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

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6677]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Joaquin Torres-Garcia: Constructing Abstraction With 
Wood''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Joaquin Torres-Garcia: Constructing 
Abstraction With Wood,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Menil Collection, Houston, TX, from on or about 
September 25, 2009, until on or about January 3, 2010; at the San Diego 
Museum of Art, San Diego, CA, from on or about February 21 until on or 
about May 30, 2010; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of 
these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8040). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 12, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-14490 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Boyer, Appellant.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided November 19, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Mark C. Davison, Esq., care of Davison Law Office, PLLC, 61 North Main Street, Suite C, Canandaigua, New York 14424 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to 
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lexington Energy Services Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent Nimeck, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Company. By: /s/  Brent Nimeck Brent Nimeck
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer July 23, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel. ARRA Supplement Review Panel.
    Date: June 26, 2009.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: State Plaza Hotel, 2117 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037.
    Contact Person: Ernest W Lyons, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529. 301-496-4056. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7cbdec8c9d4c2e7c9cec9c3d489c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f69a8f99988593b6989f989285d8989f9ed8919980">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences; 93.701, ARRA Related 
Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-14696 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3376 

To authorize to be appropriated $950,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2012 through 2015 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2010 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. KYL, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CORNYN, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. DURBIN, 

and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize to be appropriated $950,000,000 for each of 

the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out the 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. 

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 ‘‘SCAAP Reauthoriza5 tion Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3376 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS FOR THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN AS3 SISTANCE PROGRAM. 

4 Subparagraph (C) of section 241(i)(5) of the Immi5 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘2011.’’ and inserting ‘‘2015.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Frank J. Garafano et al., Respondents, v Luis E. Alvarado et al., Appellants.

[977 NYS2d 316]

In an action to re*784cover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), entered June 15, 2012, which, upon the granting of leave to the plaintiffs to supplement their proof, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Frank J. Gar afano did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Frank J. Gar afano (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the injured plaintiff’s spine were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]), and did not constitute serious injuries *(see Bakare v Kakouras,*110 AD3d 838, 839 [2013]; *Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine that were caused by the subject accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]; *Bakare v Kakouras,*110 AD3d at 839).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

The defendants’ contention regarding the Supreme Court’s adjournment of the motion in its order dated December 12, 2011, is not properly before this Court.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Wickwire and others *v.*The Ferry-Boat Montana and The Tug R. S. Conover.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

-, 1881.)

1. Collision in North Fiver at Ntav York — Titg and Tow—Negligence.—A tug was taking a bark from her berth along-side a ferry-slip in the Hudson river, at Now York, and just as a ferry-boat that had come up was backing to avoid a sloop then in her way, the tug commenced to haul on a hawser on the starboard quarter of the bark, thereby moving her astern, the ferry-boat stopped backing, and the two came m collision. The owners of the bark libelled both the ferryboat and the tug for the damages. *Held,*that the ferry-boat was not in fault by backing when she did, nor for stopping, as that diminished the damage that resulted from the collision; but that the tug was in fault for moving tho bark astern at that time when another course was open for her to take.

In Admiralty.

*384*Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for the libellants.

*Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs,*for the ferry-boat.

*E. D. McCarthy,*for the tug.

Benedict, D. *J.*

I am of the opinion that the-damage to the bark Kings County, sued for in this action, must, upon the evidence, be found to have been caused by the negligence of those navigating the tug R. S. Conover, which, at the time of the collision, was engaged in towing the bark. This negligence consisted in straightening up on the hawser attached to the bark’s starboard bow when the situation of the tug was such that the power so applied to the bark, in her then position, and at that state of the tide, caused the bark to move astern and into .the side of the ferry-boat then under her stern. The character of the blow shows that the ferry-boat was substantially still in the water, and that the bark was, by the action of the tug, backed against the ferry-boat. The ferry-boat was not in fault for stopping and reversing as she did. Such action was necessary to avoid a sloop, and she was entitled to suppose that the bark would remain where she was, or at least would not back. Nor was the ferry-boat in fault for not continuing to back. When the ferry-boat stopped backing, the bark was upon her; if she had continued backing she would not have escaped the bark, and, by stopping her engine, she diminished the damages. If the bark had been moved ahead by the tug, instead of astern, or if she had been turned without going astern, there would not have been any collision. It was entirely possible for the tug so to tow the bark as to prevent her from going astern and across the river, and her failure to do this caused the damage in question.

The libel as against the ferry-boat is, therefore, dismissed, and the libellant awarded a decree against the tug for the damage in question, with a reference to ascertain the amount.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,056
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                       144
<INVENTORY>                                     14,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,238
<PP&E>                                          34,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,481
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,523
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,077
<SALES>                                         67,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,695
<CGS>                                           50,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    74
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDING AGREEMENT 
 Amending agreement dated July 15, 2013 between
SCOTT A. SMALLING (the “Executive”) and EQUAL ENERGY LTD. (the “Corporation”). 

RECITALS: 
  

	(a)	The Executive and the Corporation have entered into an Executive Employment Agreement dated February 1, 2013 (the “Original Agreement”); and


  

	(b)	The Executive and the Corporation wish to amend the Original Agreement as provided in this amending agreement. 


