alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeffrey Howard and Associates, Respondent, v Shelter Pro*887grams, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover the balance due on two contracts, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 2, 1976, which is in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and against them upon an order of the same court, dated March 1, 1976, which (1) denied the motion to dismiss the complaint .pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 5) and to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd [a]) and (2) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment (apparently pursuant to CPLR 3211, subd [c]) "on an account stated”. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendants’ motion granted and plaintiff’s cross motion denied. In their agreement dated January 11, 1974, the parties agreed to arbitrate "all questions in dispute under this Agreement”. Since the "scope of the arbitration clause and the scope of the underlying agreement are identical”, and there is "a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the underlying contract, the court’s inquiry is ended” (see *Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer.,*37 NY2d 91, 95-96). The ultimate disposition of the merits is reserved for the arbitrators and "the courts are expressly prohibited from considering 'whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable * * *’ (CPLR 7501)” (see *Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer., supra,*p 95). The arbitration clause is sufficiently broad to embrace the disputes involving acts of the parties subsequent to the making of the agreement (see *Matter of Macy & Co. [National Sleep Prods.],*39 NY2d 268, 270-271). It is therefore unnecessary to reach the merits of the issues involved in the Special Term’s granting of the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on an account stated. We note, however, that the complaint contains no cause of action for an account stated, no answer was served, and no application was made to amend the complaint so as to include a cause of action for an account stated, or to treat the papers on plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as part of the complaint. Therefore the plaintiff has, in effect, attempted to make a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, on the assumption that a cause of action for an account stated is "an instrument for the payment of money only” which can serve as the predicate for relief on such a motion (but see *Interman Ind. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151, 155-156). The plaintiff cannot use CPLR 3211 (subd [c]) to accomplish what it cannot achieve under CPLR 3213. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 270.30b1-10 Current report for open-end and closed-end management investment companies.

Every registered open-end management investment company, or series thereof, and every registered closed-end management investment company, but not a fund that is regulated as a money market fund under § 270.2a-7, that experiences an event specified on Form N-RN, must file with the Commission a current report on Form N-RN within the period and according to the instructions specified in that form.

[85 FR 83295, Dec. 21, 2020]
§ 1006.345 What happens if I fail to disclose information required under § 1006.335? If we later determine that you failed to disclose information under § 1006.335 that you knew at the time you entered into the covered transaction, we may— ( a ) Terminate the transaction for material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the transaction; or
( b ) Pursue any other available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.14a-14 Modified or superseded documents. ( a ) Any statement contained in a document incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference shall be deemed to be modified or superseded, for purposes of the proxy statement, to the extent that a statement contained in the proxy statement or in any other subsequently filed document that also is or is deemed to be incorporated by reference modifies or replaces such statement.
( b ) The modifying or superseding statement may, but need not, state it has modified or superseded a prior statement or include any other information set forth in the document that is not so modified or superseded. The making of a modifying or superseding statement shall not be deemed an admission that the modified or superseded statement, when made, constituted an untrue statement of a material fact, an omission to state a material fact necessary to make a statement not misleading, or the employment of a manipulative, deceptive, or fraudulent device, contrivance, scheme, transaction, act, practice, course of business or artifice to defraud, as those terms are used in the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Act”), the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
( c ) Any statement so modified shall not be deemed in its unmodified form to constitute part of the proxy statement for purposes of the Act. Any statement so superseded shall not be deemed to constitute a part of the proxy statement for purposes of the Act.
[52 FR 21936, June 10, 1987, as amended at 73 FR 17814, Apr. 1, 2008]
§ 210.3A-02 Consolidated financial statements of the registrant and its subsidiaries. In deciding upon consolidation policy, the registrant must consider what financial presentation is most meaningful in the circumstances and should follow in the consolidated financial statements principles of inclusion or exclusion which will clearly exhibit the financial position and results of operations of the registrant. There is a presumption that consolidated financial statements are more meaningful than separate financial statements and that they are usually necessary for a fair presentation when one entity directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in another entity. Other particular facts and circumstances may require combined financial statements, an equity method of accounting, or valuation allowances in order to achieve a fair presentation. ( a ) *Majority ownership:* Among the factors that the registrant should consider in determining the most meaningful presentation is majority ownership. Generally, registrants shall consolidate entities that are majority owned and shall not consolidate entities that are not majority owned. The determination of *majority ownership* requires a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of a particular relationship among entities. In rare situations, consolidation of a majority owned subsidiary may not result in a fair presentation, because the registrant, in substance, does not have a controlling financial interest (for example, when the subsidiary is in legal reorganization or in bankruptcy). In other situations, consolidation of an entity, notwithstanding the lack of technical majority ownership, is necessary to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the registrant, because of the existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship by means other than record ownership of voting stock.
( b ) [Reserved].
[83 FR 50200, Oct. 4, 2018]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3929 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Reactive Red 123. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Reactive 

Red 123. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REACTIVE RED 123. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.89 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2014’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ferdinand Faranda, Appellant, against Mauri Rizzi et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
§ 37.12 Trade execution compliance schedule. ( a ) A swap transaction shall be subject to the requirements of section 2(h)(8) of the Act upon the later of: ( 1 ) The applicable deadline established under the compliance schedule provided under § 50.25(b) of this chapter; or
( 2 ) Thirty days after the available-to-trade determination submission or certification for that swap is, respectively, deemed approved under § 40.5 of this chapter or deemed certified under § 40.6 of this chapter.
( b ) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any counterparty from complying voluntarily with the requirements of section 2(h)(8) of the Act sooner than as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
[78 FR 33630, June 4, 2013]
#### § 171.30 Scope of review.

