alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M.A.R.S. Homes Incorporated, Respondent, v Frank A. Chiodo, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[716 NYS2d 206]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion *1057denied. Memorandum: In this action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against Frank A. Chiodo (defendant) for the amount stated in the notice of lien. Plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien in the amount of $11,426 against defendant’s property. The lien arose from the construction of a foundation for a new home to be built on defendant’s property. The record establishes that plaintiff had issued defendant two credits, one for $11,000 and the other for $5,400, toward “construction of a house.” Plaintiff applied the $5,400 credit toward construction of the foundation, but asserted that the $11,000 credit was to be applied to construction of the rest of the house. Plaintiff concedes that each credit on its face is unrestricted. It is well established that the burden is on the lienor to show that there is a sum due to which its lien could attach *(see, Philan Dept. v Foster-Lipkins Corp.,*39 AD2d 633, 634, *affd*33 NY2d 709; *Brainard v County of Kings,*155 NY 538, 543-544). On this record, there is a triable issue of fact whether the $11,000 credit should be applied to the construction of the foundation, thus defeating plaintiff’s right to recover the amount stated in the mechanic’s lien *(see, Bevy Contr. v Sinrod,*188 AD2d 576, 577). Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
§ 224.16 Disqualification of reviewing official or ALJ. ( a ) A reviewing official or ALJ in a particular case may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) A party may file with the ALJ a motion for disqualification of a reviewing official or ALJ. Such motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit alleging personal bias or other reason for disqualification.
( c ) Such motion and affidavit shall be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections shall be deemed waived.
( d ) Such affidavit shall state specific facts that support the party's belief that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists and the time and circumstances of the party's discovery of such facts. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of the representative of record that it is made in good faith.
( e ) Upon the filing of such a motion and affidavit, the ALJ shall proceed no further in the case until he or she resolves the matter of disqualification in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
( f ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ determines that the reviewing official is disqualified, the ALJ shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
( 2 ) If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case shall be reassigned promptly to another ALJ.
( 3 ) If the ALJ denies a motion to disqualify, the A.I.D. Administrator may determine the matter only as part of his or her review of the initial decision upon appeal, if any.
### §2213. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §637(b), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 791

Section, Pub. L. 99–272, title VII, §7601, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 146; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5601, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–275; Pub. L. 101–239, title III, §3201, Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2132; Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, §6101(e), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–299, related to assessment and collection of annual charges from Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §637(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 791, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending section 2214 of this title and repealing this section] take effect on October 1, 2006."
#### § 1506.24 Are there any limitations on the amount of salary deduction?

Installment deduction will be made over the period of active duty or employment. The size and frequency of the installment deductions generally will bear a reasonable relation to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. However, an amount deducted for any period may not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount. If possible, the installment payments should be in amounts sufficient to liquidate the debt within a period of three years or less. Installment payments of less than $50 will be accepted only in the most unusual circumstances.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS
E ASTLAND , T EXAS
J UDGMENT

J ulia Norwich, * From the 2 44 th District Court of E ctor County Trial Court No. C

- 16

- 02

- 0106

- CV

.

Vs . No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 339

- CV * December 5
, 201 9

J ack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion and Permian Hospitality Group, LLC, (Panel consists of: Bailey
, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment) ( Willson, J., not participating )

This court ha s c onsidered J ack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, and Permian Hospitality Group, LLC ’s motion to dismiss their cross

- appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the cross

- appeal is dismissed. The appeal filed by Julia Norwich remains active. The costs incurred by reason of th e cross

- appeal are taxed again st Jack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, and Permian Hospitality Group, LLC

.
### §19101. Establishment

There is established within the Foundation the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships to advance research and development, technology development, and related solutions to address United States societal, national, and geostrategic challenges, for the benefit of all Americans.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10381, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1576.)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ZENON NAJDZION, DC #C12275, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-1646 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 18, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE and SALARIO, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
POWER OF ATTORNEY     Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each  of Susan A. Stone and Stathy Darcy, signing singly, the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney- in-fact to:    (1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as an  officer and/or director of CNA Financial Corporation (the “Company”), Forms 3, 4,  and 5 in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  the rules thereunder; and    (2)    do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which may be  necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, 4, or 5,  complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file  such form with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any  stock exchange or similar authority; and    (3)   take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing  which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best  interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that the  documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned  pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such  terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such attorney-in- fact’s discretion.    The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to  do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary, or proper to be  done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and  purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of  substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such  attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this  power of attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges  that the forgoing attorney-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the undersigned,  are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the undersigned’s responsibilities to  comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.    This Power of Attorney shall supersede any existing power of attorney and shall remain  in full force and effect until a successor power of attorney is executed or the undersigned is no  longer required to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the undersigned’s holdings of and  transactions in securities issued by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in  a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be  executed as of this 11th day of February, 2022.            /s/ Scott R. Lindquist        _________________________        Name: Scott R. Lindquist
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           5    
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020424
<NAME>                        Convergence Communications, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         3,288,650
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  862,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    131,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,520,505
<PP&E>                                         3,808,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,888,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,758,297
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    101
<COMMON>                                       11,738
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,599,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,888,120
<SALES>                                        1,249,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,249,446
<CGS>                                          1,073,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,654,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,302,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,302,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,302,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.47)
        


</TABLE>
§ 37.8 Boards of trade operating both a designated contract market and a swap execution facility. ( a ) An entity that intends to operate both a designated contract market and a swap execution facility shall separately register the two entities pursuant to the designated contract market designation procedures set forth in part 38 of this chapter and the swap execution facility registration procedures set forth in this part. On an ongoing basis, the entity shall comply with the core principles for designated contract markets under section 5(d) of the Act and the regulations under part 38 of this chapter and the core principles for swap execution facilities under section 5h of the Act and the regulations under this part.
( b ) A board of trade, as defined in section 1a(6) of the Act, that operates both a designated contract market and a swap execution facility and that uses the same electronic trade execution system for executing and trading swaps on the designated contract market and on the swap execution facility shall clearly identify to market participants for each swap whether the execution or trading of such swaps is taking place on the designated contract market or on the swap execution facility.
#### § 204.13 Non-impairment of the guaranty.

