alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Susan M. Saylor, Respondent, v Kim E. Saylor, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 197]

*1359Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David M. Barry, J.), entered May 26, 2005 in a divorce action. The judgment, among other things, awarded plaintiff maintenance.

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

Memorandum: In this action for divorce, defendant appeals from a judgment that, insofar as pertinent to this appeal, awarded plaintiff maintenance of $950 per month for a period of 91⁄2 years or until plaintiffs remarriage or the death of either party, distributed certain marital assets and debt, and directed defendant to pay $6,750 toward plaintiffs counsel fees. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court “properly set forth the factors it considered in determining the amount [and duration]” of the maintenance award *(McBride-Head v Head,*23 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2005]; *see Kelly v Kelly,*19 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2005], *appeal dismissed*5 NY3d 847 [2005], *rearg denied and lv dismissed in part and denied in part*6 NY3d 803 [2006]; *McAllister v McAllister,*6 AD3d 1141 [2004]). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to plaintiff in the amount and duration specified *(see Booth v Booth,*24 AD3d 1238 [2005]; *McBride-Head,*23 AD3d at 1011; *Anderson v Anderson,*286 AD2d 967, 969 [2001]). The record establishes that the parties were married for 30 years, that defendant was the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage, that plaintiff stayed at home with the children or worked part-time for most of the marriage, thereby delaying her career prospects, and that there is a large disparity in the incomes of the parties. Similarly, we conclude that the court adequately addressed the statutory factors bearing on its equitable distribution of certain marital assets *(see Schiffmacher v Schiffmacher,*21 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2005]; *Chadwick v Chadwick,*256 AD2d 1211 [1998]; *see generally Prasinos v Prasinos,*283 AD2d 913 [2001]), and the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay one half of plaintiffs credit card debt and in denying defendant’s request to receive a credit for one half of a joint account liquidated by plaintiff to pay for the wedding of *1360the parties’ daughter *(see McPheeters v McPheeters,*284 AD2d 968 [2001]; *Chadwick,*256 AD2d at 1211).

Finally, given the relative financial circumstances of the parties and the relative merits of their positions before and at trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay $6,750 toward plaintiff’s counsel fees *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; *Solomon v Solomon,*282 AD2d 666 [2001]; *Mica v Mica,*275 AD2d 765 [2000]). Present — Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### In the Matter of City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Certain Order Interests in the Carousel Center Site for the Phased Public Project Known as DestiNY USA. Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc., Appellant; Carousel Center Company, L.P., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 11.)

[821 NYS2d 501]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John *V.*Centra, J.), entered May 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 4. The order, among other things, denied the motion of respondent Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc. to dismiss the petition, granted the petition and authorized petitioner to acquire by condemnation certain Carousel Center interests of that respondent.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
----

| By:    |                                                           |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                           |   |
|   | /s/      Brent M. Boyles                                  |   |
|   | Brent      M. Boyles                                           |   |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer                     |   |
|   |                                                           |   |
|   |                                                           |   |
|   |                                                           |   |
|   | /s/      Michael I. Williams                                   |   |
|   | Michael      I. Williams                                       |   |
|   | Senior      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,           |   |
|   |     Treasurer      and Assistant Secretary |   |

----
**Exhibit 10.19**
**Amendment to Salary Continuation Agreement**
     This Amendment to Salary Continuation Agreement (the “**Amendment**”) is madeas of the 26th day of July, 2004, by and between Trompeter Electronics, Inc., aDelaware corporation (“**Trompeter**”), and the employee whose name appears on thesignature page of this Agreement (“**Employee**”). This Amendment amends theSalary Continuation Agreement (the “**Agreement**”) dated as of October 18, 2000 byand between Trompeter and Employee.
     WHEREAS, Employee is currently a valued key employee of Trompeter and/orits affiliates, and Trompeter recognizes Employee’s contribution to the growthand success of Trompeter; and
     WHEREAS, Trompeter considers it essential to the best interests ofTrompeter and its affiliates to foster the continued employment of keypersonnel, such as Employee, by providing for certain payments such as that setforth in this Agreement.
     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
     1. Amendment. The reference to “12 months” contained in Section 1(a) ofthe Agreement is hereby amended to read “24 months.” All other provisions ofthe Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
     2. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Amendment andthe Agreement will be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and validunder applicable law, but if any provision of this Amendment or the Agreementis held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under anyapplicable law or rule in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality orunenforceability will not affect any other provision or any other jurisdiction,but this Amendment and the Agreement will be reformed, construed and enforcedin such jurisdiction as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision hadnever been contained in this Amendment.
     3. Complete Agreement. This Amendment and the Agreement embody thecomplete agreement and understanding among the parties and supersede andpreempt any prior understandings, agreements or representations by or among theparties, written or oral, which may have related to the subject matter of theAgreement in any way.
     4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed on separate counterparts,each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken togethershall constitute one and the same agreement.
     5. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment is intended to bind and inureto the benefit and be enforceable by the parties to this Amendment and theirrespective successors and permitted assigns.
 