On review, the Commission may, in its discretion and after appropriate consideration of the notice given to the parties, consider *sua sponte* any issues arising from the record before it and may base its determination thereon. The Commission may also limit its consideration to those issues specifically raised in the parties' briefs, treating all other issues as waived.
#### § 120.20 Administrative procedures.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) authorizes the President to control the import and export of defense articles and services in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. Pursuant to delegated authorities, the Secretary of State is authorized to make decisions on whether license applications or other written requests for approval shall be granted, or whether exemptions may be used. The Secretary of State is also authorized to revoke, suspend, or amend licenses or other written approvals whenever such action is deemed to be advisable. The administration of the AECA is a foreign affairs function encompassed within the meaning of the military and foreign affairs exclusion of the Administrative Procedure Act and is thereby expressly exempt from various provisions of that Act. Because the exercising of the foreign affairs function, including the decisions required to implement the AECA, is highly discretionary, it is excluded from review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
#### § 1006.815 How may I contest a proposed debarment?

If you as a respondent wish to contest a proposed debarment, you or your representative must provide the debarring official with information in opposition to the proposed debarment. You may do this orally or in writing, but any information provided orally that you consider important must also be submitted in writing for the official record.
#### 300 West Realty Co., Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

—Resettled Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 23, 1976, *inter alia,*denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment against it, or in the alternative consolidating the action with another matter is unanimously modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of declaring null and void all emergency repair charges of the defendant placed against the plaintiff’s properties at 114 West 139th Street, 116 West 139th Street and 57-59 East 110th Street for the period June 12, 1972, through February 20, 1973, that period being the period during which the defendant had title and possession of the property. The direction to amend the agreement of March, 1972, to "comport with current facts” is reversed (see *Matter of Abrams v New York City Tr. Auth.,*39 NY2d 990). The agreement in question is the only agreement under which the plaintiff asks for relief and the defendant consents to that relief, therefore the ruling of the- trial court constitutes an overreaching of discre*807tionary authority. The judgment as thus modified is otherwise affirmed. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.
#### § 1304.12 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person a right to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
### §2000b–1. Liability of United States for costs and attorney's fee

In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the United States shall be liable for costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, the same as a private person.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title III, §302, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 246.)
#### § 120.60 United States.

*United States,* when used in the geographical sense, includes the several states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the insular possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any territory or possession of the United States, and any territory or possession over which the United States exercises any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction.
#### §§ 75.17-75.19 [Reserved]
§ 4.20 Prohibited activities. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a commodity pool operator must operate its pool as an entity cognizable as a legal entity separate from that of the pool operator.
( 2 ) The Commission may exempt a corporation from the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section if; ( i ) The corporation represents in writing to the Commission that each participant in its pool will be issued stock or other evidences of ownership in the corporation for all funds, securities or other property that the participant contributes for the purchase of an ownership interest in the pool;
( ii ) The corporation demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commission that it has established procedures adequate to assure compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; and
( iii ) The Commission finds that the exemption is not contrary to the public interest and to the purposes of the provision from which the exemption is sought.
( b ) All funds, securities or other property received by a commodity pool operator from an existing or prospective pool participant for the purchase of an interest or as an assessment (whether voluntary or involuntary) on an interest in a pool that it operates or that it intends to operate must be received in the pool's name.
( c ) No commodity pool operator may commingle the property of any pool that it operates or that it intends to operate with the property of any other person.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3038-0005) [46 FR 26013, May 8, 1981, as amended at 46 FR 34311, July 1, 1981; 46 FR 63035, Dec. 30, 1981]
FINAL-Revised 8/9/01

Changes are in bold.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 01-579 ENGINEER: Hall/GSK 

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: 

USE: . 

