alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SIEGEL v. EHRSHOWSKY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

1. Mechanic’s Lien—Amount Due—Disjunctive Statement.

"Where a mechanic’s lien stated that “the agreed price or value” of plaintiff’s work was 8250, the lien was fatally defective, the disjunctive statement excluding both of the matters sought to be affirmed.

2. Same—Judgment Against Owner—Privity op Contract.

Where, in a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, it was neither alleged nor claimed that a contractual relation existed between the owner and the lienor, a personal judgment could not be awarded against such owner on the lien being held invalid.

*7343. Same—Complaint—Amount Due.

In an action to foreclose' a mechanic’s' lien; the complaint, failing to state that any sum was actually due to the original contractor, was fatally defective.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Max Siegel against Samuel Ehrshowsky. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

House, Grossman & Vorhaus, for appellant.

I. Cohn, for respondent.

O’GORMAN, J.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, brings suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The performance of plaintiff’s work was not seriously disputed, and the conclusion of the trial justice that there was an amount due from the defendant to the principal contractor sufficient to cover plaintiff’s claim- is amply supported by the evidence. The judgment however, must be reversed for a defect in the notice of lien and for failure of necessary averments in the complaint. The mechanic’s lien stated that “the agreed price or value thereof is two hundred and fifty dollars.” It has been frequently held that a statement in the disjunctive excludes both of the matters thereby sought to be affirmed, and is not in compliance with the law. In Villaume v. Kirchner (Sup.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 377, this court held a lien defective because of the alternative statement of “the agreed price or value.” The validity of this lien cannot, therefore, be upheld, and a personal judgment cannot be awarded against the owner, as it is not alleged or claimed that a contractual relation existed between him and the lienor. The omission to state in the complaint that any sum was actually due to the original contractor was fatal, apart from the defect in the lien, and no attempt was made upon the trial to amend. Ball v. Clark, 31 App. Div. 356, 52 N. Y. Supp. 443.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to defendant to abide event. All concur.
#### Nicholas Bonghi, Appellant, v New York Telephone Company et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[715 NYS2d 137]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff, a cable television maintenance technician, was injured when he fell from a ladder that had been positioned against a utility pole owned jointly by defendants. Plaintiff had been dispatched to repair a cable line. At the time of the accident, he was connecting the cable line to the utility pole when a truck struck the cable line that was dangling across the roadway, pulling plaintiff backwards off the ladder. Although the utility pole is a structure within the meaning of section 240 (1) *(see, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N. Y.,*78 NY2d 942, 943), defendants are not liable under that section “because they are not ‘owners’ of the television cable line being repaired or altered by plaintiff at the time of the accident *(see,*Labor Law § 240 [1]), and did not otherwise act in the capacity of an owner *(see, Mangiameli v Galante,*171 AD2d 162, 164)” *(Fuller v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*213 AD2d 986, 987, *lv denied*86 NY2d 708; *see, Ray v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*256 AD2d 1070). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Reargument.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lucille Dellaripa, Appellant, v Joseph Dellaripa, Respondent.

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated November 25, 1977, which granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. The Family Court held, as a matter of law, that it had no jurisdiction to consider the support petition of a wife who was not a public charge when it appeared that she was living with her husband and their minor child in the same house. Under section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, a court may direct support in an appropriate case even when the parties are occupying the same abode. While that section specifically applies to matrimonial actions, it expresses the policy of this State with respect to support orders and may be used by the Family Court in the context of a support proceeding otherwise properly before it *(Matter of Steinberg v Steinberg,*18 NY2d 492). This court has long held the view that the fact that two parties live under the same roof does not itself preclude the making of a support order (see *LowenGsh v Lowenñsh,*278 App Div 716). While it may ultimately appear that no order of support is warranted in this case, such a determination can only be made after the facts have been developed at a hearing on the merits. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 25, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 25, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0214. KAREN J. ALBRIGHT v. JONATHON ALBRIGHT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2012CV224994
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75314-75315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27480]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center Web site at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 10, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

[[Page 75315]]

    1. FC Holdings, Inc., Houston, Texas, and First Community Holdings 
of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to become bank holding 
companies by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First 
Community Bank San Antonio, National Association, San Antonio, Texas.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 10, 
2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-27480 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
### §3057o. Funding set aside

Of the funds appropriated under section 3057n(1) for a fiscal year, not more than 5 percent shall be made available to carry out part D for such fiscal year, provided that for such fiscal year—

(1) the funds appropriated for parts A and B are greater than the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2019; and

(2) the Assistant Secretary makes available for parts A and B no less than the amount of resources made available for fiscal year 2019.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §644, as added Pub. L. 116–131, title V, §501(1)(B), Mar. 25, 2020, 134 Stat. 267.)
# Publicatieblad L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0758 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | L 016I |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Wetgeving | 62e jaargang18 januari 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0758

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

L 016I

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Wetgeving

62e jaargang18 januari 2019

---

| Inhoud | | Rectificaties | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Rectificatie van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2019/73 van de Commissie van 17 januari 2019 tot instelling van een definitief antidumpingrecht en tot definitieve inning van het voorlopige antidumpingrecht op elektrische fietsen van oorsprong uit de Volksrepubliek China ( PB L 16 van 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Inhoud

Rectificaties

Bladzijde

*

Rectificatie van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2019/73 van de Commissie van 17 januari 2019 tot instelling van een definitief antidumpingrecht en tot definitieve inning van het voorlopige antidumpingrecht op elektrische fietsen van oorsprong uit de Volksrepubliek China ( PB L 16 van 18.1.2019 )

( PB L 16 van 18.1.2019 )

1

| NL | Besluiten waarvan de titels mager zijn gedrukt, zijn besluiten van dagelijks beheer die in het kader van het landbouwbeleid zijn genomen en die in het algemeen een beperkte geldigheidsduur hebben.
  Besluiten waarvan de titels vet zijn gedrukt en die worden voorafgegaan door een sterretje, zijn alle andere besluiten. |
| --- | --- |

NL

Besluiten waarvan de titels mager zijn gedrukt, zijn besluiten van dagelijks beheer die in het kader van het landbouwbeleid zijn genomen en die in het algemeen een beperkte geldigheidsduur hebben.

Besluiten waarvan de titels vet zijn gedrukt en die worden voorafgegaan door een sterretje, zijn alle andere besluiten.

---

Rectificaties

| 18.1.2019 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

LI 16/1

---

Rectificatie van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2019/73 van de Commissie van 17 januari 2019 tot instelling van een definitief antidumpingrecht en tot definitieve inning van het voorlopige antidumpingrecht op elektrische fietsen van oorsprong uit de Volksrepubliek China

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie L 16 van 18 januari 2019
  )

Bladzijde 135, artikel 4:

in plaats van:

„Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.”,

lezen:

„Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.

Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.”.

---
Exhibit 32.2

















CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/Mac McConnell


Mac McConnell


Chief Financial Officer





May 10, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### §290ee–2a. Peer support technical assistance center

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, shall establish or operate a National Peer-Run Training and Technical Assistance Center for Addiction Recovery Support (referred to in this section as the "Center").

#### (b) Functions

The Center established under subsection (a) shall provide technical assistance and support to recovery community organizations and peer support networks, including such assistance and support related to—

(1) training on identifying—

(A) signs of substance use disorder;

(B) resources to assist individuals with a substance use disorder, or resources for families of an individual with a substance use disorder; and

(C) best practices for the delivery of recovery support services;

(2) the provision of translation services, interpretation, or other such services for clients with limited English speaking proficiency;

(3) data collection to support research, including for translational research;

(4) capacity building; and

(5) evaluation and improvement, as necessary, of the effectiveness of such services provided by recovery community organizations.

#### (c) Best practices

The Center established under subsection (a) shall periodically issue best practices for use by recovery community organizations and peer support networks.

#### (d) Recovery community organization

In this section, the term "recovery community organization" has the meaning given such term in section 290ee–2 of this title.