 

     6. Choice of Law. All questions concerning the construction, validity andinterpretation of this Amendment shall be governed by the internal law, and notthe law of conflicts, of California.
     7. Amendments and Waivers. Any provision of this Amendment may be amendedor waived only with the prior written consents of each of the parties.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the dayand year first above written.   EMPLOYEE: JOE NORWOOD
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Avistar Communications Corporation; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: February 4, 2011        |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Robert F. Kirk            |   |   |
| Robert F. Kirk                |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |   |
Exhibit 32.1

          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of East Penn Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Brent L. Peters,
President and Chief Executive 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:

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

o     To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in
      the Report.


/s/ Brent L. Peters
------------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Peters, President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 10, 2004


                                    Page 27
### Part E—General Provisions

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 116–131, title V, §501(2), Mar. 25, 2020, 134 Stat. 267, redesignated part D of this subchapter as part E.
§ 30.40 Special exemptions for certain shipments to U.S. government agencies and employees. Except as noted in § 30.2(a)(1)(iv), filing EEI is not required for the following types of shipments to U.S. government agencies and employees: ( a ) Office furniture, office equipment, and office supplies shipped to and for the exclusive use of U.S. government offices.
( b ) Household goods and personal property shipped to and for the exclusive and personal use of U.S. government employees.
( c ) Food, medicines, and related items and other commissary supplies shipped to U.S. government offices or employees for the exclusive use of such employees, or to U.S. government employee cooperatives or other associations for subsequent sale or other distribution to such employees.
[73 FR 31555, June 2, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 16381, Mar. 14, 2013]
NRC FORM 366A

(04-02-2024)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) 

CONTINUATION SHEET

APPROVED BY OMB: NO. 3150-0104 EXPIRES: 04/30/2027

Estimated burden per response to comply with this mandatory collection request: 80 hours. Reported 

lessons learned are incorporated into the licensing process and fed back to industry. Send comments 

regarding burden estimate to the FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch (T-6 A10M), U. S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, (3150-0104), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection 

displays a currently valid OMB control number.

(See NUREG-1022, R.3 for instruction and guidance for completing this form 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1022/r3/)

NARRATIVE

NRC FORM 366A (04-02-2024) Page of

1. FACILITY NAME 2. DOCKET NUMBER 3. LER NUMBER

YEAR

-

SEQUENTIAL 

NUMBER

-

REV 

NO.

052

050
Exhibit 32


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


                          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 Xpention  Genetics,  Inc.  (formerly
Bayview  Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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.


Date:  October 19, 2007


    /s/ David Kittrell
    ---------------------------------------
    David Kittrell, CEO and CFO
### subpart i—clean air
#### Lon G. Rand, Defendant in Error, v. William S. Bogle, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,519.

1. Divorce, § *172*
      ***
      *—token marriage of divorced person void.*A marriage celebrated in disregard of the prohibition of the Divorce Act, prohibiting remarriage of a divorced person within one year after the time of the divorce, is void wherever celebrated.

2. Husband and wife, § *14*
      ***
      *—when existence of legal relation condition precedent to maintenance of action for necessaries.*Under the statute it is a condition precedent to a recovery from a husband for family expenses that there be a legal relation of husband and wife.

3. Husband and wife, § *14*
      ***
      *—when existence of legal relation essential to recovery for services rendered alleged wife.*In order to recover for the services of a dentist rendered to one alleged to be the wife of the defendant, it is essential that the legal relation of husband and wife exist between them.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Reversed.

Opinion filed January 17, 1916.