 

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

General Eqp.: 

 

Respirator: 

Health Effects: 

TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): 

VP: torr @25C 

S-H2O: g/L 

MW: 

Phys State: 

Proc/Form

End Use: 

Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns): Related cases (if referenced): 

PBT Potential: P1B1T2 

Ground Water: migration to ground water = negligible 

Health: 2; Dermal, inhalation, drinking water 

Eco: 3; All releases to surface waters 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 2 

ASSUMPTIONS: Inhalation exposure spreadsheet saved to LAN. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3 

PMN: 01-0579 

MFG: 

Site/Location: 

Days/yr: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

WATER: 

from: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4 

P01-0579 (Mfg - continued) 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: (submitter estimate) 

 Days/yr: (submitter estimate) 

Inhalation: 

typical

worst: 

Number of workers with inhalation exposure: 

Basis: 

 

Dermal

 

Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 5 

PMN: 01-0579 

PROC: 

Site/Location: (submitter estimate) 

Days/yr: (submitter estimate) 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: (submitter estimate) 

 Days/yr: (submitter estimate) 

Inhalation: 

typical: 

worst: 

Number of workers with inhalation exposure: 

Basis: 

 

Dermal

 

Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 6 

PMN: 01-0579 

USE: 

Site/Location: (submitter estimate, see p. 29) 

Days/yr: (submitter estimate) 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: up to (submitter estimate) 

 Days/yr: (submitter estimate) 

Inhalation: 

typical: 

worst: 

Number of workers with inhalation exposure: 

Basis: 

 

 

Dermal

 

Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
 CONTACT REPORT 

(Telephone Log)

PMN: 01-0579 

Call By: Grace Kitzmiller (Eastern Research Group for 

EPA/OPPT/CEB) 

Call To: 

Submitter: 

Date: 5/21/01 

Time: 11:15 am 

Q1: 

A1: 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 10.1


                  DESCRIPTION OF MICHAEL MCNEIL 2006 BONUS PLAN

     The Michael McNeil 2006 Bonus Plan is designed to link Mr. McNeil's
compensation more directly to the Company's corporate goals and performance.
Under the 2006 Bonus Plan, the compensation committee determines the bonus
amount for Mr. McNeil based on the Company's attainment of annual financial
goals. Mr. McNeil is eligible to receive up to $200,000 based on the Company's
actual earnings relative to the financial goals established. The compensation
committee may adjust the earnings goals at the end of the year to address the
"quality" of the earnings and other environmental factors that may have
contributed positively or negatively to the Company's actual earnings.
**Exhibit 10.23****AMENDMENT TO SENIOR SUBORDINATED NOTE**THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), dated as of this 10th day of August, 2007 by andbetween ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP., a Colorado corporation, having an office at 700Seventeenth Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 80202 (“Maker”) and GDBA INVESTMENTS, LLLP, aColorado limited liability limited partnership, having an office at 1440 Blake Street, Denver,Colorado 80202 (“Holder”).WITNESSETH:WHEREAS, Maker has executed and delivered to Holder a Senior Subordinated Note dated September28, 2006 (the “Note”) to evidence Maker’s indebtedness to Holder in the principal amount of ThreeMillion Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000.00); andWHEREAS, Maker and Holder amended such Senior Subordinated Note (“Amendment No. 1”) on March30, 2007 to further subordinate the Note to a credit facility to be extended to Maker by UnitedWestern Bank and otherwise modify certain terms and provisions of the Note; andWHEREAS, the Note and Amendment No. 1, which incorporates all provisions of the Note, containa negative covenant which listed an “Event of Default”under the Note as a net loss underGAAP of greater than $1,000,000 in any calendar quarter.NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth herein above, and for other goodand valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, intendingto be legally bound, the parties hereto do hereby mutually and expressly understand and agree asfollows:1. Waiver. The parties hereto agree to waive the provisions of Section 3(i) of theNote of as they relate to the Maker’s recognition of impairment charges in its financial statementsunder Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007. Therecognition of impairment charges by Maker in its financial statements under GenerallyAccepted Accounting Principles for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 will not be considered bythe parties to be an Event of Default under Note or Amendment No. 1.2. Ratification. Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms of the Noteare ratified and reaffirmed and remain in full force and effect.3. Inurement. The terms and conditions of this Amendment shall be binding upon andshall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.4. Governing Law. The terms and conditions of this Amendment shall be governed by theapplicable laws of the State of Colorado.[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
 
 

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have each caused this Agreement to be executed by theirrespective duly authorized representatives, as of the day and year first above written.           MAKER:           ACROSS AMERICA REAL ESTATE CORP.,
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Octo ber 5 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 5 , 2020

161 662

161 848

IVY ALICE WIMMER

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 1614 66 , 1616 45

COA: 353 685

Oakland CC: 2012

- 802216

- DO

MARIO ALLAN MONTANO

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_______________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the interlocutory application and the application for

leave to appeal are administratively dismissed for th e failure of plaintiff

- appellant to pay

the outstanding fees. The clerk of the Court shall not to accept further filings from the

plaintiff

- appellant in any civil matter until the sanctions ordered by this Court in No.

161152, IW v MM ($500.00) and No. 16 1299, Montano v Court of Appeals ($1,000.00)

are paid in full.
### §17615. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 17615 was editorially reclassified as section 21115 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Richard C. Ford, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
              ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
              1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and
         2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.

                                            November 12, 2004



                                            /s/ Richard C. Ford
                                            ------------------------
                                            Name: Richard C. Ford
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer