alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Olga Sindone, Appellant, v. La Sala Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Motion by claimant-appellant to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted, upon condition that the appeal be perfected, note of issue filed and record and brief served and filed on or before February 15, 1961 and the case be ready for argument at the March 1961 Term of this court. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief.
# Az Európai Unió L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0731 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | L 016I |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Jogszabályok | 62. évfolyam2019. január 18. |

ISSN 1977-0731

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

L 016I

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Jogszabályok

62. évfolyam2019. január 18.

---

| Tartalom | | Helyesbítések | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Helyesbítés a Kínai Népköztársaságból származó elektromos kerékpárok behozatalára vonatkozó végleges dömpingellenes vám kivetéséről és a kivetett ideiglenes vám végleges beszedéséről szóló, 2019. január 17-i bizottsági végrehajtási rendelethez ( HL L 16., 2019.1.18. ) | 1 |

Tartalom

Helyesbítések

Oldal

*

Helyesbítés a Kínai Népköztársaságból származó elektromos kerékpárok behozatalára vonatkozó végleges dömpingellenes vám kivetéséről és a kivetett ideiglenes vám végleges beszedéséről szóló, 2019. január 17-i bizottsági végrehajtási rendelethez ( HL L 16., 2019.1.18. )

( HL L 16., 2019.1.18. )

1

| HU | Azok a jogi aktusok, amelyek címe normál szedéssel jelenik meg, a mezőgazdasági ügyek napi intézésére vonatkoznak, és rendszerint csak korlátozott ideig maradnak hatályban.
  Valamennyi más jogszabály címét vastagon szedik, és előtte csillag szerepel. |
| --- | --- |

HU

Azok a jogi aktusok, amelyek címe normál szedéssel jelenik meg, a mezőgazdasági ügyek napi intézésére vonatkoznak, és rendszerint csak korlátozott ideig maradnak hatályban.

Valamennyi más jogszabály címét vastagon szedik, és előtte csillag szerepel.

---

Helyesbítések

| 2019.1.18. | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2019.1.18.

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

LI 16/1

---

Helyesbítés a Kínai Népköztársaságból származó elektromos kerékpárok behozatalára vonatkozó végleges dömpingellenes vám kivetéséről és a kivetett ideiglenes vám végleges beszedéséről szóló, 2019. január 17-i bizottsági végrehajtási rendelethez

(
  Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja L 16., 2019. január 18.
  )

A 135. oldalon, a 4. cikk:

alábbi szövege elé:

„Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.”,

a következő szövegrész kerül:

„Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő napon lép hatályba.”.

---
### §3797a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797a was editorially reclassified as section 10551 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 235.15 Notice.

Any communication to USAID pursuant to the Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Floyd, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 16, 1977, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. That sentence has since been served. Judgment reversed, on the law, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. Assuming, *arguendo,*that the delay between the filing of the felony complaint herein (on Nov. 28, 1975) and the conclusion of the felony hearing (on Feb. 6, 1976) may be disregarded in its entirety (see *People v Goodman,*41 NY2d 888), we believe that the unexplained delay of more than six months between the time that defendant was held for the action of a Grand Jury and the return of the indictment operated to deprive him of his right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.30, subd 1, par [a]; *People v Sturgis,*38 NY2d 625). Since the operative facts have not been denied by the People, and since they have not even requested this court to order a hearing in the event of a reversal on this ground, we believe that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for a hearing in accordance with CPL 210.45 (see *People v Gruden,*42 NY2d 214, 217; see, also, *People v Swinton,*52 AD2d 561, 562). Unlike the situation in *Gruden (supra),*there has been no showing on this record that the practice which prevailed in Queens County during the period in question was the same or similar to that which prevailed in Westchester County during the time period involved therein (see *People v Gruden, supra,*p 218). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LUKE D. BRUGNARA,

Defendant. /

No. CR 08-0222 WHA

NOTICE TO

ATTORNEY TABACK

Attorney Harris Taback should talk to his client Luke Brugnara to learn what he

telephoned in to the deputy courtroom clerk. Please advise your client that telephone messages

do not matter and are not proper motions. The guilty plea can only be set aside upon a proper

motion and even then only upon a record warranting such relief. Any further communications

to the Court should be via counsel of record.