M. F. Gallagher and E. B. Wilkinson, for plaintiff in error.

*477Joseph R. Burees, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, samtopic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff brought an action in the Municipal Court against plaintiff in error Bogle and Mrs. Cloe Barry and recovered for dental services rendered by plaintiff to Mrs. Barry. He recovered against both defendants and the writ of error was sued out in the ñamé of both, but Bogle only assigned errors. His codefendant was summoned and there was a judgment of severance and he prosecuted this writ of error to reverse the judgment.

Recovery was allowed on the theory that the claim of the plaintiff was family expenses, for which both defendants were liable under the statute. Mrs. Barry was divorced October 8,1912, and went through a marriage ceremony with Bogle November 4, 1912, and the parties lived together in Chicago from November, 1912, to September, 1913. Mrs. Barry filed a bill in December, 1913, for the annulment of her alleged marriage to Bogle, and a decree was entered January 6, 1914, declaring such marriage void and ordering that it be annulled. The Divorce Act prohibits either party from remarrying within one year from the time of the divorce, and a marriage celebrated in disregard of this prohibition is void wherever celebrated. *Wilson v. Cook,*256 Ill. 460.

Under the statute it is a condition precedent to a recovery for family expenses that there be a legal relation of husband and wife. *Schlesinger v. Keifer,*30 Ill. App. 253, affirmed in 131 Ill. 104; *Houghteling v. Walker,*100 Fed. 253; *Holnback v. Wilson,*159 Ill. 148.

There is in the record no evidence to support a recovery against plaintiff in error, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed.

*Reversed.*
#### Alviena Michel, as Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene Michel, Deceased, Respondent, v. City of Troy et al., Appellants.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur. [See *post,*pp. 811, 837, 957.]
§ 1145.16 Lighters that are intended for igniting smoking materials and that can be operated by children; risks of death or injury. ( a ) The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to regulate under the Consumer Product Safety Act any risks of injury associated with the fact that lighters intended for igniting smoking materials can be operated by young children, rather than regulate such risks under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act or the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.
( b ) Therefore, if the Commission finds regulation to be necessary, risks of death or injury that are associated with lighters that are intended for igniting smoking materials, where such risks exist because the lighters can be operated by young children, shall be regulated under one or more provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Other risks associated with such lighters, and that are based solely on the fact that the lighters contain a hazardous substance, shall continue to be regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
[58 FR 37556, July 12, 1993]
#### § 1.42 Notice to Commission.

To obtain the exemptions afforded by the Act, an export trade association is required to file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days after its creation, a verified written statement setting forth the location of its offices and places of business, names, and addresses of its officers, stockholders, or members, and copies of its documents of incorporation or association. On the first day of January of each year thereafter, each association must file a like statement and, when required by the Commission to do so, must furnish to the Commission detailed information as to its organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other associations, corporations, partnerships, and individuals.
| **No. 2**    March 1999     Rio Laja Watershed    AssessmentInternational Perspective:    The Global Water ConnectionForests, Floods,and Changing Priorities in China Middle East Collaboration    on Watershed MonitoringNews Bits from    Around the WorldNew Journals, Books,and Web SitesMeeting and Workshop    Announcements |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Current    Newsletter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

Visitors since March 25, 1999
#### Tullio Baccari, Respondent, v. National Brick Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Etta Greenfield, Appellant.

In our opinion the order is appealable under the express *863provisions of section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by chapter 706 of the Laws of 1947. On the merits, however, the motion was properly denied as defendant failed to establish grounds for a new trial within the requirements of subdivision 7 of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *(People*v. Priori, 164 N. Y. 459, 472.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., dissents and votes to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.
# L_2016211EN.01008101.xml

| 4.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/81

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 120/2015

of 30 April 2015

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2016/1303]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2014/763/EU of 24 October 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for absorbent hygiene products (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2014/763/EU of 24 October 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for absorbent hygiene products (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 2zn (Commission Decision 2014/350/EU) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘2zo. | 32014 D 0763: Commission Decision 2014/763/EU of 24 October 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for absorbent hygiene products (OJ L 320, 6.11.2014, p. 46).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2zo.

32014 D 0763: Commission Decision 2014/763/EU of 24 October 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for absorbent hygiene products (OJ L 320, 6.11.2014, p. 46).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2014/763/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 May 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 April 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 320, 6.11.2014, p. 46.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
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 Salomon Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

May 14, 2007

----