alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 722.14 Service of notices of violation, cessation orders, and orders to show cause. ( a ) A notice of violation or cessation order shall be served on the person to whom it is directed or his designated agent promptly after issuance, as follows: ( 1 ) By tendering a copy at the surface coal mining and reclamation operation to the designated agent or to the person to whom it is directed. If no such agent is reasonably available, a copy may be tendered to the individual who, based upon reasonable inquiry by the authorized representative, appears to be in charge of the surface coal mining and reclamation operation referred to in the notice or order. If no such individual can be located at the site, a copy may be tendered to any individual at the site who appears to be an employee or agent of the person to whom the notice or order is issued. Service shall be complete upon tender of the notice or order and shall not be deemed incomplete because of refusal to accept.
( 2 ) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, service may be made by sending a copy of the notice or order by certified mail or by hand to the person to whom it is issued or his or her designated agent, or by any alternative means consistent with the rules governing service of a summons and complaint under rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service shall be complete upon tender of the notice or order or of the certified mail and shall not be deemed incomplete because of refusal to accept.
( b ) A show cause order, or a vacation, modification or termination of a notice or order, may be served on the person to whom it is issued in either manner provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Designation by any person of an agent for service of notices and orders shall be made in a conspicuous, easy-to-read manner on the mine identification sign, or on the mine bulletin board posted by the minesite office.
( d ) The Office shall furnish copies of notices and orders to the State regulatory authority, if any, after their issuance. The Office may furnish copies to any person having an interest in the surface coal mining and reclamation operation or the permit area, such as the owner of the fee, a corporate officer of the permittee, or the bonding company.
(Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, secs. 201, 501, 521(a)(5) (30 U.S.C. 1211, 1251, 1271(a)(5)))
[45 FR 2628, Jan. 11, 1980, as amended at 56 FR 28445, June 20, 1991]
#### Continental Shows, Inc., Appellant, v Essex County Agricultural Society, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 10, 1977 in Clinton County, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order directing specific performance of a contract and granted defendant’s cross motion for dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in this State, is a supplier of riding devices, shows and concessions at fairgrounds. By contract with the defendant, dated August 17, 1968, it obtained the exclusive right to provide such services at the Essex County Fair for a period of 10 years, thereby continuing a working arrangement that had already existed for some 20 years. However, in December of 1976, defendant informed plaintiff it had engaged another firm to conduct that portion of the August, 1977 Fair. After commencing this action for specific performance and damages, plaintiff moved for summary judgment demanding specific performance and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint upon the grounds of failure to state a cause of action and lack of capacity to sue. Special Term granted the cross motion in all respects and on the additional ground that it did not have jurisdiction of the action. Although the complaint states a viable cause of action, we agree that plaintiff does not possess legal capacity to maintain this action (Business Corporation Law, § 1312, subd [a]). Its complaint and moving papers allege that it has many other business accounts in the Counties of Clinton and Essex, both within this State, and it is plain that plaintiff’s activities here are and have been regular and continuous. Thus, the conclusion that plaintiff is "doing business” in this State within the purview of section 1312 of the Business Corporation Law is amply supported by the record *(Sterling Novelty Corp. v Frank & Hirsch Distr. Co.,*299 NY 208; *Conklin Limestone Co. v Linden, 22*AD2d 63). However, plaintiff’s statutory incapacity does not divest the court of authority to entertain the action *(Hot Roll Mfg. Co. v Cerone Equip. Co.,*38 AD2d 339), and a further modification is in order to eliminate the reference to a supposed lack of jurisdiction as a basis for dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting those portions thereof that dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane and Larkin, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., dissents and votes to affirm.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                      24,162,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,506,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,950
<INVENTORY>                                 12,107,738
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,029,252
<PP&E>                                      44,102,680
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,676,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             109,178,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,292,695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,667
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,180,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               109,178,509
<SALES>                                    104,845,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           104,845,697
<CGS>                                       40,131,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               397,740
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,229,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,468,778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,760,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,760,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1716-4 Issuance of permits.

If the Coal Mine Safety District Manager determines that the proposed mining operations under water can be safely conducted, he shall issue a permit for the conduct of such operations under such conditions as he deems necessary to protect the safety of miners engaged in those operations.
### §409b–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 409b–1, comprising section 311(b) of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3072a of this title.
[829 NYS2d 68]

#### In the Matter of Frank McClain-Sewer, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

February 6, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kevin P. Culley (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel),*for petitioner.

*36No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Frank McClain-Sewer was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on September 24, 1986. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court due to his failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into a complaint of professional misconduct which threatens the public interest.

The Committee opened an investigation into respondent’s conduct when it received a complaint from Francisco Aponte alleging that respondent neglected the legal matter on which he was retained, that respondent made false promises to Aponte as to the sentence he would receive, and that respondent charged an excessive fee. Respondent failed to respond to the Committee’s initial inquiry regarding the complaint, and thereafter failed to respond to follow-up letters, telephone messages, and the Committee’s judicial subpoena directing respondent’s appearance for deposition and the production of documents.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1), this Court may suspend an attorney from the practice of law pending consideration of charges of professional misconduct, upon a finding that the attorney is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon “the attorney’s failure ... to comply with any lawful demand, of this Court or the Departmental Disciplinary Committee made in connection with any investigation” (22 NYCRR 603.4 [e] [1] [i]).

Respondent’s failure to respond to the Committee’s numerous letters, calls, and subpoena seeking a response to the complaint, and his failure to respond to this motion, demonstrates a willful noncompliance with a Committee investigation and threatens the public interest, warranting an immediate suspension from the practice of law (see *Matter of Pierini,*21 AD3d 42 [2005]; *Matter of Kamgar,*7 AD3d 114 [2004]).