Dated: February 5, 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00222-WHA Document 75 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Builders Mechanic Co., Appellant, v Samuel Claiborne, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 871]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated August 10, 1998, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint and vacate the mechanic’s lien.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“In order to avoid a default, a plaintiff served with a 90 day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 must comply either by timely filing a note of issue or moving for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004 *(see, Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp.,*152 AD2d 552). Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiff was obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal *(see,*CPLR 3216 [e]; *Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., supra)” (Neu v Paul Realty Co.,*260 AD2d 615, 616; *see, Russo v Automotive Rentals,*247 AD2d 603). As the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely serve and file a note of issue, or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time within which to comply, the Supreme "Court providently exercised its discretion by granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
T28N rE aj H
"Pathfinder |
‘ Reservoir :
7 1 27
| , 8 { |
} ®
\ “| | |
hs | 6
a
of | % 25 Seminoe / i
oi | ae /
, 41 4 j 88 24 3 a / |
t ] j ‘ at 2 ey |
1oe¢ ! s 23 p : j
z; | 1. |
} | : :
1a | 22 m7 |
2 | rt } Medicine Bow % i
| : | Rawlins 21 Xe, XG
yi eal ie .
¢ & Pd 20 iat ten Rock me
Ra el wee eee nats,
———= 1 j P| De 4 a 194 sh.
2 |
i] a :
1 18
1
a!
a | 17 Saratoga &
3 ee %
\ ¥ 16
7
IN rr | 15
Ka Elz Encampment | _
i 3 14 e
tons
; ae 3
I
R98W 97 96 By 93 92 é 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82-81 \ 73778
Baggs T12N Bl

=== Designated Right-of-Way Corridors
1 Exxon/Frontier Natural Gas Pipelines
2 Spence-Bairoil-Jim Bridger 230 kV Transmission Line
3 CIG Natural Gas Pipelines
4 Lost Creek Natural Gas Pipeline
5 Sinclair Natural Gas Pipelines
6 WAPA Powerline
7 1-80 Corridor

ape Other Utility/Transportation Corridors

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

100

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

Map 2-2
Designated Right-of-Way Corridors
#### § 233.16 Governing law.

This 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.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA ROVAI-PICKETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HMS HOST, INC., HOTEL EMPLOYEES &

RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL #2,

DOES 1 THRU 50,

Defendants. /

No. CV-08-1625 MMC 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED defendant’s motions for summary

judgment are, in each instance, hereby GRANTED.

Dated: January 15, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-01625-MMC Document 113 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 1306.5 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs. Except as otherwise provided by statute, contract or excluded in accordance with the FCCS, MCC will assess: ( a ) Interest on delinquent debts in accordance with 31 CFR 901.9.
( b ) Penalties at the rate of 6 percent a year or such other rate as authorized by law on any portion of a debt that is delinquent for more than 90 days.
( c ) Administrative costs to cover the costs of processing and calculating delinquent debts.
( d ) Late payment charges under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be computed from the date of delinquency.
( e ) When a debt is paid in partial or installment payments, amounts received shall be applied first to outstanding penalty and administrative cost charges, second to accrued interest, and then to outstanding principal.
( f ) MCC shall consider waiver of interest, penalties and/or administrative costs in accordance with the FCCS, 31 CFR 901.9(g).
§ 215.8 Agency review of request for amendment of record. ( a ) The Agency will examine the information requested to be amended to determine its accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and its relevancy and necessity to accomplish a purpose of the Agency required to be accomplished by statute or by executive order.
( b ) Within ten (10) working days after the receipt by the Assistant Director for Administration or the Privacy Liaison Officer, of a request made in accordance with this section, the Assistant Director for Administration or the Privacy Liaison Officer shall acknowledge in writing such receipt and shall, after examination in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, promptly either: ( 1 ) Make any amendment of any portion thereof which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely or complete, and notify the individual of the amendment made; or
( 2 ) Inform the individual of the Agency's refusal to amend the record in accordance with the request, the reason(s) for the refusal, and the procedures established by the Agency for the individual to request a review of that refusal.
( c ) If the Agency agrees with the individual's request to amend a record, in addition to proceeding as set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, it shall promptly advise all previous recipients of the record of the fact that the amendment was made and the substance of the amendment where an accounting of disclosures has been made.
( d ) If unusual circumstances prevent the completion of Agency action on the request to amend within 30 days after the receipt thereof by the Assistant Director for Administration or the Privacy Liaison Officer, the individual will be promptly advised of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and of the date by which the review is expected to be completed.
( e ) If the Agency, after its initial examination of the record and the request for Amendment, disagrees with all or any part of the individual's request to amend it shall: ( 1 ) To the extent the Agency agrees with any part of the individual's request to amend, proceed as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section;
( 2 ) Advise the individual of its refusal and the reason(s) therefor;
( 3 ) Inform the individual that he or she may request a further review by the Director or the Administrator, or their designees; and
( 4 ) Describe the procedures for requesting such review, including the name and address of the official to whom the request should be directed.
( f ) No part of these regulations shall be construed to permit: ( 1 ) The alteration of evidence presented in the course of judicial, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative proceedings;
( 2 ) Collateral attack upon any matter which has been the subject of judicial or quasi-judicial action; or
( 3 ) An amendment or correction which would be in violation of an existing statute, executive order or regulation.
### §300x–29. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–255, div. B, title VIII, §8002(f), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1230

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1929, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §202, July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 396, related to submission to Secretary of statewide assessment of needs.