The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged to the performance of this Guaranty. The Guaranty shall not be affected or impaired by any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by the Lender, A.I.D., the Paying Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guaranty. This non-impairment of the guaranty provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any amount arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the Lender or Assignee is responsible or of which it had knowledge prior to the time it became such Lender or Assignee.
#### In the Matter of John D. Murchison, Respondent, v. Alleghany Corporation, Appellant, and Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, Respondent.

Order "entered on December 14, 1960, granting petitioner’s application for an order directing respondent-appellant and its transfer agent, Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, to furnish him with copies of the stock list of respondent-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Maude Balder, appellee, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,570.

Action for damages for an assault upon plaintiff by one of defendant’s agents in furtherance of its business. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1922.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Hoyne & O’Connor, for appellant. Augustine J. Bowe and William J. Bowe, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
United States
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                Washington, D.C.

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT


     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

          Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) May 13, 1998


                     Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


         Bermuda                         1-4668                     NONE
State or other jurisdiction            (Commission             (IRS Employer
    of incorporation)                  File Number)          Identification No.)
                                                      

Clarendon House, Church Street, Hamilton HM DX, BERMUDA             NONE
       (Address of principal executive offices)                   (Zip Code)


        Registrant's telephone number, including area code (441) 295-1422


         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)



<PAGE>


                                       
                                    FORM 8-K

                     COASTAL CARIBBEAN OILS & MINERALS, LTD.





Item 5.   Other Events

         On May 13, 1998, the State of Florida Administration  Commission issued
the following order regarding  Coastal Petroleum  Company's pending  application
for a drilling permit:

         The Commission rejects the recommended  $224,488,571 surety amount, and
remands this  proceeding  to DOAH  [Division  of  Administrative  Hearings]  for
further proceedings limited to the following two issues:

         1.      A.  Projected  natural  resource  damages  for  a "maximum  oil
                 spill" should be recalculated,  based upon a daily flow rate of
                 5,948 barrels,  to account for the maximum time needed to drill
                 a relief  well as found in  paragraph  100  of the  Recommended
                 Order; and

                 B.  Projected cleanup costs shall be recalculated in accordance
                 with the foregoing directions.

         On or before May 26,  1998,  the Florida  Department  of  Environmental
Protection  is also  expected to act on the pending  application  for a drilling
permit.



<PAGE>





                                   SIGNATURES


          Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the  registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                         COASTAL CARIBBEAN OILS & MINERALS, LTD.
                                                        (Registrant)



                                         By /s/ Benjamin W. Heath
                                                Benjamin W. Heath
                                                President

Date:  May 13, 1998
#### Guisepping Muscarella, Respondent, v. National Casualty Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### § 238.16 Governing Law.

The Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America governing contracts and commercial transactions of the United States Government.
#### § 221.21 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with A.I.D. an Application for Compensation in the form provided in exhibit A. A.I.D. shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than three (3) Business Days after the Date of Application. In the event that A.I.D. receives any other notice of an Event of Default, A.I.D. may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to a Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with A.I.D. an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.
#### Susan von Ohlen, Appellant, v Vladimir Piskacek et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[717 NYS2d 221]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for medical malpractice and negligence, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 4, 1999, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Vladimir Piskacek which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and fourth causes of action insofar as asserted against him, and granted the separate motions of the defendants Daniel W. Schwartz and Eugene Becker for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, dated July 12, 1999, which is in favor of the defendant Daniel Schwartz and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted the motion of the defendant Daniel Schwartz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs

The appeal from so much of the intermediate order as granted the motion of the defendant Daniel Schwartz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in favor of that defendant in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

It is well settled that to maintain an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the existence of a doctor-patient relationship is necessary *(see, Heller v Peekskill Community Hosp.,*198 AD2d 265; *Lee v City of New York,*162 AD2d 34). In *376the instant action, no such relationship existed between the plaintiff and the respondents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the causes of action based on medical malpractice *(cf., Gilinsky v Indelicato,*894 F Supp 86; *Heller v Peekskill Community Hosp., supra; Hickey v Travelers Ins. Co.,*158 AD2d 112; *Cogswell v Chapman,*249 AD2d 865). Moreover, the respondents Eugene Becker and Daniel Schwartz had no duty to warn the plaintiff of her husband’s vicious tendencies. The plaintiff was well aware of those tendencies, because her husband had stabbed her on a previous occasion *(see, Adams v Elgart,*213 AD2d 436, 438; *Wagshall v Wagshall,*148 AD2d 445). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claims insofar as asserted against those respondents. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4365 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4365

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the 
     Thrift Savings Fund are subject to certain Federal tax levies.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.
    Section 8437(e)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended in 
the first sentence--
        (1) by striking ``659)'' and inserting ``659),''; and
        (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
    following: ``, and shall be subject to a Federal tax levy under 
    section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
SEC. 2. DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS.
    Any potential revenue gain attributable to the enactment of this 
Act, as determined by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office--
        (1) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of 
    the United States; and
        (2) shall be used solely for purposes of deficit reduction.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 240.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under this Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.