alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John D’Angelo, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Mike D’Angelo, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal by the claimants from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying their claims for benefits. The claimants worked as laborers for a construction company for $100 per week. They each owned one of the three shares of the company’s stock and they held the positions respectively of vice-president and secretary-treasurer of the corporation. The third share was held by the president who also owned and leased to the corporation most of the equipment which was used. The claimants received no salary for their corporate positions nor did they receive any money from the corporation in addition to the weekly salary they were paid for the work which they performed. They were the beneficiaries however of an increase in the value of the corporation’s equipment and inventory. It appears that during the time when they were not actually engaged in construction work which was from November 11, 1957 to March 16, 1958 they did nothing for the corporation but they did retain their corporate positions. The Industrial Commissioner held the claimants ineligible for benefits in view of their corporate positions. The Referee reversed finding the claimants totally unemployed in that they held titles only as officers and performed no function with relation to the corporation when not engaged in construction work. The board reinstated the Industrial Commissioner’s determination holding that since the claimants continued to hold their corporate offices during the period when they were not actually working they were not totally unemployed. It pointed' out that “ they had the power to arbitrarily fix salaries and could increase their normal drawings during a busy season to compensate for lack of earnings during a slow period.” In a situation closely analogous to the present ease this court upheld a determination by the board of ineligibility for benefits *(Matter of Korth [Murphy],*266 App. Div. 934). Under such circumstances as are presented here the finding that the claimants were not totally unemployed is supported *826by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9920 

To include sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence in the definition 

of aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 

order to expedite the removal of aliens convicted of such crimes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 4, 2024 

Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. MCCAUL, 

Mr. OWENS, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. MACE, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. BACON, Mr. 

SMUCKER, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. STAUBER, and Mr. 

FEENSTRA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence 

in the definition of aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to expedite the 

removal of aliens convicted of such crimes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Enforcement 

5 of Grievous Offenses by unNaturalized Emigrants’’ or the 

6 ‘‘BE GONE Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9920 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF AGGRAVATED 

2 FELONIES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 

3 NATIONALITY ACT. 

4 Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (U), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(V) sexual assault and aggravated sexual vio12 lence.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Scott Eves, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 924]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Stein, J.), entered April 12, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

In August 2005, following the administrative reversal of a decision by the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for merit time release, petitioner reappeared before the Board for a de novo hearing as well as his regular parole hearing. At the conclusion of the combined hearing, the Board denied his request for parole release and imposed special conditions governing his conditional release. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination *1003in which he requested, among other things, a new parole hearing, expungement and redaction of references to any sealed or dismissed cases in his criminal record or inmate status report, as well as expungement or redaction of any parole conditions related to or based upon any sealed or dismissed cases. Respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding on various grounds. Supreme Court, in turn, dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

The Attorney General has advised that in August 2006, subsequent to the commencement of this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner reappeared before the Board at which time he was released to parole supervision and respondents have agreed to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to charges that were previously dismissed. Given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, his appeal must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Lomonaco v Dennison,*29 AD3d 1144 [2006]; *Matter of Concepcion v New York State Bd. of Parole,*304 AD2d 878 [2003]). Notably, while petitioner also seeks expungement or redaction of the special conditions related to his conditional release, they were imposed as part of the August 2005 determination, which has now been rendered moot. Any challenge to the special conditions imposed as part of petitioner’s conditional release must be made to the Board’s August 2006 determination, which is not a subject of the instant CPLR article 78 petition.

Peters, J.P, Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission**

**(Case T-388/02)**

State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing proceedings – Publication of a summary notice – No significant effect on the competitive position – Inadmissibility – Status as party concerned – Admissibility – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – No serious difficulties

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Day on which a measure came
to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter – Measures which, in accordance with standard practice of the institution,
are published in the Official Journal (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 29-32)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision
finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action by a competitor
undertaking not showing that its market position substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230,
fourth para., EC) (see paras 62, 64)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision
finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action by interested
parties for the purposes of Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC)
(see paras 60, 70-72)*

4.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the common market
– Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure – Lawfulness – Condition (Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation
No 659/1999, Art. 4(4)) (see paras 92-93)*

5.                     *State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Possibility of adopting guidelines (Arts 3(g) EC and
87(3) EC) (see paras 143-144)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by the German authorities to Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, and the Land Sachsen-Anhalt. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
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 of Constar International Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and Chief Executive 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/    MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN                               
|                                                        
|Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer



August 15, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Constar International Inc. and will be retained by Constar International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LLOYD KRAPIN,

 Appellant,

v.

SYLVIA KRAPIN,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00055-CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2013DCM1001)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lloyd Krapin, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal. We grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. See 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

October 11, 2017

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
### Landslides from the February 4, 1976, Guatemala earthquake

By: Edwin L. HarpRaymond C. WilsonGerald F. Wieczorek

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1204A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 77.1915 Storage and handling of combustible materials. ( a ) Compressed and liquefied gas, oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products shall not be stored within 100 feet of any slope or shaft opening.
( b ) Other combustible material and supplies shall not be stored within 25 feet of any slope or shaft opening.
( c ) Pyritic slates, bony coal, culm or other material capable of spontaneous combustion shall not be used for fill or as surfacing material within 100 feet of any slope or shaft opening.
( d ) Areas surrounding the opening of each slope or shaft shall be constructed to insure the drainage of flammable liquids away from the slope or shaft in the event of spillage.
( e ) Oily rags, waste, waste paper, and other combustible waste material disposed of in the vicinity of any slope or shaft opening shall be stored in closed containers until removed from the area.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Two computerized streamsearches among meteor orbits : 1. Among 865 precise photographic orbits; 2.among 2401 photographic orbits**
 
PDFs: Hi-resLo-res| ePub | Mobi
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:12
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001050773
 
March 26, 2018
#### In the Matter of Wolgor Realty Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Order, dated June 1, 1960, denying petitioner’s application pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, for an order annulling the determination of the State Rent Administrator and dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 4.1  



	 IQ Universe, Inc.
	