A prior section 1929 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 300y–8 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–280.
#### Evelyn R. Reisinger et al., Respondents, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs seek to recover first-party benefits for injuries sustained by Evelyn R. Reisinger when the gas cook stove in the insured "mini motor home” exploded during use. At the time the motor vehicle was parked in a campground and Mrs. Reisinger was preparing breakfast. The vehicle is of a familiar type, motorized, with living quarters built into the vehicle. Appellant issued the policy on the vehicle which included standard no-fault coverage. Article XVIII of the Insurance Law, the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act, calls for the payment of first-party benefits to reimburse a person for basic economic loss on account of personal injury arising out of the "use or operation” of a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs contend that "use or operation” is broad enough to include any use for which the vehicle was designed. We disagree. The no-fault coverage required by the statute applies for use of the motor vehicle qua motor vehicle, not the use of equipment built into the vehicle to serve some other function (see *McConnell v Firemen’s Fund Amer. Ins. Co.,*49 AD2d 676; 12 Couch, Insurance [2d ed], § 45:47). All concur, except Cardamone, J. P., who dissents and votes to affirm the judgment on the decision at Special Term, Mastrella, J. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment—insurance policy.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock and Denman, JJ.
### §17631. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 17631 was editorially reclassified as section 21131 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §3796ff–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ff–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10423 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 1508.505 Who uses the EPLS? ( a ) Federal agency officials use the *EPLS* to determine whether to enter into a transaction with a person, as required under § 1508.430.
( b ) Participants also may, but are not required to, use the *EPLS* to determine if— ( 1 ) Principals of their transactions are excluded or disqualified, as required under § 1508.320; or
( 2 ) Persons with whom they are entering into covered transactions at the next lower tier are excluded or disqualified.
( c ) The *EPLS* is available to the general public.
Exhibit 10.1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT




JOHN T. DELMORE





	•	 	Will continue in role as officer and director to handle matters pertaining to the winddown of the LTV Steel and LTV
Corp. estates
	 
	•	 	Title, LTV Corp.: President and Treasurer
	 
	•	 	Title, LTV Steel: President, Treasurer and Secretary
	 
	•	 	Effective 12/01/05; to be approved by Bankruptcy Court nunc pro tunc
	 
	•	 	Termination by estate for cause with 10 days’ written notice; the Bankruptcy Court will retain jurisdiction to
determine whether cause exists for any such termination. Termination by the estate or by the ACC for less than cause,
including, but not limited to, on the grounds that termination is in the best interests of creditors, upon the entry of
a Court order entered upon notice of a motion and the opportunity for a hearing. Termination by Mr. Delmore for any or
no reason with 60 days’ written notice.
	 
	•	 	Anticipated normal required week — 2 days. Time may increase as needs of estate require, including, but not limited
to: transition period, periods when discovery is occurring in connection with litigation, periods of creditor
distributions, and periods of preparation of tax returns, etc.
	 
	•	 	Compensation: at a rate of $350 per hour plus reimbursement of all reasonable out-of-pocket business expenses. Mr.
Delmore will be reimbursed for ordinary-course business expenses incurred in connection with the conduct of company
business. Ordinary-course business expenses would include costs arising from travel such as air fare, hotels, taxis,
etc.; mileage/parking; business meals; cell phone; office supplies, postage or similar expenses that are not directly
billed to the company. Mr. Delmore will discuss the incurrence of any out-of-pocket expenses that would not arise in
the ordinary course of performing his duties or of winding down the estates, or that are not currently reimbursable by
the estate, with counsel to the ACC in advance of his incurring such expenses. Mr. Delmore will keep current general
time records, which will be available for inspection during normal business hours.






	 	–	 	As long as the current pension plan is maintained and contributions are being
made to the plan on his behalf, Mr. Delmore’s hourly rate will be reduced to $320 in
cash and a $30 per hour contribution to the pension plan made by LTV Steel.
	 
	 	–	 	Payments will continue to be processed through Complete Payroll Management





 









 






	•	 	Mr. Delmore may engage other contract employees from time to time and at his discretion to
assist him with his duties. They are currently anticipated to include:






	 	–	 	Secretary anticipated for 1 — 1.5 days per week after transition period and
during non-peak times
	 
	 	–	 	Other temporary employees as required (assumed 1 day per week)






	•	 	Continuation of D&O coverage at current levels for duration of Mr. Delmore’s engagement.






2
October 15, 2015

Mr. Mark Kline

206 Northwest Benjamin Drive

Ankeny, IA 50023

Dear Mr. Kline :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 24, 2015, and filed in

D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3184 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consi der

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the pe titioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will c lose the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### § 221.15 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under this Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by A.I.D. as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under this Guarantee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Mitchiner, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 885]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 30, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Williams,*84 NY2d 925, 926). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.