alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruth Schwarzbart, Plaintiff, v. Edward Schwarzbart, Defendant.

— Application by the plaintiff wife to this court, pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 66), for an order of commitment against the defendant husband because of his default under an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 29, 1961. By this order, the defendant was adjudged in contempt by reason of his failure to pay $50 a week for alimony and the support of two infant children of the parties, as directed by a judgment of divorce rendered June 16, 1952; and he was fined $2,300, the amount of the arrears. The order permitted the defendant to purge himself of the contempt by paying the fine or arrears of alimony at the rate of $15 per week. The order further provided that such “ purge ” payments should be in addition to the current alimony payments of $50 per week and that in the event of his default in such weekly payments the entire balance of the $2,300 fine would become due and the plaintiff could apply ex parte for an order of commitment against him. Application ex parte is now made to this court for such commitment order by reason of the prior refusal of a Justice of the Supreme Court to grant such application (Civ. Prac. Act, § 66). The application is granted. The defendant was required to pay a total of $65 per week on account of the fine and current alimony. It appears from the respective affidavits of the plaintiff and her attorney: (1) that on July 6, 1961, the contempt order of June 29, 1961 was duly served upon the defendant; (2) that in the 30-week period from June 29, 1961 to January 23, 1962, he (the defendant) defaulted in making two payments, totaling $130; and (3) that in the 70-week period from January 30, 1962 to June 3, 1963 he paid $2,396.25 as against the total sum due of $4,550, leaving unpaid the sum of $2,153.75. Based on such payments, as of June 3, 1963 there was a balance of $1,327 unpaid upon the $2,300 fine. Such balance is computed as follows: For the 70-week period, the defendant paid a total of $2,396.25 on account of both the fine and current alimony. Such total sum should be prorated equitably between the fine and the alimony. Based on a $65 to $15 ratio, $553 of the $2,396.25 should be applied hi reduction of the fine, and the balance of $1,843.25 should be applied on *757account of the alimony. Adding to the $553 the sum of $420 (being the $15 a week paid for the earlier 28 weeks) makes a total of $973 applicable to the reduction of the fine, and thus leaving a balance of $1,327 unpaid thereon as of .Time 3, 1963. A commitment order will be issued by the court based on such unpaid balance. Submit form of court order accordingly for signature. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Date: March 3, 2010
    /s/ Tod P. SpornhauerTod P. SpornhauerChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
M. P. No. 75-115.

#### Ralph Gilbert *et al. v.*Travelers Indemnity Company *et al.*

*Abatuno & Chisholm, Vincent J. Chisholm,*for petitioners. *Keenan, Rice, Dolan, Reardon & Kiernan, Frederick A. Reardon,*for respondent Travelers Indemnity Company.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the writ may issue forthwith. See *Borland*v. *Dunn,*113 R. I. 337, 321 A.2d 96 (1974).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 5309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00950]



[[Page 5309]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11322]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Asia Society Triennial: We 
Do Not Dream Alone (Part 2)'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Asia Society Triennial: We Do Not 
Dream Alone (Part 2)'' at the Asia Society Museum, New York, New York, 
and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, 
are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary 
exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned are in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb988e889f828485d9dfded2ab989f8a9f8ec58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97e4f2f4e3fef8f9a5a3a2aed7e4e3f6e3f2b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See also the Federal Register notice for the 
``Asia Society Triennial: We Do Not Dream Alone (Part 1)'' exhibition 
that was published August 20, 2020, on page 51544 (volume 85, number 
162).
    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority 
vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 
U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 
1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Marie Therese Porter Royce,
Assistant Secretary, Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00950 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
18.102 System for Award Management. ( a ) In accordance with 4.1102, contractors are not required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of submission of offers or quotations for— ( 1 ) Contracts awarded without providing for full and open competition due to unusual and compelling urgency (see 6.302-2); or
( 2 ) Contracts awarded by a contracting officer— ( i ) Deployed in the course of military operations;
( ii ) Located outside the United States and its outlying areas, for work to be performed in support of diplomatic or developmental operations, in an area that has been designated by the Department of State as a danger pay post; or
( iii ) In the conduct of emergency operations.
( b ) However, contractors are required to be registered in SAM in order to gain access to the Disaster Response Registry.
( c ) Contracting officers shall consult the Disaster Response Registry via *https://www.sam.gov ,* Search Records, Advanced Search, Disaster Response Registry Search to determine the availability of contractors for debris removal, distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other disaster or emergency relief activities inside the United States and outlying areas. (See 26.205).
[83 FR 48697, Sept. 26, 2018]
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10317 Summary Calendar
CSA NUTRACEUTICALS GP, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company, formerly known as CSA Nutraceuticals, L.L.C.; CSA NUTRACEUTICALS, L.P., a Texas limited liability partnership Plaintiffs - Appellants Cross-Appellees v. CHUBB CUSTOM INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

3:10-CV-2155
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * For the reasons explained by the district court, we find that Chubb C u s to m Insurance Company (“Chubb”) had no duty to defend CSA Nutraceuticals GP, L.L.C., and CSA N u t raceuticals, L.P., (collectively “CSAN”) in the California state court lawsuit (“the underlying suit”) because the complaints filed in the underlying suit did not ev en potentially seek recovery for “bodily injury.” The U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary2, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10317 Document: 00512098205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013No. 12-10317

complaints in the underlying suit clearly and un e qu ivocally allege that

consumers were induced to purchase ineffective weight loss products by false and fraudulent misrepresentations. However, the complaints do not include a single factual allegation suggesting that any consumer has ever been physically harmed by the weight loss products. As the district court observed: “Failing to achieve weight reduction means the body basically did not change. It does not

mean that th e b o dy was injured.” R. 1730. Although, as CSAN notes, relief based on bodily i nj ury was available under the statutes relied upon in the complaints, this is irrel e v ant – the focus is on the factual allegations of a complaint. See, e.g., Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin , 955 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex. 1997). Furthermore, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, Inc. , 268 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2008), on which CSAN relies heavily, is plainly inapposite. In that case, the plaintiffs in an underlying suit sought recovery based on “biological injury” and specifically described the ways in which their bodies had allegedly been injured. Here, the plaintiffs in the underlying case alleged that they were financially harmed by purchasing an ineffective product. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Because we affirm the district court’s judgment on the ground explained above, we need not reach the issues presented in Chubb’s cross-appeal.

2 Case: 12-10317 Document: 00512098205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
17.108 Congressional notification. ( a ) Except for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, a multiyear contract which includes a cancellation ceiling in excess of $15 million may not be awarded until the head of the agency gives written notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the committees on appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate and the appropriate oversight committees of the House and Senate for the agency in question. Information on such committees may not be readily available to contracting officers. Accordingly, agencies should provide such information through its internal regulations. The contract may not be awarded until the thirty-first day after the date of notification.
( b ) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast guard, a multiyear contract which includes a cancellation ceiling in excess of $150 million may not be awarded until the head of the agency gives written notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the committees on armed services and on appropriations of the House of Representative and Senate. The contract may not be awarded until the thirty-first day after the date of notification.
[61 FR 39204, July 26, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020]
### §61a. Annual review meetings with cotton industry representatives; purposes, etc.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall hold annual meetings with representatives of the cotton industry to review (1) activities and operations under the Cotton Standards Act [7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.], and the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act [7 U.S.C. 471 et seq.], (2) activities and operations relating to cotton under the United States Warehouse Act [7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.], and (3) the effect of such activities and operations on prices received by producers and sales to domestic and foreign users, for the purpose of improving procedures for financing and administering such activities and operations for the benefit of the industry and the Government. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that the universal cotton standards system and the licensing and inspection procedures for cotton warehouses are preserved and that the Government cotton classification system continues to operate so that the United States cotton crop is provided an official quality description.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title I, §156(d), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 374.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Cotton Standards Act, referred to in text, probably meaning the United States Cotton Standards Act, is act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 288, 42 Stat. 1517, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 51 of this title and Tables.

The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act, referred to in text, is act Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, 44 Stat. 1372, which is classified generally to chapter 19 (§471 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 471 of this title and Tables.

The United States Warehouse Act, referred to in text, is part C of act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, 39 Stat. 486, which is classified generally to chapter 10 (§241 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 241 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, and not as part of the United States Cotton Standards Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 97–35, title I, §156(e), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 374, provided that: "The provisions of this section [enacting this section, amending sections 15b, 55, and 473a of this title, and enacting provision set out as a note under section 473a of this title] shall become effective October 1, 1981."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7142

DARL D. ALT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-592) Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 4, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darl D. Alt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM Darl D. Alt appeals the district court’s order dismissingwithout prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Alt also seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Alt v. West Virginia , No. CA-00-592 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2000). 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
#### Robert A. Lomax *et al. v.*Luther C. Shinn *et al.*

*Filed at Ottawa June 13, 1896.*

This case is controlled by *Lomax v. Shinn, (ante,*p. 124,) and on *the*authority of that case the decree is affirmed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henderson county; the Hon. John J. Glenn, Judge, presiding.

Sharp & Berry Bros., and O’Harra, Scofield & Hartzell, for appellants.

Bassett & Bassett, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Wilkin

delivered the opinion of the court:

The questions in this case are, in the main, the same as in *Lomax*v. *Shinn, (ante,*p. 124), involving the construction of the last will of Thomas B. Carroll, deceased. For the reasons stated in the opinion in .that case the decree of the circuit court must be affirmed.

In the present case the point is made, that even though the wife, Sarah Carroll, did not obtain a fee simple title under the will of her husband, she was given a power of disposition over the lands for the payment of the debts and obligations of her husband, and that therefore her deed to a portion of the premises conveyed the absolute *215title thereto. This position finds no support in the will itself nor in the testimony found in this record. No power to sell any part of the land for the payment of debts is given in the will, nor does it appear from the evidence that it was necessary to sell lands for that purpose. The testator clearly expressed the intention that his personal estate should be devoted to the payment of all his debts and obligations. He stated that it would be more than sufficient for that purpose, and there is nothing whatever in this record to show the contrary.

The decree of the circuit court will be affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
No. 7942.

#### The City of Cleveland *v.*Etzensperger & Orschak.

(Decided December 1, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. M. W. Beaoom*and *Messrs. Baker, Payer, Gage*.<£ *Carey,*for plaintiff in error.

*556*Mr. Poppleton*and *Messrs. Billman & Billman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     13,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,536
<PP&E>                                          42,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,106
<BONDS>                                         39,218
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,695
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,281
<SALES>                                        127,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,212
<CGS>                                           97,644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,816
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (343)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,030
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<FN>
<F1>Due to the use of condensed financial statements for interim reporting, this
information is not compiled on a quarterly basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving Leibowitz, Appellant.

(Republished)

Order, entered August 4, 1960, denying defendant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*unanimously affirmed. No opinion, Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### 14.103 Policy.
#### Gary Rosenbach et al., Respondents, v Diversified Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and KPMG LLP, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 78]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied KPMG’s motion insofar as it sought to stay all proceedings brought by, and compel arbitration with, plaintiffs Gary Rosenbach, Susan Rosenbach, Raj Rajaratnam and Asha Pabla Rajaratnam, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant KPMG cannot compel plaintiffs to arbitrate claims arising out of the allegedly fraudulent tax shelters at issue. KPMG is not a signatory to the Global Fund operating agreement containing the arbitration provision upon which it relies and, even if the doctrine of equitable estoppel were in theory available in this jurisdiction to enable a nonsignatory to compel signatories to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate, it would not avail KPMG in this matter since plaintiffs’ claims against KPMG, which is alleged to have marketed the tax strategy at issue, are not “founded in and intertwined” with the operating agreement *(see Denney v Jenkens & Gilchrist,*412 F Supp 2d 293 [SD NY 2005]; *Stechler v Sidley, Austin Brown & Wood, L.L.P.,*382 F Supp 2d 580, 591-592 [SD NY 2005]). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.
February 12 , 201 4 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460
- 0001
Attention: TSCA Section 4 40 CFR 799.5089 Docket ID Number EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2009 - 0112

R E: Letter from Lynne Oreschnigg to John Schaeffer dated October 11, 2013 , Hunstman Study Submission , CBIC Control Number 356399 Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals 2 - Oxiranemethanamine, N - [4 - (2 - oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl] - N - (2 - oxiranylmethyl) - (CAS No. 5026 - 74 - 4 ) To Whom It May Concern: Huntsman's understanding is health and safety studies cannot be claimed CBI. The studies submitted are non - CBI in the hard copy that w as pr ovided. However, while the studies can be viewed as non
- CBI, the disclaimer on every page (as below) c annot be removed as it restricts the public from using the studies for regulatory or registration purposes.

“ The use of these studies/documents for regulatory or registration purposes, including bu t not limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH), without express written permission of Huntsman International LLC is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. ” Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions and/or additional information is required. Sincerely,

Lynne Or eschnigg Regulatory Compliance Specialist Huntsman Corporation Phone: 281
- 719
- 3021 Fax: 281
- 719
- 3050 lynne

_ oreschnigg @huntsman.com

HUNTSMAN CORPORATION 10003 Woodloch Forest Drive, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, USA Tel.: +1
- 281
- 719
- 6 000 Fax .: +1
- 281
- 719
- 6 416 www.huntsman.com