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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 807 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 807

  Recognizing the roles and the contributions of America's certified 
   registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) and their role in providing 
                  quality health care for the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2020

  Ms. Schakowsky (for herself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Ms. Roybal-
 Allard) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the roles and the contributions of America's certified 
   registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) and their role in providing 
                  quality health care for the public.

Whereas certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) are essential to 
        America's health care system, providing high-quality, cost-effective 
        anesthesia care for more than 150 years;
Whereas CRNAs safely administer approximately 49 million anesthetics to patients 
        each year;
Whereas CRNAs are the primary providers of anesthesia care in rural America, 
        enabling health care facilities in these medically underserved areas to 
        offer obstetrical, surgical, trauma stabilization, and pain management 
        services;
Whereas CRNAs practice in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, 
        including traditional hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery 
        rooms; the offices of dentists, podiatrists, ophthalmologists, and 
        plastic surgeons; ambulatory surgical centers; and United States 
        Military and Public Health Services and Department of Veterans Affairs 
        medical facilities;
Whereas nurse anesthetists first provided anesthesia to wounded soldiers during 
        the Civil War and have been the main provider of anesthesia care to 
        United States military personnel on the front lines since World War I, 
        including all current United States military actions around the globe; 
        and
Whereas the purpose of National CRNA Week, held January 19, 2020, through 
        January 25, 2020, is to raise public awareness of and celebrate the 
        Nation's 54,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists and student 
        registered nurse anesthetists: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks and promotes the 
profession of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) by 
encouraging patients, hospital administrators, health care 
professionals, policymakers, and others to become more familiar with 
the CRNA credential and the exceptional advanced practice registered 
nurses who have earned it by participating in National CRNA Week.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Melinda Mitchell et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 368]

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the City of New York, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ffau, J.), entered October 11, 2012, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the petition is denied.

In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timefy notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits *(see*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Matter of Destine v City of New York,*111 AD3d 629 [2d Dept 2013]; *Matter of Rush v County of Suffolk,*35 AD3d 619 [2006]).

In the instant matter, the petitioners offered no explanation at all for their delay, much less demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim *(see Hendrix v City of New York,*76 AD3d 613 [2010]).

Moreover, the appellant, City of New York, did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims. The evidence submitted by the petitioners did not estab*941lish that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims of, inter alia, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter (see *Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr.,*6 NY3d 531, 537 [2006]; *Matter of Destine v City of New*York, 111 AD3d 629 [2013]; *Matter of Rivera v City of New*York, 88 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2011]; *Matter of Blanco v City of New York,*78 AD3d 1048 [2010]; *Matter of Bush v City of New York,*76 AD3d 628 [2010]).

Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the delay in serving their notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the City in maintaining its defense on the merits with respect to the claims that were the subject of that notice *(see Matter of Destine v City of New York,*111 AD3d 629 [2013]; *Matter of Rivera v City of New York,*88 AD3d 1004 [2011]; *Matter of Blanco v City of New York,*78 AD3d 1048 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition for leave to serve the late notice of claim. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

HOV SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

 Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00522(CCC)(JAD)

NOTICE OF MOTION SEEKING LEAVE 

TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND STAY DISCOVERY 

TO: Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. 

 Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 

 502 Carnegie Center 

 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 6th day of February, 2012 (unless otherwise 

instructed by the Court), at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the 

undersigned attorneys for Plaintiff HOV Services, Inc. shall move before the Honorable Claire 

C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J., at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin 

Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 

07102, for the entry of an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint and Stay of Discovery. 

 In support of this motion, Plaintiff will rely upon the Memorandum of Law and 

Certification of Counsel annexed hereto. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is attached 

herewith. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Local Civ. R. 7.1(f), a copy of 

Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint is attached hereto. 

Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 26 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 323
2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiff hereby requests oral argument on 

this motion. 

 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 HOV Services, Inc. 

 By: /s/ John P. Leonard _____________ 

 John P. Leonard

Dated: January 13, 2012 

Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 26 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 324
S05Y1542, S05Y1543, S05Y1544, S05Y1545, S05Y1546, S05Y1547, S05Y1548, S05Y1549, S05Y1550, S05Y1551, S05Y1552, S05Y1721.

#### IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH T. ISRAEL (twelve cases).

(620 SE2d 390)

Decided October 3, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

In these 12 disciplinary matters, the State Bar is seeking the disbarment of Israel. In Case No. S05Y1721, the special master recommended that Israel be disbarred for violations of Rules 1.3,1.4, 1.16 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the GeorgiaRules of Professional Conduct. These violations arise from Israel’s failure to take any action on behalf of a client, failure to communicate with the client, failure to return the client’s file and unearned fees, and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities investigating the client’s grievance. The remaining 11 matters are before the Court on Notices of Discipline, also each seeking disbarment based on violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, each violation similarly arising out of Israel’s wholesale abandonment of ten separate clients, to the detriment of their legal matters and financial interests, and his abandonment of his client files and banking records, over which the State Bar has been appointed receiver. The maximum penalty for these violations is disbarment. Israel is currently under interim suspension, he was served by publication as his whereabouts are unknown, and he has failed to respond in any of the disciplinary matters.

The record demonstrates Israel’s disregard for clients’ interests and of the disciplinary process and shows a pattern of dishonesty, misuse of client funds, and neglect. Therefore, we endorse and adopt the Special Master and State Bar’s recommendation that the appropriate sanction in these matters is disbarment. Accordingly, the name of Kenneth T. Israel is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Israel is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
***Exhibit 31.1******CERTIFICATIONS***     I, Gary L. Scott, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mid-America Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this 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 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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.November 14, 2007/s/ Gary L. Scott
# table28_q4.5_naics
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MARLAINA KARLA THOMAS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 612 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections            (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the            undersigned officers of Symmetry Holdings Inc., (the “Company”), does            hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The            Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the            “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in            the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and            results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated: October 19, 2007 | /s/ Corrado De Gasperis       |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                    | *Chief Executive Officer*     |   |   |   |
|                    |                          |   |   |   |
| Dated: October 19, 2007 | /s/ Corrado De Gasperis       |   |   |   |
|                    | *Principal Financial Officer* |   |   |   |

 

 

A            signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to            the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and            Exchange Commission.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Timothy Jan Leftwich , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00114

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2021

- F

- 00073 ). Panel con sists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further order that the appellant, Timothy Jan Leftwich , pay all costs incurred by
reason of t his appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 1, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Welllman International Limited:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075,
33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62568, 333-62572 and
333-117017) on Form S-8 and in Registration Statements (Nos. 33-36001, 333-60175
and 333-121743) on Form S-3 of Wellman, Inc. of our reports dated 3 March 2006,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Welllman International
Limited as of 31 December 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity and other comprehensive (loss)/income, and
cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended 31 December
2005, and management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of 31 December 2005 and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of 31 December 2005, which reports appear in
the 31 December 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Wellman, Inc.

/s/ KPMG
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
REGISTERED AUDITORS

Dublin, Ireland
15 March 2006
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: August 13, 2015 520193

________________________________ In the Matter of RICHARD TEVAULT, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 8, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Richard Tevault, Dannemora, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mott, J.), entered November 25, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and, following joinder of issue, Supreme Court-2- 520193

dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals. Petitioner's sole contention is that the lieutenant who presided over the hearing was not authorized pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.1 to act as the Hearing Officer. We disagree. The regulation at issue provides, in relevant part, that the person appointed to conduct the disciplinary hearing "shall be either the superintendent, a deputy superintendent, captain or commissioner's hearing officer employed by the department's central office, but the superintendent may, in his or her discretion, designate some other employee to conduct the proceeding" (7 NYCRR 254.1). In view of this, the lieutenant could properly be designated by the superintendent to conduct the hearing (see Matter of Goss v Kelly, 145 AD2d 936 [1988]; Matter of Purnell v Kelly, 115 AD2d 1010 [1985]). Here, the lieutenant informed petitioner at the hearing that the superintendent had assigned him to be the Hearing Officer to preside over the hearing. Notwithstanding petitioner's suggestion to the contrary, no specific documentation was necessary to effectuate this designation. Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Post Wave

