alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28491]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,963]


Dentek.com, D/B/A Nsequence Center for Advanced Dentistry; Reno, 
NV; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated July 16, 2010, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on June 22, 2010. The Department's Notice of 
Determination was published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2010 (75 
FR 39049). Workers are engaged in employment related to the production 
of dental prosthetics.
    The initial determination was based on the findings that worker 
separations are not attributable to increased imports of articles like 
or directly competitive with dental prosthetics or a shift/acquisition 
of these articles to a foreign country by the workers' firm.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding company imports and operations.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of August, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-28491 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### § 1717.613 RUS approval of data processing and system control equipment.

If a borrower's mortgage or loan contract requires the borrower to obtain approval from RUS before purchasing data processing equipment or system control equipment, such approval is hereby granted if the equipment will not be financed by RUS.
#### Alma Goldson, Respondent, v. Traveler’s Insurance Company, Appellant.

-Order of Appellate Term, Second Judicial Department, dated March 18, 1966, and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, dated May 24, 1965, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed, on the law. Findings of fact contained in the trial court’s decision and implicit in the majority decision at the Appellate Term are hereby reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, we find that the evidence does not support plaintiff’s contention that written notice of the accident was mailed to defendant on April 30, 1963. We find that the first written notice was mailed on July 29, 1963 and further, that such notice, six months after the occurrence of the accident, was not, under all the circumstances, given “ as soon as was reasonably possible” and precludes recovery by plaintiff under the policy *(Appell*v. *Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*22 A D 2d 906, affd. 17 N Y 2d 519; Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 1, pars, [e], [d]). Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
M. P. No. 80-101.

#### Ernest D. George *et al. v.*Miles Laboratories, Inc. *et al.*

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Archibald R. Kenyon, Jr.,*for plaintiffs-respondents, *Rice, Dolan, Kiernan é■ Kershaw, Leonard A. Kiernan, Jr.,*for defendants-petitioners.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
#### § 15.67 Intervener.

Any interested person or organization may file a petition to intervene which will include a statement of position and a statement of what petitioner expects to contribute to the hearing, and a copy of the petition will be served on all parties. Such petition should be filed prior to the prehearing conference, or if none is held, before the commencement of the hearing, unless the petitioner shows good cause for filing the petition later. The hearing officer may grant the petition if he believes that such participation will not unduly delay a hearing and will contribute materially to the proceeding. An intervener is not a party and may not introduce evidence at a hearing, or propound questions to a witness, unless the hearing officer determines that the proposed additional evidence is relevant and will clarify the facts. The intervener may submit and serve on all parties a brief in support or opposition to any brief of a party. All service and notice required by and upon a party shall apply to an intervener.
#### BANKS, Respondent, v. SEBRING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by Grace L. Banks, an infant, etc., against Burt Sebring, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied and judgment vacated, without costs.
#### John G. Akin et al. *v.*City of Norwalk et al.

The motion by the defendant Flower Estates at Cranbury, Inc., to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.

*585
      *Melvin J. Silverman,*for the appellee (defendant Flower Estates at Cranbury, Inc.).

*Terrence J. Murphy, Jr.,*assistant corporation counsel, for the appellees (defendant city of Nor-walk and Common Council).

*Grove W. Stoddard,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued April 6

decided April 6, 1971
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection  with the Annual Report of Blue Dolphin  Energy  Company
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the period  ended  December  31, 2003 (the
"Report"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof,  I, Michael J. Jacobson,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



 /s/Michael J. Jacobson
-------------------------------
Michael J. Jacobson
President and Chief Executive Officer



March 30, 2004
DEBT AMENDMENT




Southridge Partners II, L.P. (the “Holder”) is the holder of outstanding promissory notes issued by AccelPath, Inc. (the “Company”) as outlined in Schedule A (attached), in the aggregate principal amount of $100,000.00 (the “July 2012 Note”), and $40,000.00 (the “February 2012 Note”), respectively (collectively referred to as the “Notes”).




The Holder and the Company now desire to amend certain provisions of each of the February 2012 Note and the July 2012 Note as follows:  




(a) The first paragraph of Section 2 of the July 2012 Note is hereby deleted and replaced with the following  and the following is inserted as the second paragraph of the February 2012 Note: 

The Holder of the Note is entitled at any time at its option to convert all or a portion of the principal amount of the Note plus accrued interest into shares of Common Stock at a conversion price for each share of Common Stock equal to the Current Market Price multiplied by fifty percent (50%) (the “Conversion Price”). “Current Market Price” means the lowest closing bid price for the Common Stock as reported by Bloomberg, LP or, if not so reported, as reported on the over-the-counter market, for the ten (10) trading days ending on the trading day immediately before the relevant Conversion Date (as defined below).  The amount of shares issuable pursuant to a conversion shall equal the principal amount (or portion thereof) of the Note to be converted, plus accrued interest, divided by the Conversion Price; 

(b) the Maturity Dates of the February 2012 Note and the July 2012 Note shall be extended to December 31, 2014.




