alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SATKOFSKY et al. v. JARMULOWSKY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Courts—Municipal Courts—Jurisdiction.

• The granting of an order of interpleader does not necessarily Involve the exercise of eauity jurisdiction, so as to invalidate Municipal Court Act, § 187 (Laws 1902, p. 1546, c. 580), giving the municipal court authority to make such an order.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Max Satkofslcy and another against Sender Jarmulowsky. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appeals.

Reversed.

See 95 N. Y. Supp. 555.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Morris Clark (David McClure, of counsel), for appellant

Abraham Oberstein, for respondents.

SCOTT, P. J.

The only question necessary to be considered upon this appeal is as to the validity of section 187 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1546, c. 580), giving the Municipal Court authority to make an order of interpleader. The argument in favor of the unconstitutionality of that section is ingenious, but not convincing. It rests entirely upon the assumption that the granting of an order of interpleader necessarily involves the exercise of equity jurisdiction. While there are phrases in certain opinions, which, taken by themselves, seem to support this view, we do not consider that the authorities go to the whole extent claimed for them. The true rule appears to be that an interpleader, by order, does not turn the action into a suit in equity, but it is a statutory remedy designed for use in common-law courts and actions, to the application of which certain rules derived from the practice of the equity courts .have been adapted. McElroy v. Baer, 9 Civ. Proc. R. 133.

Order reversed, - and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
# FY 2024 President's Budget

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2024 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET&11(in thousands of dollars)	

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

 &P
### §1425. Ineligibility to naturalization of deserters from the Armed Forces

A person who, at any time during which the United States has been or shall be at war, deserted or shall desert the military, air, or naval forces of the United States, or who, having been duly enrolled, departed, or shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled, or who, whether or not having been duly enrolled, went or shall go beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military, air, or naval service, lawfully ordered, shall, upon conviction thereof by a court martial or a court of competent jurisdiction, be permanently ineligible to become a citizen of the United States; and such deserters and evaders shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or of profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §314, 66 Stat. 241.)
Fiscal Year 2018 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

FY 2018 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

1500001 Hawaii County 13,109,956

1500003 Honolulu County 29,498,200

1500005 Kalawao County 0

1500007 Kauai County 2,099,690

1500009 Maui County 5,103,255

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* 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, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### 1219.201-70 Procurement goals for small business.

As required by the Small Business Act, the Secretary shall establish annual goals for small business participation in DOT contracts and subcontracts. Each contracting activity in consultation with the OSDBU on behalf of the Secretary shall establish annual goals that present, for that activity, the maximum practicable opportunity for small business concerns to participate in the performance of the activity's contracts and subcontracts.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### Anna Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, Inc., et al.

Motions by respondents George Kremer, George Kremer, Jr., and H. J. Enterprises, Inc., to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to he served and filed on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
12.504 Applicability of certain laws to subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. ( a ) The following laws are not applicable to subcontracts at any tier for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services at any tier: ( 1 ) 10 U.S.C. 2631, Transportation of Supplies by Sea (except for the types of subcontracts listed at 47.504(d)).
( 2 ) 15 U.S.C. 644(d), Requirements relative to labor surplus areas under the Small Business Act (see subpart 19.2).
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 65, Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment Exceeding $10,000 (see subpart 22.6).
( 5 ) 41 U.S.C. 4703, Validation of Proprietary Data restrictions (see subpart 27.4).
( 6 ) 41 U.S.C. 3901(b) and 10 U.S.C. 3321(b), Contingent Fees (see subpart 3.4).
( 7 ) 41 U.S.C. 4706(d) and 10 U.S.C. 3841(d), Examination of Records of Contractor, when a subcontractor is not required to provide certified cost or pricing data (see 15.209(b)), unless using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5).
( 8 ) 41 U.S.C. 1708(e)(3), Minimum Response Time for Offers (see subpart 5.2).
( 9 ) 41 U.S.C. 2302, Rights in Technical Data (see subpart 27.4).
( 10 ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 81, Drug-Free Workplace (see subpart 26.5).
( 11 ) 46 U.S.C. Appx 1241(b), Transportation in American Vessels of Government Personnel and Certain Cargo (see Subpart 47.5) (except for the types of subcontracts listed at 47.504(d)).
( 12 ) 49 U.S.C. 40118, Fly American provisions (see subpart 47.4).
( 13 ) Section 806(a)(3) of Pub. L. 102-190, as amended by Sections 2091 and 8105 of Pub. L. 103-355 10 U.S.C. 4601 note prec.), Payment Protections for Subcontractors and Suppliers (see 28.106-6).
( b ) The requirements for a certificate and clause under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards statute, 40 U.S.C. chapter 37, (see subpart 22.3) are not applicable to subcontracts at any tier for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.
( c ) The applicability of the following laws have been modified in regard to subcontracts at any tier for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services: ( 1 ) 41 U.S.C. 4704 and 10 U.S.C. 4655, Prohibition on Limiting Subcontractor Direct Sales to the United States (see subpart 3.5).
( 2 ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 35 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 271, Truthful Cost or Pricing Data (see subpart 15.4).
( 3 ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, Cost Accounting Standards (48 CFR chapter 99) (see 12.214).
[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 67418, Dec. 20, 1996; 62 FR 232, 236, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 51270, Sept. 30, 1997; 64 FR 72416, 72418, Dec. 27, 1999; 65 FR 46069, July 26, 2000; 68 FR 13203, Mar. 18, 2003; 70 FR 57454, Sept. 30, 2005; 72 FR 46330, Aug. 17, 2007; 73 FR 54008, Sept. 17, 2008; 74 FR 14648, Mar. 31, 2009; 75 FR 53142, Aug. 30, 2010; 79 FR 24200, Apr. 29, 2014; 85 FR 27090, May 6, 2020; 86 FR 61024, Nov. 4, 2021; 87 FR 73897, Dec. 1, 2022; 89 FR 30237, Apr. 22, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         112,145
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             412
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                52,429
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    253,419
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         336,478
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           335,725
<LOANS>                                      1,296,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,134,284
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,827,809
<SHORT-TERM>                                    60,140
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             19,062
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,700
<COMMON>                                        37,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,134,284
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 86,496
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               28,032
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,815
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               117,343
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              48,254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,733
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           67,356
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,590
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  25
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,744
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      31,744
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.18
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,346
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,148
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    36
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,385
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                17,211
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,905
<RECOVERIES>                                       432
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,328
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            17,328
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
(May 16, 1963)

#### Ritz Associates, Inc., Respondent, v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order and judgment affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Jacob Markowitz at Special Term [35 Mise 2d 425], with costs to respondent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.; Rabin, J., dissents in part in the following memorandum: I dissent, in part, to the extent that I would deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and I would likewise deny plaintiff’s motion for a dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim. Special Term granted summary judgment to the plaintiff holding that the agreement was void because the license given was a naked license. I disagree with that conclusion. There was provision for the revocation of that license if the plaintiff failed to maintain its building as a high-class apartment hotel and restaurant. Thus, the standard to which the plaintiff was obliged to *523adhere was set up and compliance therewith was the requisite for the continuance of the license. The license was therefore not a naked one. It cannot be said that the license must be deemed a naked one because the standards to be adhered to were not more specifically set out or more precisely defined. It may very well be that the requirement that the building be maintained as a high-class apartment hotel and restaurant is sufficiently definite and meaningful to the hotel trade. That is a question of fact. The same applies to the question as to whether there was sufficient supervision to insure performance of the condition if that be needed to maintain the validity of the license. That too is a question of fact to be tried. It is quite possible that the watchfulness alleged by the defendant to have been maintained, was quite sufficient to enable it to detect a breach of the condition imposed. In short I believe there are questions of fact to be tried and consequently it was improper to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff.
#### In the Matter of Robert Epps, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court, State of New York, First Judicial Department, Special Terms, Parts 1, 2 and 5 et al., Respondents.

Application dismissed, without costs, on the ground that no appeal, proceeding under article 78, or other mode of review exists with respect to a denial of an application for a certificate of reasonable doubt. (See Code Grim. Pro., § 529.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
# Memorandum

us.Department of Transportotion Office of the Secretary of Transportation Subject: Notice ofCommunication inDocket:

DOT-OST-OST-2010-0124 2010 SCASDP Proceeding

{ 

## e ro." t•.•. ,J 

### a ~~~;(;~-" ~""7 j"f"i.:D;:.;: 

# ,;?~~~ .:.--;.~,-..,...., I".) c/') 

### a In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), Iam reporting the following communication.

# ~L Robert Letteney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs) Chief, Dockets From:

To:

On October 4,2010, Congressman Jason Chaffetz placed atelephone call to Secretary LaHood, during which Congressman Chaffetz expressed his support forthe City ofProvo, Utah's application for funds administered under the Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP). Secretary LaHood listened, and explained that while he appreciated the Congressman's interest inthe Department's SCASDP proceeding, he could not comment on the merits because the matter was under active consideration bythe Department. The Secretary also explained that the Department would likely announce its grant selections by the end ofOctober. Please place this memorandum inthe appropriate Docket.

cc: Congressman Jason Chaffetz
exv10w22



 







Exhibit 10.22




Form of

SECOND AMENDMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT




     This SECOND AMENDMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is
entered into as of ___, 2006, by and between SDC Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and WAJ, a Connecticut general partnership (“WAJ”).



RECITALS:




     WHEREAS, the Company and Kilgore Consulting III LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company
(“Kilgore”) entered into that certain Management Services Agreement dated September 2,
2004, as supplemented and amended by the Amendment to Management Services Agreement dated September
30,2004, by and between the Company and WAJ (as amended, the “MSA”), whereby WAJ
substituted Kilgore under the MSA;



     WHEREAS, the Company and WAJ desire to amend certain provisions of the MSA in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and the respective mutual agreements
contained herein, the Company and WAJ agree as follows:



     Section 1. Termination by Company. Paragraph 1 of the MSA is amended by adding the
following language to the end of Paragraph 1:




“Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Company may
terminate this Agreement upon 30 days’ prior written notice to Kilgore.”