*37Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), and until the further order of this Court.

Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court.
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 10


                                   EXHIBIT A


     This Deferred Compensation amount covering the following officers
enumerates the dollar amount of benefits payable under the Executive
Supplemental Income Agreement.  All rights and payment provisions are controlled
by the Executive Supplemental Income Agreement effective on the 9 th. day of
                                                                -----       
May, 1995.
----      

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                             DEFERRED COMPENSATION AMOUNT
<S>                          <C>
 
ROBERT J. SCHOONOVER         180 equal monthly installments at $755.08
 
WILLIAM T. JOHNSON, JR.      180 equal monthly installments at $688.50
 
LEWIS N. WARE                180 equal monthly installments at $746.50
 
THOMAS K. DERBYSHIRE         180 equal monthly installments at $1,069.00
                       
SREWART C. HOWELL, JR.       180 equal monthly installments at $511.75
                       
WILMA D. FARRIS              180 equal monthly installments at $214.33
                       
DOROTHY ERICKSON             180 equal monthly installments at $48.23
 
</TABLE>




                                      62
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1400 Hoisting equipment; general. ( a ) Every hoist used to transport persons shall be equipped with overspeed, overwind, and automatic stop controls.
( b ) Every hoist handling a platform, cage, or other device used to transport persons shall be equipped with brakes capable of stopping the fully loaded platform, cage, or other device.
( c ) Cages, platforms, or other devices used to transport persons in shafts and slopes shall be equipped with safety catches or other no less effective devices approved by the Secretary that act quickly and effectively in an emergency. Such catches or devices shall be tested at least once every two months.
( d ) Hoisting equipment, including automatic elevators, used to transport persons shall be examined daily.
( e ) Where persons are transported into or out of a mine by a hoist, a qualified hoisting engineer shall be on duty while any person is underground. No such engineer, however, shall be required for automatically operated cages, platforms, or elevators.
[48 FR 53239, Nov. 25, 1983]
#### WOODRUFF, Respondent, v. NEW YORK GLUCOSE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Mary Woodruff, as executrix, etc., of John T. Woodruff, deceased, against the New York Glucose Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1


                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                        JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trident Rowan Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark S.
Hauser, Joint Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and 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/ Mark S. Hauser
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Mark S. Hauser
                                          Joint Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 25, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

CLEARPOINT BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the
Company) does hereby certify with respect to this Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2008
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/    MICHAEL D.
TRAINA
|                     |  | Michael D. Traina       
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles T. Russell, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 16, 1959, convicting him, on his plea *771of guilty, of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to serve a term of 71⁄2 to 20 years. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
69–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–50 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 372) 

TO RESTORE THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL 

ANTITRUST LAWS TO THE BUSINESS OF HEALTH INSURANCE TO PROTECT COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS 

MARCH 20, 2017.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 209] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 209, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, under a closed rule. 

The resolution provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution waives all points of order 

against consideration of the bill. The resolution provides that an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 

Rules Committee Print 115–8 shall be considered as adopted and 

the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The resolution 

waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of 

order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, the Committee is not aware of any 

points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
SCPW-22-0000003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

JB, Petitioner

vs.

LK, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas

corpus, filed on January 4, 2022, petitioner presents no special

reason for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. 

See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 511, 512, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). 

Therefore,

It is ordered that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus is denied. 

It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for writ of habeas corpus

without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 20, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-22-0000003

20-JAN-2022

11:01 AM

Dkt. 3 ODDP
#### SAXTON, Appellant, v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Frank J. Saxton, as trustee, etc., against the National Cash Register Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. Held, that the time within which to appeal from the judgment, as modified by the order of June 6, 1903, had not expired at the time of the service of the notice of appeal.
SERVED NOVEMBER 19, 2010 i-rPAHTMENT OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "/(t: i OPERATlONb 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ^n'O uOV 19 P 2- 38 

j IN THE MATTER OF 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0015 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNO. FAA-2010-1072 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009SW270193) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Roimie A. Yoder/" 

Chief AdministrativeXaw 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0015 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Thomas Newton Boiling, Respondent's Coimsel 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Affairs 

Continental Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

1600 Smith Street, 15* Floor HQSLG 

Houston, TX 77002 

TEL: 713-324-5606 

FAX: 713-324-5161 

Tim Duff, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5099 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Mercer Rubber Corporation, Respondent, v. Tri-State Rubber Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order entered on November 2, 1961 unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbuysments to appellants, and the motion granted, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s serving a further notice to examine as to specific items. This is a suit for an injunction, an accounting and damages, in which plaintiff charges the individual defendants, its former employees, with unfair competition in that they used confidential information acquired during their many years of employment with plaintiff to establish a competing business. Plaintiff seeks to examine defendants “as to all issues raised in the Answer and as to aU matters pertaining to the proof of plaintiff’s causes of action Rule 121-a of the Rules of Civil Practice permits an examination “with respect to the relevant and material allegations of fact put in issue by the pleadings”. The scope of the examination sought by plaintiff is somewhat broader than that permitted by the rule. The general purpose of rule 121-a is to permit a less restricted pretrial examination. However, in light of the nature of this action in which, in addition to an injunction, an accounting is sought, we deem it the better practice to restrict the examination to specific items, Otherwise, there could he, in effect, an accounting before the right thereto is established. Plaintiff may seek leave of the court to examine further if the circumstances warrant. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.