In consideration of the above and the mutual agreements contained in this amending agreement (the receipt and adequacy of which are
acknowledged), the parties agree as follows: 
 Section 1 Amendment to Position Title 

The first sentence of section 2.1 of the Original Agreement is amended as of the date of this amending agreement to read as follows:

 The Executive shall serve the Corporation in the capacity of Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer.

 Section 2 Effect on the Original Agreement 
 Except as specifically amended by this amending agreement, the provisions of the Original Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this amending agreement as of the 15th day of July, 2013. 

 

							
		 		 	EQUAL ENERGY LTD.	  	
				
		 		 	 /s/ Don Klapko
	  	
		 		 	Don Klapko	  	
		 		 	President and C.E.O.	  	
				
	 	 		 	 /s/ Scott A. Smalling
	  	
	Witness	 		 	Scott A. Smalling
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jermaine Dunbar, Respondent.

Submitted June 10, 2013;

decided June 25, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
# Publications about Brain Anatomy and Physiology

Get Excited About the Brain!

This science education activity book intended for children ages 8-12 years old helps kids learn facts about the brain through games and puzzles about brain science and research. This activity book can be downloaded and printed.

En español

The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know

Learn about how the teen brain grows, matures, and adapts to the world.

En español
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th

day of April, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

EX PARTE GREGORY P. HATZIS

NO. 12-14-00199-CV; Trial Court No. 13-3026-A

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and 

the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was error in the judgment as 

entered by the court below, and that the same should be reversed and judgment rendered.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that the judgment 

of the trial court in favor of Appellee, GREGORY P. HATZIS, be, and the same is, hereby 

reversed and judgment is rendered that the trial court and Appellee, GREGORY P. HATZIS,

return documents to the submitting agencies. All costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged 

against the Appellee, GREGORY P. HATZIS, for which let execution issue; and that this 

decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 10th day of July, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
No. 08-15-00106-CR

Marcus Watson Jr., 

 Appellant,

v.

State of Texas, 

 Appellee.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS, 

FOR THE

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, 

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

 Appellant, Marcus Fianchat Watson, seeks an extension of time to file his brief in 

this appeal and in support would show the Court: 

Appellant timely perfected appeal from the March 3, 2015 judgment of the trial 

court. The record was complete on May 7, 2015. This Court has granted one previous 

extension. 

 Appellant seeks an extension of 30 days to file his brief, making the brief due 

August 5, 2015. Appellant needs additional time to file his brief because the record is 

voluminous and counsel for Appellant is counsel in the following matters with deadlines 

during the time for preparing Appellant’s brief. 

Ex Parte Prise, Robertson County No 28180 

 Petition for writ of habeas corpus. June 29, 2015 

 

 Rivera v. Audi AG, et al, Bexar Co. No. 2013-CI-00118 

Drafting responses to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Drafting motions on expert witnesses.

In re K.L.P. and H.D.P., 

 Petition for review in supreme court. July 1, 2015 

 

 

08-15-00106-CR

ACCEPTED

08-15-00106-CR

EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO, TEXAS

7/10/2015 2:31:10 PM

DENISE PACHECO

CLERK

 FILED IN 8th COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 7/10/2015 2:31:10 PM DENISE PACHECO Clerk
The Court has granted one previous extension.

Prayer

For the reasons set out herein, appellant prays the Court grant an extension to file 

his brief until August 5, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Clint Sare___

Clint F. Sare

Tex. Bar No. 00788354

P.O. Box 1694

Bryan, Texas 77806

(979) 822-1505

Attorney for appellant

Marcus Watson Jr.

Certificate of Service

I certify a copy of appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Brief was served on 

Douglas Howell, on July 10, 2015.

_/s/ Clint Sare_______

Clint F. Sare
# Adults: Perimenopause-Related Mood Disorders

### Menopause and Mood

**Enrolling locally from the Washington, D.C. metro region**

Researchers are working to understand depression related to the menopause transition. This placebo controlled research study will test whether an experimental medication, Lily compound LY500307, can prevent depression that may occur after suddenly stopping Estrogen Therapy (ET). This drug acts like estrogen, but has a more limited range of effects.

### Perimenopause: An Observational Study

**Enrolling locally from the Washington, D.C. metro region**

This is an observational study for perimenopausal depression in women between the ages of 40 and 60. The purpose of this study is to investigate mood and behavioral changes in the time period surrounding and including menopause.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the following: (i) reference to our firm under the caption
"Portfolio Performance Information" in Item 1-Business, included in BKF Capital
Group, Inc.'s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003;
and (ii) incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos.
333-50132 and 333-75014) pertaining to the 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan of
BKF Capital Group, Inc. of our reports dated October 17, 2002, January 13, 2003,
January 13, 2003, January 13, 2003, January 27, 2003, April 11, 2003 and January
12, 2004, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of BKF Capital Group, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2003 with respect to the respective financial
statements (not shown separately herein) of Meadow Lane Associates, L.P., SR
Capital Partners, L.P., Greenspring Partners, L.P., PWF Capital Partners, L.P.,
Levco Debt Opportunity Partners, L.P., AItVantage Absolute Return Fund, L.P. and
RCL Capital, L.P.

Eisner LLP

New York, New York
March 12, 2004
#### Wei Xu, Appellant, v Fangruo Chen, Respondent.

Submitted October 1, 2012;

decided November 29, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the October 2011 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the August 2012 Appellate Division order, denied.