alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1903. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–445, §5(b), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1069

Section, Pub. L. 85–765, §3, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 862, related to limitations on Government procurement and price support, modifications during national emergency, and statements of eligibility.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one year after Oct. 10, 1978, and nonapplicability during not to exceed additional 18 months in hardship cases, see sec. 7 of Pub. L. 95–445 set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 603 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

#### Contracts For or Procurement of Livestock Products During the Period From June 30, 1960, to August 30, 1960

Pub. L. 86–547, June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 255, permitted any agency or instrumentality of the United States, during the period from June 30, 1960, to August 30, 1960, to contract for or procure livestock products produced or processed by a slaughterer or processor which slaughters or handles for slaughter livestock by methods other than those designated and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture if such slaughterer or processor has contracted for the purchase of the equipment necessary to enable him to adopt such methods but such equipment has not been delivered to him.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ) 

ARCHITECTURAL METAL ) 

AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL ) 

UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND ) 

PENSION FUNDS, ) No. 12 C 149 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Nordberg 

 ) 

 v. ) Magistrate Valdez 

 ) 

SKYLIGHT CONSULTANTS OF ) 

AMERICA, INC., ) 

A Florida Corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

 NOW COME the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and in their Motion for Judgment in 

Sum Certain, state as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 9, 2012 seeking judgment on a fringe benefit 

contributions audit of Defendant by Plaintiffs’ auditor. 

2. Defendant failed to answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and this Court found it in default on 

November 14, 2012. 

3. Per the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ auditor, Defendant is delinquent to the Plaintiff Funds in the 

following amounts: 

a. $17,216.38 in delinquent contributions consisting of package differential; 

b. $1.46 in dues; 

c. $2,582.67 in liquidated damages on the preceding two items; 

d. an additional $176.02 liquidated penalty; and 

e. $1,395.00 in audit costs. See Ex. A. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00149 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/21/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:17
4. Per the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs have incurred $5,150.00 in costs and 

attorneys’ fees in the instant action and the attempted collection of Defendant’s delinquency. 

See Ex. B. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter the Order attached to this Motion as Exhibit C. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, 

 ARCHIECTURAL METAL AND 

 GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION 

 NO. 27 WELFARE AND 

 PENSION FUNDS 

 By: s/Andrew S. Pigott 

 One of their Attorneys 

Donald D. Schwartz 

Andrew S. Pigott 

ARNOLD AND KADJAN 

203 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1650 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 236-0415 

Case: 1:12-cv-00149 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/21/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18
|                               |   |                                                                                 |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   |                                                                                 |   |
| Date:  May      15, 2008 |   | /s/ Barry      B. Goldstein                                                     |   |
|                               |   | Barry      B. GoldsteinChief      Executive Officer                                  |   |
|                               |   |                                                                                 |   |
|                               |   |                                                                                 |   |
|                               |   |  /s/      Victor Brodsky                                                        |   |
|                               |   | Victor      BrodskyChief      Accounting Officer andPrincipal      Financial Officer |   |
|                               |   |                                                                                 |   |
|                               |   |                                                                                 |   |
#### McMYLER v. UNION CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Plate-Glass Insurance—Nonexistence of Subject-Matter—Evidence—

Sufficiency.

In an action on a plate-glass insurance policy, evidence that defendant’s inspector viewed the glass on the day when it issued the policy, and discovered a hole near its center, does not show that the glass was not in existence at the time of the issuance of the policy.

2. Same—Broken Glass—Insurability.

Where a plate-glass insurance policy contains no provision that the glass must he without hole or perforation w-hen insured, a hole through a pane of glass does not render it uninsurable under such policy.

3. Same—Destruction of Glass—Cause.

The fact that a pane of glass had a hole in its center at the time of the issuance of insurance thereon does not show that a break in the glass from top to bottom one week thereafter was in consequence of, or connected with, such hole.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by Thomas McMyler against the Union Casualty & Surety Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

A. J. Barrett, for appellant.

John Mott Stearns, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiff sought recovery for a broken pane of plate glass upon a policy of insurance issued to him by the defendant. The defendant contended that the glass in question was broken before the policy was issued; that it, too late, it would seem, had requested return of the policy in order to exempt-this particular pane from its application; and that there can be no liability where the subject-matter is not in existence when the policy is issued. There is no evidence of representations of any kind by the assured, while it does appear that the defendant, by its inspector, viewed the glass on the day when it issued the policy, and discovered that “it was broken by a hole through it * * * about the center of the glass, * * * covered by a telephone sign * * * a glass bell sign * * * that was cemented onto the glass.” On cross-examination the inspector was asked, “You found what kind of a break, * * * a perforation?” And he answered, “A perforation in the glass.” This surely does not show that the glass was not in existence at the time of the issuance of the policy; nor does it show that it was damaged and not insurable under the terms of the policy, for its terms nowhere recite that the glass must be without hole or perforation • when insured ; nor does it prove that the break one week thereafter, when, as the bartender and general manager, the plaintiff testified: “The whole business was broken. * * * It was broken right through from the top to the bottom; broke in about four parts”—was in consequence of or connected with the *171hole or perforation earlier discovered by the defendant. The judgment in favor of the defendant must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
### Volcanism in Hawaii

Edited by: Robert W. DeckerThomas L. WrightPeter H. Stauffer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1350

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Documents:                                -  **Volume 1**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
  - **Volume 2**                                                                                                     (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.
#### (A) Paul J. Donovan v. John M. Shaheen et al. (B) In the Matter of Manhattan Housing Corporation v. Sylvia Klein. (C) In the Matter of Stanton Homes Corporation v. Helen Lichtbraun.

[In each action] Motion for a stay denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       to

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       of

                       ANCHOR PACIFIC UNDERWRITERS, INC.

        The undersigned, James R. Duanthan and Earl Wiklund, in order to amend
its Certificate of Incorporation, hereby certify as follows:

        1.     They are the duly elected and acting President and Secretary,
respectively, of Anchor Pacific Underwriters, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation").

        2.     Article FOURTH of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation
is hereby amended to read as follows:

               "This corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares
               designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock."
               The authorized number of shares of Common Stock is 50,000,000 and
               the authorized number of shares of Preferred Stock is 2,500,000.
               The stock, whether Preferred Stock or Common Stock, shall have a
               par value of $.02 per share."

        3.     The amendment effected herein was authorized by the affirmative
vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote
thereon pursuant to Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.  The percentage vote required was a simple majority of the
outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto sign our names and affirm that the
statements made herein are true under the penalties of perjury this 10th day of
March, 2000.

                                                /s/ James R. Dunathan
                                                --------------------------------
                                                James R. Dunathan, President


                                                /s/ Earl Wiklund
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Earl Wiklund, Secretary
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3882

_____________________________
J EROME J. F ERRIER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. February 27, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jerome Ferrier, pro se
, for Appellant.2 Ashley B. Moody
, Attorney General, for Appellee.
Amendment to the 1995 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO THE MORGAN STANLEY 
 1995 EQUITY INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 The last sentence of Section 3 of the 1995 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended, is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “In no event shall any Awards be made under the Plan after May 10, 2006; provided, however, that no incentive stock option, within
the meaning of Section 422 of the Code, may be granted under the Plan after the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Plan by the Board.”
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 State

          - [Public Notice 11302]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation. I also conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the following are additional aliases of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases): Lashkar e Jhangvi al-Alami, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al-Almi, also known as LeJ al-Alami.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained. Additionally, pursuant to Section 219(b) of the INA, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(b)), I hereby amend the designation of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to include the following new aliases: Lashkar e Jhangvi al-Alami, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al-Almi, also known as LeJ al-Alami.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 22, 2020.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00601 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
Argued and submitted November 4, 2003,

reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate restraining order February 18,2004

#### Jodene Michele MAJKA, *Appellant, v.*John Philip MAHER, *Respondent.*

0205-64982; A118795

84 P3d 824

Nancy Patton, Certified Law Student, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Maya Crawford and Luis Perez, Certified Law Students, and Theresa Wright, and Lewis & Clark Legal Clinic. On the supplemental brief were Nancy B. Patton, Certified Law Student, and Theresa L. Wright.

No appearance for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Schuman, Judges.

EDMONDS, P. J.

*175EDMONDS, P. J.

Petitioner seeks reversal of the trial court’s order vacating a restraining order obtained under the Family Abuse Prevention Act. ORS 107.700 to 107.732. ORS 107.710 provides that any person may seek relief in the form of a restraining order by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person was a victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days of filing the petition and that the person is in imminent danger of abuse from the respondent. On *de novo*review, *Strother and Strother,*130 Or App 624, 629, 883 P2d 249 (1994), *rev den,*320 Or 508 (1995), we conclude that petitioner is entitled to the relief provided under ORS 107.710 and reverse.

We find the following uncontroverted facts. Petitioner and respondent are former spouses. They were at the Multnomah County Courthouse for a child support hearing in May 2002. Despite past problems with confrontations after court hearings, the parties and petitioner’s husband left the courtroom together at the conclusion of the hearing. Respondent then threatened petitioner and her husband, saying that he had found somebody to “take care” of them — implying that he had found somebody to kill them. A dispute broke out, and respondent pushed petitioner, causing her to fall to the ground. Petitioner received medical care and alleges that the injuries required neck surgery. Respondent was immediately arrested for assault. The next day, petitioner filed a petition under ORS 107.710 and obtained a restraining order. In addition to describing the above incident, the petition alleged that petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse because of respondent’s continued threats of harm. Respondent contested the order at a hearing under ORS 107.716 held in June 2002, and the trial court vacated the order.

Our review of the evidence at the hearing persuades us that petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the statute for the continuation of the order. A further discussion of the evidence would not benefit the bench or the bar.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate restraining order.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 683 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 683

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement to 
 provide nursing home care to certain veterans with service-connected 
                             disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2017

  Ms. Hirono (for herself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement to 
 provide nursing home care to certain veterans with service-connected 
                             disabilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Our Commitment to Disabled 
Veterans Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NURSING HOME CARE TO 
              CERTAIN VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

    Section 1710A(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2017'' and inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00114

- CR

Kristi COLLINS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court N o. 16

- 09

- 180

- CRW The Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After we granted the court reporter’s first two requests for extensions of time to file the reporter’s record, t he reporter’s r ecord was due on June 8, 2018

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1. Three days after the extended due date, court reporter Leticia M. Escamilla filed a third notification of late reporter’s record . The noti fication included a status report indicating the number of pages completed and remaining. The court reporter states she has two other court reporters helping her edit and proof the record; she request s an additional thirty days to complete the record.

The request is GRANTED

. We ORDER Leticia M. Escamilla to file t he reporter’s
record not later than July 9, 2018

.
NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD
WILL BE GRANTED.

If the reporter’s record is not filed as ordered, a SHOW CAUSE ORDER shall issue directing Leticia M. Escamilla to appear on a day certain and show cause why she should not be
h eld in contempt for failing to file the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c); see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 21.002 (West 2004) (authorizing contemnor punishment up to “a fine of not more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six m onths, or both such a fine and confinement in jail ”); Johnson v. State , 151 S.W.3d 193, 195

– 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (notingthe court’s previous action holding a court reporter in contempt for “repeatedly fail[ing] to

prepare and file the record” and “or der[ing] him incarcerated .

. . until the record was finished”).

The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Leticia M. Escamilla by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to addressee only, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNE SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle Clerk of Court