alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Croce Sylvesteri, Also Known as *559Croce Sylvestro, Deceased. Rocco J. Sylvestri, Respondent; Louise M. Patti, Appellant.

In a proceeding to settle the account of the petitioner executor, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, dated November 6, 1975, as dismissed those of her objections which relate to the rental of certain property, the obligations of a tenant under a certain lease and a loan to the decedent. Decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable personally by appellant. Under the circumstances the new lease to Tibbets Contracting Co. was not improper and the executor’s failure to insist that the tenant, Steel Slides Co., make further repairs is not a matter for which the executor should be surcharged. There was sufficient proof of a $2,000 loan by the executor to the decedent to support the determination of the loan’s validity by the Surrogate’s Court. The reading into the record, *by the objectant,*of the pretrial deposition of the executor, wherein the latter had given testimony as to the circumstances of his loan to the decedent, constituted a waiver of CPLR 4519, which permitted the executor to testify at the trial as to the said loan (see *Matter of Nettle,*91 NYS2d 255, 261-262, affd 276 App Div 929). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned R. Greg Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of ERF Wireless, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: November 22, 2004

By:      / S / R. GREG SMITH
         -------------------
         R. Greg Smith
         Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
         Officer)
§ 1506.46 When is USADF not required to transfer a debt to BFS? USADF is not required to transfer a debt to BFS pursuant to § 1506.37(b) during the period of time that the debt: ( a ) Is in litigation or foreclosure;
( b ) Is scheduled for sale;
( c ) Is at a private collection contractor;
( d ) Is at a debt collection center if the debt has been referred to a Treasury-designated debt collection center;
( e ) Is being collected by internal offset; or
( f ) Is covered by an exemption granted by Treasury.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

 /

No. C 08-00986 SI

ORDER

AMD’s motion for summary judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings are set for oral

argument on February 24, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. In its opposition to the summary judgment motion, filed

on January 22, 2010, Samsung requested that the Court defer adjudication of the motion because it had

not yet taken the depositions of Elvan Young and Anne Killingsworth. Since then, the hearing was

moved from February 12, 2010 to February 24, 2010, and according to Samsung, Ms. Killingsworth’s

deposition was scheduled for February 11, 2010. 

The Court is not inclined to defer adjudication of the motion. However, if the parties wish to

supplement their papers by bringing to the Court’s attention any material information presented at Ms.

Killingsworth’s deposition, they may do so no later than Friday, February 19, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 320 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
### §3757. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3757 was editorially reclassified as section 10158 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 1003.605 Environment. ( a ) In order to assure that the policies of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other provisions of Federal law which further the purposes of that act (as specified in 24 CFR 58.5) are most effectively implemented in connection with the expenditure of ICDBG funds, the grantee shall comply with the Environment Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities (24 CFR part 58). Upon completion of an environmental review, the grantee shall submit a certification and request for release of funds for particular projects in accordance with 24 CFR part 58. The grantee shall also be responsible for compliance with flood insurance, coastal barrier resource and airport clear zone requirements under 24 CFR 58.6.
( b ) In accordance with 24 CFR 58.34(a)(8), grants for imminent threats to health or safety approved under the provisions of subpart E of this part are exempt from some or all of the environmental review requirements of 24 CFR part 58, to the extent provided in that section.
#### In the Matter of Lawrence Odom, Appellant, v Robert J. Henderson, as Superintendent of the Auburn Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner was sentenced in Supreme Court, Kings County, on November 1, 1974 for robbery, first and second degrees and grand larceny, third degree, and three indeterminate terms were imposed upon him, 0 to 10 years for each of the robbery counts and 0 to 4 years for the grand larceny count. In April, 1976 the Board of Parole gave him a parole release hearing and ordered him held until April, 1978, stating its reasons as follows: "1—The seriousness of the crime. 2—The time is necessary in order to participate in programs that is necessary to further advance your rehabilitation.” Special Term dismissed petitioner’s article 78 petition to require a further statement from the Board of Parole, the court finding the reasons given to be meaningful and sufficient. We agree (see *Matter of Ebbs v Regan,*54 AD2d 611; *People ex rel. Ganci v Henderson,*54 AD2d 609; *Matter of Watkins v Caldwell,*54 AD2d 42). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—art 78.) Present— Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
225 A.2d 792.

#### Kleistone Rubber Company, Inc. *vs.*John Roderick.

JANUARY 27, 1967.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

*607Per Curiam.

This is an 'employer’s petition to. review a decree of the workmen’s compensation commission which had been entered ¡by the consent of the parties hereto and provided payment for the employee’s partial incapacity. From the decree of a single commissioner suspending any further payments of compensation, the employee appealed to the full commission. The full commission affirmed that decree and the employee is prosecuting an appeal therefrom.

The instant petition to' review was filed with the commission on December 6, 1965. The employee was examined by a physician on January 12, 1966. At the hearing before the trial commissioner on February 1, 1966, the physician testified that as a result of the January examination he was of the opinion that employee was in no way disabled. This opinion was the basis of the granting of employer’s petition.

While employee urges reversal of the commission on other grounds that merit no discussion here, the main thrust of his argument before us was that the testimony of the physician should be disregarded because his examination occurred after' employer h.ad filed the instant petition. We disagree. The burden on employer in this case is to present *at the hearing*legally competent /evidence relevant to the cessation of employee’s disability. The competency of this evidence is not destroyed one whit because it was obtained subsequent to the filing of employer’s petition. There is *608nothing in the workmen’s compensation act which prohibits one .from filing .a petition without his having at that time the pertinent evidence. We point out that the general assembly, however, has effectively .forestalled any undue harassment of an employee that might occur by an employer’s .persistent and indiscriminate filing of petitions to review .when the legislature provided in G. L. 1956, §28-35-32, as amended, for the payment by an employer of a fee to' the attorney of an employee who has successfully defended in whole or in part ,an employer’s petition -to review.

*Boss, Conlan, Keenan & Rice, H. Eliot Rice,*for petitioner.

*Raul L. Lovett,*for respondent.

The employee’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to. the workmen’s, compensation commission for further proceedings. ■
§ 96.12 Authorized adoption service providers. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 57263 , July 12, 2024.
( a ) Except as provided in section 505(b) of the IAA (relating to transitional cases), and once the UAA becomes effective, except as provided in section 2(c) of the UAA (relating to transitional cases), an agency or person may not offer, provide, or facilitate the provision of any adoption service in the United States in connection with an intercountry adoption unless it is: ( 1 ) An accredited agency or an approved person;
( 2 ) A supervised provider; or
( 3 ) An exempted provider, if the exempted provider's home study or child background study will be reviewed and approved by an accredited agency pursuant to § 96.47(c) or § 96.53(b).
( b ) A public domestic authority may also offer, provide, or facilitate the provision of any such adoption service.
( c ) Neither conferral nor maintenance of accreditation or approval, nor status as an exempted or supervised provider, nor status as a public domestic authority shall be construed to imply, warrant, or establish that, in any specific case, an adoption service has been provided consistently with the Convention, the IAA, the UAA, or the regulations implementing the IAA or UAA. Conferral and maintenance of accreditation or approval under this part establishes only that the accrediting entity has concluded, in accordance with the standards and procedures of this part, that the agency or person conducts adoption services in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in this part; it is not a guarantee that in any specific case the accredited agency or approved person is providing adoption services consistently with the Convention, the IAA, the UAA, the regulations implementing the IAA or UAA, or any other applicable law, whether Federal, State, or foreign. Neither the Secretary nor any accrediting entity shall be responsible for any acts of an accredited agency, approved person, exempted provider, supervised provider, or other entity providing services in connection with an intercountry adoption.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40633, July 14, 2014]
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

SWINGLESS GOLF CLUB CORPORATION,

a Wyoming corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROY H. TAYLOR, individually and d/b/a

CENTERFIRE GOLF COMPANY, and

JAMES S. STOWELL, an individual, JACK

GALANTI, an individual, MIKE STRINGER,

an individual, CENTERFIRE GOLF

COMPANY, a California corporation, NEW

RIVER INDUSTRIES CORP., EZEE GOLF

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

and STEVE FLUKE, an individual,

Defendants. /

ROY H. TAYLOR, JAMES S. STOWELL, an

individual, JACK GALANTI, an individual,

MIKE STRINGER, an individual, STEVE

FLUKE, an Individual,

Counterclaimants,

v.

SWINGLESS GOLF CORPORATION, A

Wyoming Corporation, JAMES DEPORCHE,

an individual, and JOYCE TAYLOR, an

individual, and DOES 1–25,

Counterdefendants. /

No. C 08-05574 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

RE MOTION TO STRIKE

Case 3:08-cv-05574-WHA Document 107 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

On June 21, 2010, plaintiffs moved to strike the answer filed by corporate defendants

Centerfire Golf Company, EZee Golf, LLC, and New River Industries Corporation (Dkt. No. 93). 

The hearing on the motion was properly noticed for July 29 (and subsequently continued to

August 5). Defendants, however, failed to file a timely opposition (or statement of nonopposition) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3. Given this failure, defendants are ORDERED TO

SHOW CAUSE why the motion to strike should not be granted in its entirety. If no response to this

order is filed BY NOON ON THURSDAY, JULY 22, plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05574-WHA Document 107 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3056n. Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the older American community service employment program described in this subchapter was established with the intent of placing older individuals in community service positions and providing job training; and

(2) placing older individuals in community service positions strengthens the ability of the individuals to become self-sufficient, provides much-needed support to organizations that benefit from increased civic engagement, and strengthens the communities that are served by such organizations.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §516, as added Pub. L. 109–365, title V, §501, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2587.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3056n, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §516, as added Pub. L. 106–501, title V, §501, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2287, related to definitions, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 109–365. See section 3056p(a) of this title.
§ 300.100 General. ( a ) For the purpose of sections 9(a)(2) and 16(12) of the Securities Investor Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), these rules will be applied in determining what accounts held by a person with a member of SIPC (hereinafter called a “member”) are to be deemed accounts held in a capacity other than his individual capacity.
( b ) Accounts held by a customer in different capacities, as specified by these rules, shall be deemed to be accounts of “separate” customers.
( c ) A “person” as used in these rules includes, but is not limited to, an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint stock company, a trust, an unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision thereof.
( d ) The burden shall be upon the customer to establish each capacity in which he claims to hold accounts separate from his individual capacity.
#### Dorothy A. Biven, Respondent-Appellant, v H. Eugene Biven, Appellant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find substantial support in the record for Trial Term’s award to plaintiff wife in this divorce action of $100 per week alimony, exclusive possession of the marital residence, judgment for the arrearages of temporary alimony in the amount of $2,000, and counsel fees of $1,500 plus $48 disbursements. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to pay for all of the carrying costs including the mortgage in connection with the marital home. In affirming the award of exclusive possession, we note that at present there are still two children living at home. Thus, the case is distinguishable from *Sharer v Sharer*(60 AD2d 780) and *Kahn v Kahn*(55 AD2d 638). Defendant’s alleged noncompliance with the prior orders directing that he pay temporary alimony, holding him in contempt for nonpayment, and providing that he pay the arrears of $2,350.98 at the rate of $25 per week was at issue in the trial. The prior orders are superseded by the decree after trial which grants judgment in the amount of $2,000 for such arrearages and which we affirm. The appeals from such prior orders, therefore, should be dismissed as moot. (Cf. *Math v Math,*39 AD2d 583, affd 31 NY2d 693.) (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—divorce.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned R.
Greg Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of ERF Wireless,
Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated: November 1, 2005

By:  /s/ R. Greg Smith
     -----------------
     R. Greg Smith
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
     and Accounting Officer)
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders

and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions

of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/27/96TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY R. NEWSOM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. 95-6365

(D.C. CIV-95-1415-T)

(Western District of Oklahoma)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

Plaintiff-appellant Jimmy R. Newsom filed on September 7, 1995, a pro se

complaint which, construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972),

appears to allege various injuries occurring in 1961, 1965, 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1995. 

The allegations are so irregular that it is impossible to identify precisely the cause of

action under which the appellant seeks relief.
1After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral

argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f);

10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

The district court determined that all of the claims were barred by either the

statute of limitations, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or the absence of

legal or factual basis. The court dismissed the action on the grounds that it lacked subject

matter jurisdiction and that the complaint was frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Appellant was granted in forma pauperis status and appealed.1

We find no error in the decision of the district court and AFFIRM. The mandate

shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

Robert Henry

Circuit Judge
Amendment to Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements



  
 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT TO 
 HYATT HOTELS
CORPORATION 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENTS 
 WHEREAS, Hyatt Hotels Corporation (the
“Company”) has entered into certain Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements pursuant to which the Company awarded to its non-employee directors the right to receive shares of common stock of the Company on the dates specified in such
agreements (“RSU Agreements”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the RSU Agreements to clarify that the timing of
the payment of Dividend Equivalent Rights under the RSU Agreements will comply with the terms of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and 
 WHEREAS, to the extent not defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the RSU Agreements. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the RSU Agreements are hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2009 to add the following to the end of the Section entitled “Dividend Equivalent Rights”: 

“The aggregate amount of such Dividend Equivalents shall be held by the Company, without interest thereon, and paid to Participant in
accordance with the terms of the Deferred Compensation Plan. Participant’s rights to Dividend Equivalents shall cease upon payment of the RSUs.” 
 In all other regards the RSU Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

			
	HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION
		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Its:
	 	


 Dated:
                    , 2010
WebFilings | EDGAR view


 


August 12, 2010
 
 
James E. Hohmann, CEO
FBL Financial Group, Inc.
5400 University Avenue
West Des Moines, IA 50266
 
Re:    Forbearance Agreement/Dividend Reduction
 
Dear Jim:
 
You will recall we executed a Forbearance Agreement effective until August 31, 2010 in regard to the royalty agreement between the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation ("IFBF") and the insurance companies that are managed by FBL using the Farm Bureau name, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company (hereinafter "Insurance Companies"). Paragraph 9(d) of the royalty agreement states that a reduction in the quarterly dividend by FBL below $.10 per quarter creates a power of termination of the agreement on the part of IFBF.
 
Upon your request, and after reviewing the current situation, IFBF is willing to extend the term of the Forbearance Agreement and thereby continue to forego IFBF's right of termination through March 31, 2010. This continued forbearance is conditioned upon:
 
1.   No reduction in the quarterly dividend below $0.0625 per share through March 31, 2011; and
2.   An acknowledgment on behalf of the Insurance Companies that IFBF is waiving no rights or claims under the royalty agreement by this continued forbearance.
 
If you wish to accept the terms of this offer of continued forbearance on behalf of the Insurance Companies, please acknowledge the same by signing below.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
/s/ CRAIG A. LANG
 
Craig Lang
President, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation
 
 
Acceptance:
 
The undersigned, as CEO of FBL Financial Group, Inc., Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, does acknowledge agreement to the terms of the forbearance set forth above.
 
/S/ JAMES E. HOHMANN
____________________________________ 
James E. Hohmann, CEO
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

VICTUAL MCNEAL , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1500

[ October 4, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11

- 004413CF10A

.
Victual McNeal, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.