     Section 2. Assignment. Paragraph 10 of the MSA is amended by adding the following
language to the end of Paragraph 10:




“Notwithstanding any provision of this Paragraph 10 to the contrary, Kilgore may
assign this Agreement to Compass Group Management LLC and shall upon such assignment
provide written notice thereof to the Company within 10 calendar days of such
assignment.”



     Section 3. Offsetting Management Services Agreement. The MSA, as amended by this
Agreement, shall be an “Offsetting Management Services Agreement” as defined in that certain
Management Services Agreement dated of even date hereof, by and between Compass Group Diversified
Holdings LLC and Compass Group Management LLC.



     Section 4. Effectiveness of MSA. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the
terms and provisions of the MSA remain in full force and effect.



     Section 5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under and shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut.



     Section 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which will be deemed to be an original copy of this Agreement and all of which, when taken
together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.



 









 





{remainder of page left intentionally blank; signature page follows}





 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Second Amendment to
Management Services Agreement as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY: 



SDC Technologies, Inc., 

a Delaware corporation

 	 
	 	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 
	 	WAJ:



WAJ, 

a Connecticut general partnership

 	 
	 	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	I. Joseph Massoud 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Partner
Exhibit 11
                         Exolon-ESK Company and Subsidiaries
                          Computation of Earnings Per Share
                        (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)


                                     Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended 
                                          March 31,          June 30,
                                        1998      1997     1998     1997

          Net earnings                   $1,197   $1,348  $2,028    $2,840

          Less Preferred Stock
          Dividends:

               Series A                     (5)      (5)    (11)      (11)
               Series B                     (5)      (5)    (11)      (11)

          Undistributed earnings         $1,187   $1,338  $2,006    $2,818
          Net earnings attributable
          to:

               Common Stock (50.0%)         593      669   1,003     1,409

               Class A Common Stock
               (50.0%)                      594      669   1,003     1,409
                                         $1,187   $1,338  $2,006    $2,818

          Net earnings per share of                             
          Common Stock:
               Basic                      $1.23    $1.39   $2.08     $2.92

               Diluted                    $1.19    $1.34   $2.01     $2.84

          Net earnings per share of
          Class A Common Stock:

               Basic                      $1.16    $1.30   $1.96     $2.75

               Diluted                    $1.12    $1.26   $1.90     $2.68

          Weighted Average Shares                                         
          Outstanding:
               Basic:

               Common Stock             482,000  482,000 482,000   482,000

               Class A Common Stock     513,000  513,000 513,000   513,000

               Diluted:

               Common Stock             504,000  504,000 504,000   504,000

               Class A Common Stock     535,000  535,000 535,000   535,000
#### 1009.104 Standards.
#### David Robbins v. Frank Cooper Associates.

Motion for reargument denied but motion for resettlement of the order of this court entered on July 9, 1963 *(ante,*p. 242), granted so that, in pertinent part, it would read: “ Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event, questions of fact not having been considered by this court.” Submit resettled order. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
# Sheet1

# Sheet2

# Sheet3

# Sheet4

# Sheet5

# Sheet6

# Sheet7

# Sheet8

# Sheet9

# Sheet10

# Sheet11

# Sheet12

# Sheet13

# Sheet14

# Sheet15

# Sheet16
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 810 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.810

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                                 An Act

 
To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property in Christian 
                County, Missouri, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT.
    (a) In General.--The Riverside Bridge Project is authorized to be 
carried out notwithstanding--
        (1) any agreement entered unto under, or restriction pursuant 
    to, section 404(b)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
    Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)(2)); or
        (2) any easement or other Federal restriction pursuant to that 
    Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) that requires the covered property to 
    be maintained for open space, recreation, or wetland management.
    (b) Conditions.--As a condition of the authorization under 
subsection (a)--
        (1) Christian County, Missouri, or an assignee shall--
            (A) carry out the Riverside Bridge Project in a manner that 
        ensures that no flood damage attributable to the Project 
        occurs; and
            (B) be liable for any such flood damage that does occur; 
        and
        (2) the Federal Government shall not be liable for future flood 
    damage that is caused by the Project.
    (c) Disaster Assistance Prohibited.--No future disaster assistance 
from any Federal source may be provided with respect to the covered 
property or any improvements thereon.
    (d) Definitions.--In this Act, the following definitions apply:
        (1) Covered property.--The term ``covered property'' means the 
    property--
            (A) in Christian County, Missouri;
            (B) conveyed to such County by the Riverside Inn, Inc.; and
            (C) that is approximately 1.5 acres and 482 lineal feet 
        adjacent to the westerly line of Riverside Road to the center 
        of Finley Creek.
        (2) Riverside bridge project.--The term ``Riverside Bridge 
    Project'' means the project to construct, maintain, and operate a 
    bridge on and over the covered property.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```