This Agreement shall be construed as to both validity and performance and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to the conflicts of the law principles thereof.




This Agreement may not be modified or changed except by an instrument or instruments in writing executed by the parties hereto.




			
	Dated: April 1, 2013

	 
	 

	AccelPath, Inc.

	 
	Southridge Partners II, LP







					
	By:

	/s/ Shekhar Wadekar

	 
	By:

	/s/ Steve Hicks


	Title:

	President

	 
	Title:

	 














Schedule A




																					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Original

	 
	 
	 
	Current

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Current

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Maturity

	 
	 
	 
	Maturity

	 
	 
	Original

	 
	 
	Balance

	 

	Name

	 
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	Value

	 
	 
	Due

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Southridge Part II LP

	 
	 
	07/18/2012

	 
	 
	 
	01/31/2013

	 
	 
	 
	12/31/2014

	 
	 
	$

	100,000.00

	 
	 
	$

	103,328.76

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Southridge Part II LP

	 
	 
	02/10/2012

	 
	 
	 
	08/31/2012

	 
	 
	 
	12/31/2014

	 
	 
	$

	40,000.00

	 
	 
	$

	49,515.61
2006-0294.

#### State v. Crager.

Marion App. No. 9-04-54, 2005-Ohio-6868. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. Ill and cause consolidated with 2006-0298, *State v. Crager,*Marion App. No. 9-04-54, 2005-Ohio-6868.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., would also accept the appeal on all other Propositions of Law.

O’Donnell, J., would accept the appeal and hold the cause for the decision in 2005-0773, *State v. Stahl,*Summit App. No. 22261, 2005-Ohio-1137.

Resnick, J., dissents.
Amendment To


 


DEBT CONVERSION AGREEMENT


 


This Agreement (the “Amendment Agreement”) is an
amendment to the Debt Conversion Agreement dated the 25th day of March, 2013 (“Conversion Agreement”), by
and between KOPIN CORPORATION ("Holder"), and VUZIX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("Company").


 


In consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein and in the Debt Conversion Agreement, the parties agree to amend the Conversion Agreement effective
immediately as follows:


 


		1.	Paragraph 3 (g) of the Conversion Agreement currently provides that:



 


(g) In the absence of an effective registration statement
covering the Conversion Shares, the Conversion Shares may only be resold only in accordance with Regulation S, or in a transaction
otherwise exempt from registration. The Holder agrees not to make any direct or indirect disposition, sale, transfer, pledge,
hedge (including by way of short selling) or otherwise encumber ("Transfer") any Conversion Shares for a period of at
least 180 days from the Closing Date. They will not Transfer all or any portion of the Conversion Shares unless (a) there is
a registration statement declared effective by the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act")
with respect to the Conversion Shares to be Transferred and no stop order suspending the effectiveness of such registration statement
is then in effect under the 1933 Act and no proceedings for that purpose have then been instituted or (b) the Transfer is made
under a valid exemption to registration under the 1933 Act.


 


The Conversion Agreement is hereby amended to delete
the entire sentence from 3(g) - “The Holder agrees not to make any direct or indirect disposition, sale, transfer, pledge,
hedge (including by way of short selling) or otherwise encumber ("Transfer") any Conversion Shares for a period of at
least 180 days from the Closing Date.”


 


		2.	All other provisions and terms of the Conversion Agreement shall remain the in effect in accordance with their original terms.



 


EXECUTED on this __th day of March 2013.


 


	Company: Vuzix Corporation	Holder: Kopin Corporation
	 	 
	By: /s/ Paul Travers	By: /s/ Richard Sneider
	Name: Paul Travers 	Name: Richard Sneider
	Title: President & CEO	Title: CFO
§ 1738.203 Notification of completeness. If all proposed funded service areas in a loan or loan/grant combination application are eligible, the Agency will review the application for completeness. The completeness review will include an assessment of whether all required documents and information have been submitted and whether the information provided is of adequate quality to allow further analysis. ( a ) If the application contains all documents and information required by this part and is sufficient, in form and substance acceptable to the Agency, the Agency will notify the Applicant, in writing, that the application is complete. A notification of completeness is not a commitment that assistance will be approved. By submitting an application, the Applicant acknowledges that no obligation to enter into an agreement exists until the actual Award documents have been executed.
( b ) If the application is considered to be incomplete or inadequate, the Agency will notify the Applicant, in writing, with detailed information regarding the reasons the applications was found to be incomplete or inadequate.
#### *Elledge vs. Wilson.*

appeal.

Case 156.

Error to the Estill Circuit; George Shannon, Judge.

*Magistrate’s jurisdiction.. Statute. Commonwealth’s Banknotes. Account.*'.

June 18.

In 1826,justices of the *588peace had no jurisdiction over accounts in cora’ths, paper, exceeding five pound. The act of 1824, Session acts, p. 397, does not apply to accounts. Where justice of the peace renders judgment for a sum greater than falls within the appellate cognizance of county court, and over which he had no jurisdiction, the party injured must apply for correction to the circuit oourt.

*587Judge Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

_ Wilson having obtained á judgment against Elledge, before a magistrate, for $24 62 1-2 *588cents, the latter appealed to the circuit court, where* on the verdict of a jury against him, a judgment was rendered in favor of Wilson, for $24 62 1-2 cents, in notes of the Bank of the Commonwealth, it having been proved that the contract was for such paper.

The only question presented by the record, for our decision, is, whether the magistrate had jurisdiction?

The act of 1824, giving jurisdiction to magistrates, over contracts in writing, for Commonwealth’s paper, not exceeding $50 in amount, does not apply to an account.

In 1826, a magistrate had no jurisdiction over a sum in paper, larger than five pounds, unless it was due by note or other written obligation. If, therefore, the $24 62 1-2 cents had been of less value than five pounds, (and whether it was or not, we do not judicially know,) and it were conceded that the justice might have rendered judgment for its value in specie, as he has not done so, but given judgment for a sum beyond his jurisdiction, his judgment was invalid for want of legal authority.

If the magistrate could take cognizance of the case, the circuit court had no jurisdiction, because, if the amount had been under five pounds, the appeal should have been to the county court. If the circuit court' had jurisdiction, therefore, the magistrate had not, so that in any view of the case, the judgment is erroneous.

But if the magistrate had jurisdiction, and, therefore, the appeal ought to have been to the county court, then it would have been the duty of the circuit court, to dismiss the appeal and remit the appellee to his judgment, before the justice. It is, consequently, necessary to decide directly, whether the magistrate had jurisdiction. As we have already intimated, he had not.. He could not give judgment for more than five pounds, unless the demand had been due by note or account for money. And as he had rendered judgment for more than five pounds, Elledge could correct his "or by appeal to the circuit court alone, which ought to have decided in his favor, for want of jurisdiction by the justice.

*589Breck, for plaintiff; Allan, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the verdict, and render a judgment according to this opinion.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42 44



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Supporting Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Questions to Consider      

# Resource: Supporting Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Questions to Consider

This webpage provides questions for communities to consider on how to support children and youth experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 outbreak. **Learn more.**
#### Robert D. Ryan, Plaintiff, v Mary E. Ryan, Appellant, and Oot, Setright & Ciabotti, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, the defendant in the main action, failed to appeal from the order granted on respondents’ petition under section 475 of the Judiciary Law that fixed their fees as her discharged attorneys and directed that said amount he a lien upon the property of Mary E. Ryan [defendant, petitioner herein] and that they have execution therefor. Petitioner appeared in the proceeding and did not oppose the petition nor contest the amount granted to respondents for fees. In addition to fixing the amount of the fee owing to respondents the court declared it to be a lien (not specifying *1001upon what assets of the defendant-petitioner it became a lien) and directed that respondents have judgment therefor. That order was entered on March 4, 1976. Apparently the court also directed that entry of judgment on such order be deferred until it decided the main action. After the court made its decision in the main action in August, 1976, on June 7, 1977 respondents entered judgment on the order of March 4, 1976 and issued an execution thereon on real property in which defendant-petitioner had an interest. Defendant-petitioner then moved to vacate the "judgment” entered on March 4, 1976 and for a stay of execution (for the sale of her realty) pursuant to the judgment; and she appeals from the order denying her motion. Incidentally, it appears that the sale was completed and respondents were paid their fees, and defendant-petitioner is still in litigation with her husband, the plaintiff, with respect to an accounting and ownership of assets which are the subject of the principal action. In the section 475 proceeding the court erred in directing entry of judgment in personam against defendant-petitioner *(Matter of Cooper [McCauley],*291 NY 255, 260; *Matter of Wellman v Lipkind,*226 App Div 106). The order was, therefore, "defective” insofar as it granted entry of judgment against defendant-petitioner, absent application for enforcement *(Matter of Regan v Marco M. Frisone, Inc.,*54 AD2d 1125, 1126). Defendant-petitioner having failed, however, to move to resettle the order or to appeal therefrom or from the judgment entered thereon, she may not now collaterally attack it *(Hunt v Hunt,*72 NY 217, 229, 245; and see *Nuernberger v State of New York,*41 NY2d 111, 117-118; *Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co.,*19 NY2d 159, 166; 1 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 2:82, pp 96-97). We agree with Special Term that upon entry of the judgment it became a lien on real property owned by defendant-petitioner in the county of entry, and no showing was made why execution thereon should not be had. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court—vacate judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resources for American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN)      

# Resources for American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN)

This webpage highlights a variety of federal government benefits, services, and protections specifically for American Indian and Alaska Native individuals, families, and communities. **Learn more.**