Non-monetary Incentive:

Spending Summary Report

Respondent 

engagement 

mailings

Diary Week

& Records Collection

Advance Mailing

Wave 1

Visit 1: Recall Interview

Visit 2: Records Interview

Wave 2

12 months 

between waves

Advance Mailing

Visit 1: Recall Interview

Diary Week

& Records Collection

Visit 2: Records Interview
#### Sangho Park et al., Appellants, v Bay Crane, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Rapid Tire Service of Brooklyn, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 154]

The defendant Bay Crane, Inc. (hereinafter Bay Crane), engaged the third-party defendant Rapid Tire Service of Brooklyn, Inc. (hereinafter Rapid Tire), to service, repair, and change the tires on its cranes. On October 23, 2003 the plaintiff Sangho Park, then an employee of Rapid Tire, was attempting to mount a spare tire supplied to him by Bay Crane onto one of its cranes at a Bay Crane yard. He was injured when that tire exploded.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced this action against Bay Crane. The injured plaintiff asserted a single cause of action against Bay Crane to recover damages due to his injuries. He sought to recover based upon theories sounding in breach of *618warranty, strict products liability, and negligence. His spouse, the plaintiff Mingsong Park, asserted derivative claims. The Supreme Court granted Bay Crane’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as well as that branch of Rapid Tire’s separate motion which sought the same relief. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

In response to the movants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see *generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Since Bay Crane was not a manufacturer, seller, or distributor of the tire that is alleged to have caused the injuries, it was not subject to liability based upon either a breach of warranty of fitness or a strict products liability theory (see *Spallholtz v Hampton C.F. Corp.,*294 AD2d 424 [2002]; *Watford v Jack LaLanne Long Is.,*151 AD2d 742, 744 [1989]).

Further, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable here. The plaintiffs’ own proof established not only that the instrumentality which caused the injury of the plaintiff Sangho Park, i.e., the tire, was not within the exclusive control of the defendant Bay Crane, but, at the time of the accident, was, in fact, under the exclusive control of the injured plaintiff *(see Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth.,*70 NY2d 621, 623 [1987]; *Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, 220 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
www.bls.gov/ooq • Summer 2013 49

Green technologies and practices at work

Occupations with the most jobs in which workers spent more than half their time 

involved in green technologies and practices, August 2011

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Green Technologies and Practices Survey.

Interested in a green job? You might have more options 

than you realize.

One of the ways that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has tracked green jobs is by counting jobs in 

which workers spend more than half their time involved 

in technologies and practices that lessen the environmental impact of business operations. The chart shows 

occupations with the most jobs in green technologies and 

practices, according to BLS. In total, workers held about 

854,700 of these jobs in August 2011.

Janitors and cleaners was among occupation with the 

greatest number of workers involved in green technologies and practices. As part of their job duties, janitors 

and cleaners might replace and recycle incandescent 

light bulbs with more energy-efficient options and use 

environmentally friendly cleaning products. Heating, air 

conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers 

might maintain or install energy-efficient equipment or 

geothermal heating and cooling systems. And landscaping 

and groundskeeping workers might design natural outdoor 

spaces that, compared with traditional settings, require 

less water, fertilizer, or pesticide.

For more information, see the January 2013 Monthly 

Labor Review visual essay on green technologies and 

practices at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/01/art4full.

pdf.

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Employment

Janitors and cleaners, except maids and 

housekeeping cleaners

First-line supervisors of landscaping, lawn 

service, and groundskeeping workers

First-line supervisors of construction trade and 

extraction workers

Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration 

mechanics and installers

Maintenance and repair workers, general

Laborers and freight, stock, and

material movers, hand

Landscaping and groundskeeping workers

Maids and housekeeping cleaners

Automotive service technicians and mechanics

Business operations specialists, all other