alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alfred N. Mantell, Respondent, v Servidone Construction Corporation, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 19, 1976 in Ulster County, which denied a motion by defendant to vacate a default judgment taken against it by plaintiff and permit it to interpose an answer. This action was commenced by plaintiff to recover for property damage allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of blasting activities performed by the defendant. The action was commenced by service of a summons without a complaint upon the Secretary of State on February 24, 1975. Indorsed on the summons is the following: "Notice: The object of this action is Negligence, Property Damage. The relief sought is Damages.” The Secretary of State forwarded a notice of the action addressed to the defendant at 916 Congress Street, Schenectady, New York. Approximately 15 years earlier, defendant had moved its office to 1366 Route 9, Castleton, New York. The defendant acquired knowledge of the action on May 10,1976, the day the inquest was held by the court, which resulted in a judgment in the amount of $15,894.20. Defendant, on June 16, 1976 moved, by a show cause order, to have the judgment vacated, and for leave to serve and file an answer. Special Term denied the motion. "The notice of object of action fails to comply with the requirements of CPLR 305 (subd [b]) as it fails to set forth the relief sought. The notice must contain a statement of the sum for which judgment will be taken in case of default. This conclusion is mandated by CPLR 3215 (subd [b]) which provides in a proceeding before the court to enter a default judgment that 'The judgment shall not exceed in amount or differ in type from that demanded in the complaint or stated in the notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305.’ The requirement is jurisdictional and precluded entry of the default (CPLR 3215, subd [b]; *Arden v Loewe’s Hotels,*40 AD2d 894; *McDermott v Hoenig,*32 AD2d 838.)” *(Eckert Co. v Fuller Co.,*51 AD2d 844.) Accordingly, Special Term should have granted defendant’s motion. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER II—THE EXECUTIVE AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133793 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices

v SC: 133793 COA: 276562 Livingston CC: 05-015451-FH LOUTFI MIKO KADDIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

By order of October 3, 20 07, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pend ing the decision in People v Cannon (Docket No. 131994). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 4, 2008, 481 Mich 152 (2 008), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for considera tion, as on leave granted, of whether points for predatory conduct may be assessed for Offense Variab le 10, MCL 777.40(3 )(a) [exploitation of vulnerable victim], where the victim is a polic e decoy, and, if so, whether a defendant’s intent to commit other offenses and his entir e course of conduct may be considered as “preoffense” conduct for purposes of assess ing points for predatory conduct under this Court’s decision in People v Cannon

, supra . In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the remaining qu estion presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

p0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2008

Clerk
### §390h–28. North Coast County Water District recycled water project

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the North Coast County Water District, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of recycled water system facilities.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the cost of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1645, as added Pub. L. 110–229, title V, §512(a)(1), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 842.)
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

TIMOTHY J. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

LATOYA C. LEE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1310-CR-867

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, Judge

Cause No. 49G05-1209-MR-62638

August 27, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge 
2

Latoya Lee seeks rehearing following our memorandum opinion in Lee v. State, 

No. 49A02–1310–CR–867, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. June 10, 2014), arguing that we should 

reverse our decision in light of the determination of another panel of this court in Young 

v. State, No. 49A02–1310–CR–868, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2014). Lee and 

Young were co-defendants, and both appealed a conviction for attempted aggravated 

battery. In Young, a panel of this Court determined that the charging instrument had not 

given Young fair notice of his conviction. Id. We grant rehearing to acknowledge our 

awareness of the decision in Young but decline to reverse our earlier decision in Lee, as 

Lee did not raise any issue concerning the charging information on appeal.

BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Filed by the Registrant                      x
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant        o
Check the appropriate box:
o    Preliminary Proxy Statement
x     Definitive Proxy Statement
o    Definitive Additional Materials
o    Soliciting Material Pursuant to 240.14a-11(c)
or 240.14a-12

                                            BERWYN
INCOME FUND, INC.
          (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its
Charter)


KEVIN M. RYAN
          (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
x     $125 per Exchange Act Rules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-
6(i)(1), or    14a-6(i)(2).
o    $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant
to   Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(i)(3).
o    Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act
Rules 14a-     6(i)(4) and 0-11.

