alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert S. Oakley, Plaintiff, v Albany Medical Center et al., Appellants, and Hoosick Valley Contractors, Inc., Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 694]—

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lalor, J.), entered August 11, 2006 in Greene County, which granted a motion by defendant Hoosick Valley Contractors, Inc. to stay arbitration between it and, among others, defendant Albany Medical Center.

Plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment with Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating, a subcontractor on a hospital construction project. He thereafter commenced the instant action against the hospital, as well as the general contractor on the project. Several months later, the hospital filed a demand for arbitration seeking to arbitrate the issue of indemnification by the general contractor and/or Tri-Valley. In the course of this action, the general contractor, on behalf of itself and Tri-Valley, moved to stay that arbitration. The hospital cross-moved to compel it. Supreme Court issued an order which stayed arbitra*1017tion. As correctly argued by the hospital, this was error with respect to Tri-Valley.

*“A*court has no power to grant relief against an entity not named as a party and not properly summoned before the court” *(Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v First Secured Capital Corp.,*28 AD3d 457, 460 [2006] [citations omitted]; *see Hartloff v Hartloff,*296 AD2d 849, 850 [2002]; *Blake v LP 591 Ocean Realty,*237 AD2d 554 [1997]). There is no dispute that TriValley has not been named in this action nor was it summoned before Supreme Court. This being the case, Supreme Court should not have ordered relief on the parties’ respective motions as against Tri-Valley as the court did not have jurisdiction over that entity *(see Matter of Salvaggio [McEwen—National School Bus Serv.],*247 AD2d 875, 876 [1998]; *Blake v LP 591 Ocean Realty, supra; Matter of Montgomery v Muller,*176 AD2d 29, 33 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 751 [1992]; *Surdam v Vance,*160 AD2d 1142, 1143-1144 [1990]; *compare Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. [Villegas—State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.],*307 AD2d 879, 880 [2003]; *Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. [Carillo],*307 AD2d 220, 221 [2003]; *Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.*[Markovitch— *Eagle Fuel Transp.—AIU Ins. Co.],*214 AD2d 734, 735 [1995]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Perez,*157 AD2d 521, 523 [1990]; *Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v Stanley, 86*AD2d 834, 835 [1982]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as stayed arbitration with respect to TriValley Plumbing & Heating, and, as so modified, affirmed.
### SUBCHAPTER IX—ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS
#### § 905.318 Title and deed.

The PHA, or, in the case of mixed-finance, the Owner Entity, shall obtain title insurance that guarantees the title is good and marketable before taking title to any and all sites and properties acquired with public housing funds. Immediately upon taking title to a property, the PHA or Owner Entity shall record the deed and a Declaration of Trust or, in the case of mixed finance, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, in the form and in the manner and order prescribed by HUD. The PHA shall at all times maintain a recorded Declaration of Trust or Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in the form and in the manner and order prescribed by HUD on all public housing projects covering the term required by this part.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22E0051. ALLEN v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Emergency Motion, the same is hereby

DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

May 18, 2022

05/18/2022
### §932. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793

Section, R.S. §2477, authorized rights of way for construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public uses.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793, provided that the repeal made by section 706(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.

#### Regulations Affecting Rights-of-Way

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, §101(d) [title I, §108], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–181, 3009–200, provided that: "No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 ([former] 43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996]."
#### § 50.16 Decision points for policy actions.

Either an EA and FONSI or an EIS on all policy actions not meeting the criteria of § 50.19 shall be completed prior to the approval action. Policy actions include all proposed Federal Register policy documents and other policy-related Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.18). The decision as to whether a proposed policy action is categorically excluded from an EA shall be made by the Program Environmental Clearance Officer (PECO) in Headquarters as early as possible. Where the PECO has any doubt as to whether a proposed action qualifies for exclusion, the PECO shall request a determination by the AS/CPD. The EA and FONSI may be combined into a single document.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of Firearms Training Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John A. Morelli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.

                                          /s/ John A. Morelli
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          John A. Morelli
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 6, 2002





                                    Page 22
§ 573.7 Loan guarantee agreement. ( a ) The rights and responsibilities with respect to the guaranteed loan shall be substantially described in an agreement entered into between the Financial Institution, as the lender, and the Secretary, as the guarantor, which agreement shall provide that: ( 1 ) The lender has submitted or will submit a request for loan guarantee assistance that is accompanied by the Borrower's request for a loan to carry out eligible activities described in § 573.3;
( 2 ) The lender will require the Borrower to execute a promissory note promising to repay the guaranteed loan in accordance with the terms thereof;
( 3 ) The lender will require the Borrower to provide collateral security, to an extent and in a form, acceptable to HUD;
( 4 ) HUD reserves the right to limit loan guarantees to loans financing the replacement of damaged property with comparable new property;
( 5 ) The lender will follow certain claim procedures to be specified by HUD in connection with any defaults, including appropriate notification of default as required by HUD;
( 6 ) The lender will follow procedures for payment under the guarantee whereby the lender will be paid (up to the amount of guarantee) the amount owed to the lender less any amount recovered from the underlying collateral security for the loan; and
( 7 ) The lender will act as the fiscal agent for the loan, servicing the guaranteed loan, maintaining loan documents, and receiving the Borrower's payments of principal and interest. The Borrower and the lender may be required to execute a fiscal agency agreement.
( b ) In addition, the agreement shall contain other requirements, terms, and conditions required or approved by HUD.
PEA e eX \NN, “Near erQOK VU ~ 1248 36/00”
a ar Cr a en

(
j

225 gy = S
23s =>
os =

CALIFORNIA

CRESCENT CITY N415124W
SCALE:  1:100,000

NOS MULTIBEAM SURVEYS

(_) _ . | | ~. O. 0 : (_)_. Contours in correcte d meters LM171
a _ os. _ 4M 17/
#### § 350.3 Maintenance of Ginnie Mae Securities.

A Ginnie Mae Security may be maintained in the form of a Definitive Ginnie Mae Security or a Book-entry Ginnie Mae Security. A Book-entry Ginnie Mae Security shall be maintained in the Book-entry System.
null

113.86445
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-421.2 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EDUCATION 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

Signed at Bratislava March 22, 2005 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 

Education 

Agreement signed at Bratislava March 22, 2005; 

 Entered into force April 21, 2005; 

 Effective September 23, 2004.
#### George E. Gundling, appellant, v. Jule Seeglitz and Otto E. Seeglitz, appellees.

Gen. No. 27,951.

Bill to foreclose mechanic’s lien on realty, on account of installation of a furnace. Bill dismissed. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Eriseh & Frisch, for appellant; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel. James 0 ’Callaghan and Cyrus Keren, for appellees.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

11 a.m.-2 p.m., December 4, 2020.

# PLACE: 

                        This meeting will be broadcast via a live internet video stream. Individuals interested in viewing the meeting may visit:                         *https://www.dnfsb.gov/​public-hearings-meetings/​public-meeting-december-4-2020.*                         On the day of the meeting, a link to view the video stream will be posted on that page. The page may also be accessed by visiting                         *dnfsb.gov*                         and clicking: Public Meeting—December 4, 2020.                    

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

In this open meeting, members of the Board's staff will brief the Board Members regarding the status of Recommendation 2020-1 regarding nuclear safety requirements at the Department of Energy. During and following the staff presentations, Board Members may deliberate on any appropriate follow-on actions for Recommendation 2020-1.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Tara Tadlock, Director of Board Operations, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

Dated: November 25, 2020.

Thomas A. Summers,

Acting Chairman.

[FR Doc. 2020-26530 Filed 11-25-20; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
#### In the Matter of Keith Honeywell, Respondent, v Jeanette Honeywell, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jeanette Honeywell, Appellant, v Keith Honeywell, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[835 NYS2d 327]—

In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edlitz, J.), dated December 16, 2005, which denied her petition to modify the parties’ judg*858ment of divorce to award her sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, and granted the father’s petition to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce and award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In determining whether a custody agreement that was incorporated into a judgment of divorce should be modified, the paramount issue before the court is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a modification of custody is in the best interests of the child *(see Cuccurullo v Cuccurullo,*21 AD3d 983, 984 [2005]; *Teuschler v Teuschler,*242 AD2d 289, 290 [1997] ; *Kuncman v Kuncman,*188 AD2d 517, 518 [1992]). Moreover, “ ‘[o]ne of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the other parent’ . . . and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” *(Young v Young,*212 AD2d 114, 122-123 [1995] [citation omitted]; *see Cuccurullo v Cuccurullo, supra).*Since any custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court’s findings *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The court’s findings “will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Kuncman v Kuncman, supra*at 518; *see Cuccurullo v Cuccurullo, supra*at 984).

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the Family Court’s determination to modify the parties’ custody agreement by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother’s repeated and unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father constituted conduct so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that she is unfit to act as a custodial parent *(see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda,*21 AD3d 558, 559 [2005]; *Matter of Amanda B. v Anthony B.,*13 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2004]; *Matter of Turner v Turner,*260 AD2d 953, 954-955 [1999]; *Matter of Guidice v Burruano,*255 AD2d 911 [1998] ; *Young v Young, supra*at 116).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edgar S. Wilson, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 73]

*265Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered September 9, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court responded meaningfully to the deliberating jury’s request to hear defendant’s testimony as to whether he “had drugs” when it limited the read back to defendant’s denial that the police recovered a plastic bag of drugs from him, while declining to read the immediately preceding portion of defendant’s testimony concerning the officer’s search of defendant’s person *(see People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]). The court’s interpretation of the note, which called for very specific testimony, was reasonable. The record fails to support defendant’s claim that the preceding testimony should have been included in the read back, and the court’s denial of defendant’s request to add such testimony did not cause any prejudice *(see People v Lourido,*70 NY2d 428, 435 [1987]). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would reject it. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
Skip to Content

        -   Log in            -  Log inEmailPassword Show Password	            Remember meAlready have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Forgot your password?Email Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Resend confirmation instructionsEmail Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -   Sign Up            -  Sign upEmail Password Passwords must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one lower-case letter, one upper-case letter, one number, and one punctuation mark or symbolPassword confirmation  Show Password            Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 

# Search Publications

- Home

#           Agricultural Chemical Usage - Livestock and General Farm Use            NASS

----

Frequency of Release:Not Specified

----

Category:Agriculture Economics and Management:Production PracticesAnimals and Animal Products:Livestock

Keywords:agrochemicalscattlepest managementpesticidestopical application

----

## Releases

| May 23, 2007 | PDFTXTZIP | May 23, 2007: Agricultural Chemical Usage - Livestock and General Farm Use detailsx                May 23, 2007: Agricultural Chemical Usage - Livestock and General Farm UseRelease datetime:May 23, 2007Close |
|--------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Contact office name:National Agricultural Statistics Service

Contact email:nass@nass.usda.gov

##         Agency Announcements        
Do you also want to subscribe to all agency announcements from ?
NoYesFooter content with page navigation, site information, and copyright.-  Home 
-  Release Calendar 
×Release CalendarClose
-  About
-  Help 
-  Contact 
-  API 

The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS) contains over 2,100 publications from five agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These materials cover U.S. and international agriculture and related      topics. Mann Library at Cornell University developed and maintains this site.

© 2024 USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System
USDA ESMIS partners list with links to their websites.Partners:- Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
- Economic Research Service (ERS)
- Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
- World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)
- 
- Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University
- United States Department of Agriculture
Cornell development contact information.Developed & supported by:
**Albert R. Mann Library**Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-4301 Phone: (607) 255-3296 Email: usda-help@cornell.edu
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) of Kearny Financial Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, John N. Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer and William C. Ledgerwood, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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) 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.

 

 

|  

 

  |   |  

 

  | /s/ John N. Hopkins                                    |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                   | John N. Hopkins

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

|  

 

  |   |   | /s/ William C. Ledgerwood                                                 |
|------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   | William C. Ledgerwood

Senior Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer |

 

 

September 14, 2009
# Patent

## Title
Complexes having optically active ligands, a process for their

## Abstract

From the foregoing description, one skilled in the art can easily ascertain the essential characteristics of this invention and, without departing from the spirit and scope thereof, can make various changes and modifications of the inventions to adapt it to various usages and conditions.

## Background
## Claims

1. A compound of the formula ##STR10## in which R.sup.1 is hydrogen, halogen, C.sub.1-6 -alkoxy, C.sub.1-6 alkylthio, or NO.sub.2 ; -Y-CO-(CH.sub.2).sub.n -X, where X is O or S, Y is O or NH, m is a number from 2 to 10 and n is a number from 1 to 10; -alkyl, C.sub.2-12 -alkenyl or together C.sub.2-6 -alkylene; each case substituted by halogen, C.sub.1-6 -alkyl or C.sub.1-6 -alkoxy.

2. 1-(1-thioxanthonylcarbonyloxy)-2-[4-(2-hydroxy-2methyl)[propanoylphenoxy ]ethane, o]ethane, carbonyloxy]ethane, or propanoylphenoxymethylenecarbonylamido]ethane, each being a compound of claim 1.

3. A compound according to claim 1, wherein R.sup.2 is bonded to the thioxanthone unit in the 1- or 3-position.

4. A compound according to claim 1, wherein R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 are each methyl.

5. A compound according to claim 1, wherein R.sup.5 is hydroxy.

6. A compound according to claim 1, wherein R.sub.2 is carbonyloxyethyleneoxy, carbonyloxyethylenethio, oxymethylenecarbonyloxyethylenethio, or oxymethylenecarbonylamidoethylenethio.
Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 31 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 3Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 31 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 3Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 31 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3