#### (e) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §547A, as added Pub. L. 115–271, title VII, §7152, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4058.)
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I,Robert L. Voelk, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omtool, Ltd.;

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

**b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transitioninstructions contained in SEC Releases 33-8760, 34-47986 and33-8618.]**

 

c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:November 14, 2007

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Robert  L. Voelk     |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Robert L.  Voelk         |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 1471.9 Duties of each party following receipt of recommendations. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a report containing recommendations of the Panel or its designated representative, each party shall, after conferring with the other, either: ( 1 ) Accept the recommendations and so notify the Executive Director; or
( 2 ) Reach a settlement of all unresolved issues and submit a written settlement statement to the Executive Director; or
( 3 ) Submit a written statement to the Executive Director setting forth the reasons for not accepting the recommendations and for not reaching a settlement of all unresolved issues.
( b ) A reasonable extension of time may be authorized by the Executive Director for good cause shown when requested in writing by either party prior to the expiration of the time limits.
( c ) All papers submitted to the Executive Director under this section shall be filed in duplicate, along with a statement of service showing that a copy has been served on the other party to the dispute.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION NO. 3:08-CV-3518 MMC

2067589-1 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD JASON PALMIERI, P.C. Ronald Jason Palmieri (CA Bar No. 96953) 

1644 North Orange Grove Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90046 

TELEPHONE: (323) 882-8225 FACSIMILE: (323) 882-8208 lawofcsrjp@aol.com

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP

Carole E. Handler (CA Bar No. 129381) 

9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 

Beverly Hills, CA 90212 

TELEPHONE: (310) 860-8705 FACSIMILE: (310) 860-3805 handler@wildman.com

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP

Peter N. Moore (admitted pro hac vice) 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL 60606-1229 

TELEPHONE: (312) 201-2000 FACSIMILE: (312) 201-2555 pmoore@wildman.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

REUNION.COM, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIOLETTA HOANG, LIVIA HSIAO, and

MICHAEL BLACKSBURG, and MATTHEW

HALL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

REUNION.COM, INC., a California corporation,

 Defendant. 

No. 3:08-cv-3518 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 

TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING APPEAL

Date: April 14, 2010 Judge: Hon. Maxine Chesney Courtroom 7 (19th Floor) 

AND DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES

Case 3:08-cv-03518-MMC Document 131 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION NO. 3:08-CV-3518 MMC

2067589-1 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having reviewed Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Stay Discovery Pending 

Appeal, the supporting papers, and all other related documents in the Court’s file, and 

for good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

the Case Management Conference previously set for May 28, 2010 is continued 

and discovery stayed in the instant action until, either: 

(1) the Ninth Circuit issues a decision finally determining the issues addressed 

in the Court’s March 31, 2010 Order; 

(2) Defendant’s request for certification is denied by the Court; or 

(3) the Ninth Circuit refuses to permit appeal of the certified Order. 

Dated: ___________ _________________________________

District Judge Maxine M. Chesney 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California. 

plaintiffs' opposition,

^

(2

If the stay has not been lifted as of December 3, 2010, the parties are DIRECTED to file a joint

status report no later than December 10, 2010.

July 2 vacated

June 9, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-03518-MMC Document 131 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05758**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05758\05758_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05758\05758_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 05758\05758_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05758\05758_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05758\05758_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05758\05758_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05758\05758_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05758\05758_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 05758\Certification Statement_05758.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 05758\Supporting Documentation\05758_Lee A5-2 Aerial Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05758\Supporting Documentation\05758_Lee A5-2 Aerial Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05758\Supporting Documentation\05758_Lee A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05758\Supporting Documentation\05758_Lee D3-1 Pond-1 Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05758\Supporting Documentation\05758_Lee D3-1 Pond-2 Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Forest resources of the UnitedStates.**
 
1992 | 1997 |2002 | 2007| 2012 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.88/5:
Item Number:0083-B-42 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000828834
 
August 21, 2019
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 -68

36 38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/14 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 14 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.50 N 76.81 WMeters AGL
#### § 1506.8 Will an omission by the Agency in complying with this part serve as a debtor's defense against payment?

Failure by USADF to comply with any provision of this Part is not available to a debtor as a defense against payment of a debt.