alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frederick Wiater, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed and matter remitted to the Family Court of the County of Oneida for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Children’s Court of Oneida County which convicted the defendant of failing to obey a previous order of that court and which directed that he furnish an undertaking to secure payments which had been directed and that he be committed to Oneida County Jail until the giving of such undertaking unless sooner discharged by the court but in no event to exceed six months. Although there is no warrant in the record and there is grave doubt as to whether one was properly served upon the appellant, it appears that the proceeding was brought against him and the commitment pronounced in accordance with section 6 (subd. 2, par. [c]) of the Children’s Court Act (now Family Court Act). It does not appear that the charge was read to him. No one was sworn, no evidence taken, but after a discussion, largely between the court and appellant’s counsel, during which counsel made no admissions, in a very abrupt and cavalier manner the court decided that appellant was guilty and pronounced the afore-mentioned sentence. The proceedings not only defied every concept of due process but were also in violation of the statutes involved. Under section 33 of the Children’s Court Act, whenever a person is charged with a violation under article III-A dealing with support proceedings, the court should proceed “to try and determine the charge of non-support. If upon such trial the court shall find *by competent evidence** 6 that he is guilty of non-support, the court * * * may *693commit him to jail for not exceeding six months.” (Italics supplied.) The trial may be conducted by the court without a jury (§ 33-a), and the respondent should be informed of his right to counsel and, of course, may be repre-ented by counsel (§ 33-b). None of the essential formalities were complied with. Although we realize that some informality has been permitted in the past in Children’s Court proceedings, such a complete deviation from orderly and required process requires a reversal and a new trial. The matter should, therefore, be remanded to the Family Court of the County of Oneida for proceedings in accordance with this memorandum. (Appeal from judgment of' Oneida Children’s Court convicting defendant of failure to make support payments, a misdemeanor.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeGlusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Philip D. Kaplan, plaintiff in error, v. Isaac Stein, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 29,163.

Suit for an accounting on profit-sharing contract. Decree for certain amount to be paid to complainant. Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Robert P. Burkhalter and Edwin White Moore, for plaintiff in error.

Clithero, Van Sehaick & Stevens, for defendant in error.

Delbert A. Clithero, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 552.122 Personnel not authorized to possess or retain personal weapons. ( a ) Possession, retention or storage of personal weapons or ammunition by person(s) described below is prohibited: ( 1 ) Any person who has been convicted in any court of a crime of violence. For the purpose of this regulation, a crime of violence is one in which the use of force or threat of force is an element.
( 2 ) Any person who is a fugitive from justice.
( 3 ) Any person who has been convicted in any court of the possession, use, or sale of marijuana, dangerous or narcotic drugs.
( 4 ) Any person who is presently declared as mentally incompetent or who is presently committed to any mental institution.
( 5 ) Any civilian, or other than a military family member or a law enforcement officer authorized to carry the weapon under state or federal law, while on Fort Lewis or a sub-installation, except while hunting or engaged in authorized target practice or an organized match, unless specifically authorized in writing by the Commanding General, I Corps and Fort Lewis.
( b ) Any person under the age of eighteen is prohibited from the use of firearms unless accompanied and supervised by a parent or legal guardian.
( c ) Delivery of a personal handgun to persons known to be under the age of twenty-one, persons known to have been convicted of a crime or violence, persons known to be a drug abuser or under the influence of drugs, persons known to be an alcoholic or currently under the influence of alcohol or a person known to be of unsound mind, is prohibited.
Fiscal Year 2008 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2008 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1500001 Hawaii County 8,077,633 1,615,527 1,784.72

1500003 Honolulu County 30,320,770 6,064,154 2,000.31

1500005 Kalawao County 0 0 0.00

1500007 Kauai County 2,555,999 511,200 1,562.35

1500009 Maui County 3,382,206 676,441 1,403.99

1599998 Undistributed 0 0 0.00

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2008 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
#### Allan Rubin, Appellant, v. Ila Mann, Respondent.

In an action by an attorney at law to recover a balance alleged to be due and unpaid to the plaintiff for legal services rendered by him to defendant, wherein defendant asserted two counterclaims, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 25, 1959 upon the jury’s verdict after trial, as dismissed his complaint and awarded costs against him. With respect to the defendant’s two counterclaims, the jury’s verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, but no cross appeal has been taken by defendant from the judgment, insofar as it dismissed said counterclaims. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4472-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York (FEMA-4472-DR), dated December 19, 2019, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on December 3, 2020.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Seamus K. Leary as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2020-29293 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Victoria La Mura, Respondent, v. Joseph La Mura, Appellant.

Order, entered May 7, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that sequestration and receivership, with all provisions of the order of the court, entered March 16, 1964, shall terminate and end upon condition, however, that the defendant pay all taxable costs to date; upon further condition that the defendant shall, pending the détermination of this action, pay, when due, all the maintenance charges of the home presently occupied by the wife; upon further condition that the defendant shall, within 10 days after service of this order with notice of entry, file a surety company undertaking in the sum of $5,000, or duly extend and broaden the undertaking heretofore filed to secure the payment by defendant husband of such maintenance charges and all costs of the action, receivership costs and expenses, temporary alimony and Such other payments, if any, as directed by.the court to be paid by defendant pending the determination of this action; the order appealed from otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. The order of sequestration and the appointment of a receiver was properly supported. Thereafter, however, the defendant husband did duly appear in the action, so the compliance by him with the conditions aforesaid will furnish adequate protection to the plaintiff and obviate the necessity for continuance of the provisions for sequestration of his property. Settle order on notice. Order, entered May 27, 1964, authorizing employment of counsel by receiver, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law and the facts, without costs, and cross motion for such appointment denied, without costs, without prejudice to renewal of motion in the event of failure of defendant to file an undertaking as provided for in the determination of this court in the matter of the companion appeal in *La Mu/ra*v. *La Mura,*decided herewith. In the event the receivership is terminated as provided in such order, there will be no necessity for the receiver to employ counsel. Order, entered May 4, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, motion by defendant for protective order granted, without costs, and motion hy plaintiff for examination of defendant before trial denied, without costs. In this action for separation, there is no showing of special circumstances justifying an examination before trial of the defendant as to his income, property and assets. (See *Nomako*v. *Ashton,*20 A D 2d 331; *Hunter*v. *Hunter,*10 A D 2d 291, mot. for rearg. and lv. to app. den. 10 A D 2d 937.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Staley, JJ.
#### § 21.405 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart describes the sources and flow of authority to make or administer assistance awards, and assigns the broad responsibilities associated with DoD Components' use of those instruments.
# SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C. 20549

# FORM 6-K

# REPORT OF FOREIGN
PRIVATE ISSUER 
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-16
OR 15d-16 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Month
  of August 2005
GENESYS S.A. 
(Exact name of
registrant as specified in its charter)

LAcropole,
954-980 avenue Jean Mermoz, 34000 Montpellier, FRANCE 
(Address of principal executive offices)

| | (Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.) | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Form 20-F X Form
40-F

| | Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):____ | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

| | Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):____ | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

| | Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Yes    No  X

| | If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_______________. | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---

---



---

SIGNATURES

Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: August 11,
  2005

| | GENESYS SA
By:  /s/ François Legros
Name: François Legros
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

                                                     EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Section 1350 Certification
                 By Principal Financial Officer

     I,  Craig  R.  Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adpoted pursuant to  Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is
attached,  fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d)  of  the  Securities and Exchange Act of  1934,  and the
information  contained  in  the  periodic report  to  which  this
Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the  financial   condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the
registrant.

     A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  has  been
provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and
furnished to the SEC upon request.

     Dated September 22, 2005

                              /s/ Craig R. Jones
                              Craig R. Jones
                              Chief Financial Officer
```
#### Mansfield Driskell, Respondent, v. Charles Alfano, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and false imprisonment, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, rendered February 19, 1960, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff. Defendant, an investigator in the employ of the -Division of Licenses in the State Department of this State, in the course of executing his duties on July 7, 1955; observed what he thought were various violations of law committed in a barber shop owned by one Frazier. Frazier told defendant that he, Frazier, was Mansfield Driskell (the plaintiff), at the same time exhibiting Driskell’s license as an apprentice barber, which was on the premises. Defendant accordingly procured a summons to be issued, directed nominally against Driskell. Frazier had similarly identified himself as Driskell to defendant on a previous occasion. Subsequently, after no one appeared in response to the summons, a bench warrant was issued by a Police Justice, directed against this plaintiff, and he, and not Frazier, was arrested. Plaintiff thereupon brought this action. The parties having waived findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court awarded $750 to the plaintiff, and simply directed entry of the judgment accordingly, without making any findings of fact. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and action remitted to the trial court for an appropriate decision, in accordance with section 440 of the Civil Practice Act, setting forth the facts which it deems essential to sustain the judgment to be entered. It is true that in a nonjury case the parties or their attorneys may waive all *formal*findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as their privilege (under Civ. Prac. Act, § 439) to submit requests with respect to such formal findings. But such waiver cannot be extended so as to dispense with the decision of the trial court stating the essential facts on which the judgment is founded. No stipulation or waiver can eliminate the requirement of section 440 of the Civil Practice Act that the trial court shall render a decision, orally in open court or in writing, which “must state the facts which it deems essential” and that such “decision shall form part of the record.” In a non jury ease an appropriate decision by the trial court in accordance with the statute (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 440, 602) is necessary to insure both a proper adjudication in the trial court and an adequate review in the appellate courts. Such decision, therefore, *974may not be omitted either by consent, waiver or inadvertence *(Mason*v. *Lory Dress Co.,*277 App. Div. 660; *Steel Co. of So. Cal.*v. *Associated Metals & Mins. Corp.,*277 App. Div. 687). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### F. Henry Connelly, Sr., as Guardian ad Litem of F. Henry Connelly, Jr., an Infant, Appellant, v. Public School District of North Tonawanda, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion and in the interest of justice, the motion should have been granted. (Appeal from final order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion to file a notice of claim after expiration of the statutory period.) Present — Williams,.?. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5157

ROBERT L. GILBERTSON,

and JOAN R. GILBERTSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 05-CV-934, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER 

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 17 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk uAtniridinve N

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20

APR 17 2009

JAPI tiükb,

CLERK
### §2120. Cotton; investigation of new uses; cooperation with State and other agencies

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce are authorized to engage in technical and scientific research in American-grown cotton and its byproducts and their present and potential uses, including new and additional commercial and scientific uses for cotton and its byproducts, and to diffuse such information among the people of the United States; and the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce or their duly authorized representatives may cooperate with any department or agency of the Government, any State, Territory, District, or possession or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or any person in carrying out the purposes of this section in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

(Apr. 12, 1928, ch. 362, 45 Stat. 426.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 423 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is comprised of act Apr. 12, 1928, ch. 362, and was not enacted as part of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act which comprises this chapter.