1)   Title of each class of securities to which
transaction applies:

________________________________________________

2)   Aggregate number of securities to which
transaction    applies:

________________________________________________

3)   Per unit price or other underlying value of
transaction    computed pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 0-11:1

________________________________________________

4)   Proposed maximum aggregate value of
transaction:

________________________________________________


1.   Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is
calculated     and state how it was determined.

o    Check box if any part of the fee is offset as
provided by    Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and
identify the filing for  which the offsetting fee
was paid previously.  Identify the      previous
filing by registration statement number, or the
Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

     1)   Amount Previously
Paid:______________________

     2)   Form, Schedule or Registration Statement
No.:_________________________________

     3)   Filing
Party:________________________________

     4)   Date
Filed:__________________________________
#### §§ 882.501-882.506 [Reserved]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


Polypore, Inc.


Chief Financial Officer Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002






|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.



| |     |              
| | --- | -------------
| | By: | /s/ Lynn Amos

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Lynn Amos              
| | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

              Certification Of Chief Executive Officer 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 of ABC Funding, Inc. (the "Company") for
the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven Barrenechea, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard Cohen, as Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, respectively, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.


Dated: September 27, 2007        By: /s/ Steven Barrenechea
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Steven Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer


Dated: September 27, 2007        By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
§ 220.821 Items to be filed on submitting claim. Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of intention to file claim, or within such further period as may be agreed upon by the Commissioner in writing, the lender shall file with the Commissioner: ( a ) The fiscal data pertaining to the loan transaction;
( b ) Receipts covering all disbursements as required by the fiscal data form;
( c ) The original note and any security instrument or instruments which shall be assigned to the Commissioner without recourse or warranty, except that the lender must warrant that no act or omission of the lender has impaired the validity and priority of such security instrument or instruments, that the security instrument or instruments are prior to all mechanics' and materialmen's liens filed of record subsequent to the recording of such security instrument or instruments regardless of whether such liens attached prior to such recording date, and prior to all liens and encumbrances which may have attached or defects which may have arisen subsequent to the recording of such security instrument or instruments, except such liens or other matters as may be approved by the Commissioner, that the amount stated in the instrument of assignment is actually due and owing under the security instrument or instruments, that there are no offsets or counter claims thereto, and that the lender has a good right to assign such note and security instrument or instruments;
( d ) All hazard insurance policies held on property serving as security for the loan, together with a copy of the lender's notification to the carrier authorizing the amendment of the loss payable clause substituting the Commissioner as the holder of the security instrument;
( e ) The assignment to the Commissioner of all rights and interests arising under the note and security instrument or instruments so in default, and all claims of the lender against the borrower or others arising out of the loan transaction;
( f ) All policies of title or other insurance or surety bonds, or other guarantees and any and all claims thereunder; including evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner that the original title coverage has been extended to include the assignment of the note and security instrument or instruments to the Commissioner.
( g ) Any property held by the lender or its agents or to which it is entitled and, if payment is requested in debentures, any cash held by the lender or its agents or to which it is entitled, including deposits made for the account of the borrower, and which have not been applied in reduction of the principal of the mortgage indebtedness;
( h ) All records, ledger cards, documents, books, papers and accounts relating to the loan transaction;
( i ) Any additional information or data which the Commissioner may require.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNon-Newtonian gravity or gravity anomalies?Geophysical measurements of G differ from laboratory values, indicating that gravity may be non-Newtonian. A spherical harmonic formulation is presented for the variation of (Newtonian) gravity inside the Earth. Using the GEM-10B Earth Gravitational Field Model, it is shown that long-wavelength gravity anomalies, if not corrected, may masquerade as non-Newtonian gravity by providing significant influences on experimental observation of delta g/delta r and G. An apparent contradiction in other studies is also resolved: i.e., local densities appear in equations when average densities of layers seem to be called for.Document ID19880014734Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRubincam, David P.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Chao, B. Fong*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Schatten, Kenneth H.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Sager, William W.*(Texas A&M Univ. College Station., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1988Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4030REPT-88B0104NASA-TM-4030Accession Number88N24118Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880014734.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1158
NEW YORK MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES BECKER, Defendant - Appellant, and BECK ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00373) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Becker, Appellant Pro Se. Brenda Krebs Orrison, James Alexander Porter, PORTER & ORRISON, LLP., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.1Although plaintiff also brought suit against Beck Electric and Frances and Rachel Loth, a default judgment was entered against the Loths in May 2006, and Beck Electric was dismissed as a party to the appeal in May 2007.
2 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 3 - PER CURIAM: James E. Becker, president of Beck Electric Co., Inc., 1 appeals the magistrate judge’s 2 order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for breach of an indemnity agreement, denying plaintiff’s motion to strike Becker’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, denying Becker’s “Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts,” and awarding plaintiff attorneys’ fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See New York Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Becker , No. 3:05-cv00373 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### KREVORUCK, Respondent, v. DUPPEN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Frank Krevoruck against Charlotte L. Duppen.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J„ not voting.
#### Judith Vega v. American Cyanamid Company et al.,

Motion for leave to rearg-ue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or amending order of this court denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
#### Juda Altusky v. Jabar Realty Corp. Faster Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Juda Altusky et al.

Motion for an extension of time granted insofar as to extend the time for plaintiff-appellant to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including October 4, I960, with notice of argument for the November 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §§1001 to 1008. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1001 to 1008 were omitted in view of recognition of Philippine independence.

Section 1001, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §1, 39 Stat. 545, defined Philippine Islands.

Section 1002, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §2, 39 Stat. 546, related to Philippine citizenship.

Section 1003, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §5, 39 Stat. 547, related to application of statutory law of United States.

Section 1004, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §6, 39 Stat. 547, related to continuing force and effect of Philippine laws.

Section 1005, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §7, 39 Stat. 547, related to power of Philippine Legislature to modify, repeal, etc., laws.

Section 1006, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §31, 39 Stat. 556, related to laws continued in force.

Section 1007, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §4, 39 Stat. 547, related to payment of expenses of Philippine government.

Section 1007a, acts Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 898, title V, §503, 50 Stat. 915; Oct. 15, 1940, ch. 887, 54 Stat. 1178, related to appropriations for financing program of economic adjustment.

Section 1008, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §3, 39 Stat. 546, related to a bill of rights and restrictions for Philippine Islands.
#### D. Mallory Stephens, Respondent, v. John R. Maust et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
### §12301. Numbering vessels

(a) An undocumented vessel equipped with propulsion machinery of any kind shall have a number issued by the proper issuing authority in the State in which the vessel principally is operated.

(b) The Secretary may require an undocumented barge of more than 100 gross tons operating on the navigable waters of the United States to be numbered.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 590; Pub. L. 102–587, title V, §5305, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5083; Pub. L. 115–282, title V, §513, Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4276.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 12301 | 46:1466 |

Section 12301 requires that undocumented vessels that are propelled by machinery be issued an identification number by the proper issuing authority in the State in which the vessel is primarily operated.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–282 substituted "may" for "shall" and inserted "of" after "barge".

1992—Pub. L. 102–587 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3367 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3367

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2005

  Mr. Hulshof (for himself and Mr. Becerra) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(i)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified technological 
equipment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', 
and by adding after clause (iii) the following new clause:
                            ``(iv) any wireless telecommunications 
                        equipment.''.
    (b) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment.--Section 168(i)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Wireless telecommunications equipment.--For 
                purposes of this paragraph, the term `wireless 
                telecommunications equipment' means all equipment used 
                in the transmission, reception, coordination, or 
                switching of wireless telecommunications service, other 
                than cell towers, buildings, T-1 lines or other cabling 
                connecting cell sites to mobile switching centers. For 
                purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `wireless 
                telecommunications service' includes any commercial 
                mobile radio service as defined in title 47 of the Code 
                of Federal Regulations.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```