay *(see Perez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*81 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2011]; *Matter of Strauss v New York City Tr. Auth.,*195 AD2d 322 [1st Dept 1993]). “[K]nowledge of the facts underlying an occurrence does not constitute knowledge of the claim. What satisfies the statute is not knowledge of the wrong. What the statute exacts is notice of the claim” *(Liberty Group Holdings v City of New York, 5*AD3d 148, 149 [1st Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted], *lv denied*3 NY3d 609 [2004], quoting *Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth.,*161 AD2d 141, 142 [1990], *affd*78 NY2d 958 [1991]).

In any event, plaintiffs claim accrued, at the latest, in April 2011, when she asserts that she was “constructively forced into *429early retirement,” making her motion to file a late notice of claim well beyond the limitation period of, at most, one year and 90 days (Education Law § 3813 [3], [2-b]; General Municipal Law § 50-i). Thus, the court was without authority to grant plaintiff the requested relief *(see*Education Law § 3813 [2], [2-a]; General Municipal Law § 50-i; *Consolidated Constr. Group, LLC v Bethpage Union Free School Dist.,*39 AD3d 792, 794-795 [2d Dept 2007], *lv dismissed*9 NY3d 980 [2007]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**KENNETH TYLER CARY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 938 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
11-4562-cv

Amna v. New York State Department of Health, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed

on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this

Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation

“summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not

represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 12th day of December, two thousand and twelve.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

REENA RAGGI,

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

TANVIR AMNA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 11-4562-cv

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: TANVIR AMNA, pro se, Springfield, VA.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: WON S. SHIN, Assistant Solicitor General, for

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of

1
the State of New York, New York, NY

(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General,

Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Jan E.

Messerschmidt, Law Student Intern, on the

brief).

Appeal from a October 3, 2011 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York (Carol Bagley Amon, Chief Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Tanvir Amna (“Amna”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District

Court’s judgment granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees (“defendants”) in her

employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the

procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “resolv[e] all ambiguities and

draw[ ] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is

sought.” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266

(2d Cir. 2009)); FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the

record in light of these principles, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the same

reasons stated by Chief Judge Amon in her thorough and well-reasoned order, dated September 30,

2011. 

2
CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Amna’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the October 3, 2011 judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3
#### Campbell v. Ingram

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 239

No. 636A06

1. Def’s (McLaurin) Motion to Withdraw Appeal (COA05-1516)

2. Def’s (Ingram) Motion to Withdraw Appeal

1. Allowed 04/10/07

2. Allowed 04/10/07

Hudson, J., Kecused
#### In the Matter of Dino Caroselli, Also Known as Wayne Horan, Petitioner, v Alan Marrus, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 285]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Alan Marrus, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to vacate an order of the same court dated December 4, 2012, and entered in an underlying criminal action entitled *People v Caroselli,*commenced in that court under indictment No. 5319/84, denying the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered June 13, 1985, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Eng, EJ., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2013

NO. 03-13-00132-CV

James L. Hebert, Appellant

v.

April Marie Roberts Hebert, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 155TH DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the 

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that 

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said 

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision 

be certified below for observance.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51068 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JAMES BRYAN HALL

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:12

- CR

- 560

- 1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Bryan Hall

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hall h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 April 18, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51068 Document: 00513956670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017No. 16

- 51068

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-51068 Document: 00513956670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
#### In the Matter of John M., Jr. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Danielle Mc., Appellant. Karen M. et al., Nonparty Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)

[974 NYS2d 290]

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated July 31, 2012, which vacated all orders of protection, and directed the withdrawal of the petition, in the proceeding commenced under docket No. N-5059-12, and (2) a second order of the same court, also dated July 31, 2012, which vacated all prior orders issued in the proceedings.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother is not aggrieved by the order vacating all orders of protection, and directing the withdrawal of the petition, in the proceeding commenced under docket No. N-5059-12, or by the vacatur of any other order issued in these child protective proceedings *(see*CPLR 5511; *Mixon v TBV, Inc.,*76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010]). To the extent that the mother challenges the relocation of the paternal grandparents, who have physical custody of the subject child, she must seek relief in the related custody and visitation proceeding. That matter is not the subject of the orders appealed from.

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed. Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
Cronos Global Income Fund XIV
Rule 13a-14 Certifications
          I, John Kallas, certify that:
          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos Global Income Fund XIV (the“Registrant”);
          2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
          4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of theRegistrant, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and wehave:
               (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and
               (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
               (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
          5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
               (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
               (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 24, 2005     /s/ JOHN KALLAS       John Kallas    Chief Financial Officer of CCC