[LOGO]
	 	 	 	 	SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
	

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
	
COMMON CUSIP 46264 Y 109
	
THIS CERTIFICATE THAT	
 	

 	
 	

 
	
SPECIMEN
	is the owner of	 	 	 	 
	
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, OF
	
                                       
     IQ Universe,
Inc.                                        
    
	
transferable on the books of this Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by
the Transfer Agent and Registrar.
	

    WITNESS the facsimile signature of the Corporation's duly authorized officer.
	

Dated:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	
/s/ PAUL D. CRAWFORD
	

 	
 	
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
	

 	
 	

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
	 	 	    WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A.
	 	 	 	 	TRANSFER AGENT
	 	 	 	 	AND REGISTRAR
	 	 	BY	 	 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE









	TEN COM	—	 	as tenants in common	 	 	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	—	 	
	 	Custodian	 	

	TEN ENT	—	 	as tenants by entireties	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT TEN	—	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act

    
 (State)




Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list 





For Value Received                              hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto  



	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
    
	 	 	 	 	 
	

    
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
	    

	

    

	

    
	
 Shares
	of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	    
	 	attorney-in-fact
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.





	
Dated	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	
 	
 	

    

	 	 	 	 	    

	 	 	 	 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
	

SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED	
 	

 
	    
The signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions with
membership in an approved signature guarantee Medallion Program), pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 17Ad-15.
§ 912.774 Revision; renewal; and transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights. ( a ) Part 774 of this chapter, *Revision; Renewal; and Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Permit Rights,* shall apply to any such actions involving surface coal mining and reclamation operations permits.
( b ) Any revision to the approved permit will be subject to review and approval by OSMRE. ( 1 ) Significant revisions shall be processed as if they were new applications in accordance with the public notice and hearing provisions of §§ 773.6, 773.19(b)(1) and (b)(2), and 778.21 and of part 775.
( 2 ) OSMRE shall make every effort to approve or disapprove an application for permit revision within 60 days of receipt or such longer time as may be reasonable under the circumstances. If additional time is needed, OSMRE shall notify the applicant that the application is being reviewed, but more time is necessary to complete such review, setting forth the reasons and the additional time that is needed.
( c ) In addition to the requirement of part 774 of this chapter, any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by a decision on the transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights, including an official of any Federal, State, or local government agency, may submit written comments on the application to the Office within thirty days of either the publication of the newspaper advertisement required by § 774.17(b)(2) of this chapter or receipt of an administratively complete application, whichever is later.
[52 FR 13808, Apr. 24, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 79672, Dec. 19, 2000]
#### STATE BANK, Respondent, v. SILBERMAN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by the State Bank against Rosie Silberman and others.

N. Alienikoff, for appellants.

B. N. Cardozo, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
First Amendment dated August 2, 2002



  
 Exhibit 10.5.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE JACK IN THE BOX INC. CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVES 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT to the Jack in the Box Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan for Executives is adopted effective as of August 2, 2002. 
  
 Notwithstanding any provision of the Jack in the Box Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan for Executives, as amended and restated effective as of June 1, 2001, (the
“CAPE”) to the contrary, the CAPE is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1.    Effective as
of January 1, 2003, installment payments from the CAPE to Ken Williams (the “Participant”) shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the CAPE, except that, the calculation of the earnings on any unpaid balance of the
Participant’s CAPE account shall be determined using the Moody’s rate for the thirty-six (36) month period ending December 31, 2002 increased by two percent (2%). 
  
 2.    Except as modified by this Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the CAPE, as previously amended and restated effective as of June 1, 2001,
shall continue in full force and effect. 
  
 This amendment is executed effective as of the date set forth above at
San Diego, California. 
  
 
	 PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
 FOR THE JACK IN THE BOX INC.

CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR
 EXECUTIVES
 
	 
	 By:
 	 	 CARLO E. CETTI
 

	 On behalf of the Plan Administrative Committee
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2231

NANCY MARIE HELDRETH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

LARRY MORGAN, Individually and as an agent of

Allstate Insurance Company,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-156)

Submitted: January 30, 2002 Decided: February 14, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nancy Marie Heldreth, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Karleton Kesner,

KESNER, KESNER & BRAMBLE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Nancy Marie Heldreth appeals from the district court’s order

awarding partial summary judgment to Allstate Insurance Company in

this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Heldreth v. Allstate

Ins. Co., No. CA-99-156 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2001). We deny

Heldreth’s motion to prevent removal of abandoned property and to

prevent Monangalia County from assessing a monetary penalty. 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
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 this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Sionix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Currier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and,





2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Date: August 2, 2011




/s/ James R. CurrierJames R. CurrierChief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer