alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Federal Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Laverne, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Linus Realty Corporation, Appellant, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. S. Axman & Son, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Dell Publishing Co., Inc., Respondent, v Linus Realty Corp., Appellant, and United Display Products, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Linus Realty Corporation, Appellant, v S. Axman & Son, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, reversed, to the extent appealed from, in the exercise of discretion, and defendant-appellant Linus Realty Corporation’s motion for leave to amend its answer granted, on condition that, within 20 days after service of the order entered hereon, defendant shall pay to plaintiffs one bill of $250 in costs, and to respondents Fried & Fried, Inc., United Display Products, Inc., Tetramatics, Ltd., and Sidney Bernstein, doing business as Artistic Design Pleasure Hours, Inc., $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal, and should such payments of costs not be made as specified, the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal to said respondents. The incident basic to this case occurred in August, 1974 and this action was commenced in January, 1976. In July, 1978 the action was consolidated with another, and an order made that all examinations be completed shortly thereafter. In February, 1979 defendant made the instant motion for leave to amend the answer to interpose a defense of waiver. In so moving, defendant blamed plaintiffs attorneys for delay in failing to provide it with a copy of the leases involved in this case. It was not until defendant found its own mislaid copies that it discovered a separate allegedly meritorious defense based on waiver, and moved for leave to amend. Defendant was at fault and is responsible for delay of the trial. But a valid reason for amendment is stated and, in any event, discovery hás still not been completed. Plaintiff, having possession of the leases, is not surprised by the proposed amendment and will not be prejudiced. However, a sanction for causing the delay by mislaying the papers is in order. Concur—Bloom, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCELLUS DAVIS, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56411

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03500-JFWRNB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Marcellus Davis, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

upholding the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s decision regarding

the calculation of Davis’s monthly benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

FILED

MAR 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56411

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision, and may set aside

the Commissioner’s decision only if it is based on legal error or is not supported by

substantial evidence in the record. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.

1999). We affirm.

The Commissioner properly reduced Davis’s monthly Supplemental

Security Income benefits based on the retirement benefits that Davis began to

receive. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(b) (explaining that Supplemental Security Income

benefits are reduced by the amount of income an individual receives); id. at

§ 1382a(a)(2)(B) (defining income to include retirement benefits). The

overpayment rules cited by Davis do not apply to him because the Commissioner

has not acknowledged, or sought an adjustment or recovery of, any overpayment. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.512 (an adjustment or recovery to recoup an overpayment will

not be made if certain conditions apply (emphasis added)). 

The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to review workers’ compensation

benefits awarded to Davis by other agencies. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 921(b) (orders

under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act are reviewed by the

Benefits Review Board). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the

Commissioner’s decision not to reopen Davis’s prior Social Security benefits

determination. See Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493 (9th Cir. 1990)
3 10-56411

(“Appeals Council decisions to refrain from considering untimely petitions for

review are not final decisions subject to review in federal court.”). Davis’s

contention that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) violated his due process

rights in the prior hearing is unpersuasive. See Boettcher v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 759 F.2d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 1985) (explaining the procedural

protections afforded at a hearing before an ALJ).

Davis’s contention that the magistrate judge and district court judge should

be recused is unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48

(9th Cir. 2010) (adverse rulings are insufficient to warrant recusal).

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Vincent Bowe, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 20, 1977, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the trial court should have dismissed the third count of the indict*972ment charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree since the latter is an inclusory concurrent count of the former (see *People v Robinson,*45 NY2d 448). Concerning the defendant’s request that we modify his sentence, we note that such application must be made to Criminal Term (see Penal Law, § 60.09; *People v Rivera,*72 AD2d 610; *People v Oliver,*73 AD2d 653). We have considered the other contentions raised by the defendant and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 1703.80-1703.99 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28869]



[[Page 70005]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5c1c7d4d1d0d4dbd4d9ccc6dcc6f5d3d8d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="146066757071757a75786d677d67547279773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201175-002.
    Title: Port of NY/NJ Sustainable Services Agreement.
    Parties: APM Terminals North America, Inc.; Global Terminal & 
Container Services LLC; Maher Terminals LLC; New York Container 
Terminal, Inc.; and Port Newark Container Terminal LLC.
    Filing Party: Carol N. Lambos, Esq.; The Lambos Firm, LLP; 303 
South Broadway, Suite 410; Tarrytown, NY 10591
    Synopsis: The amendment would allow the parties to enter into an 
agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to discuss 
and agree on matters relating to environmentally sensitive, efficient, 
and secure marine terminal operations, including RFID technology; 
obtain and administer government grants to fund technology-related 
activities; meet with stakeholders to discuss deployment of RFID 
technologies; and to establish and manage an entity to implement and 
administer agreements reached regarding RFID and/or other similar 
technologies. The parties have requested expedited review.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28869 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Francis R. Brew, Jr., Petitioner, v State of New York Education Department et al., Respondents.

pursuant to CPLR article 78 (instituted in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which revoked petitioner’s license as a land surveyor and suspended his license as a professional engineer for one year, but stayed the suspension and placed petitioner on probation for one year under stated terms. Petitioner, licensed as a professional engineer and land surveyor, was charged with practicing both professions with gross negligence, practicing the profession of land surveying with negligence on more than one occasion, practicing both professions fraudulently, and unprofessional conduct. The hearing panel found petitioner guilty of the charges and recommended that his land surveying license be revoked, that his professional engineering license be suspended for one year, but that the suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation pursuant to terms. The Board of Regents adopted the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel as modified by the Regents Review Committee, and thereafter the Commissioner of Education issued an order effectuating the determination of the Board of Regents. There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the determination under review is not supported by substantial evidence. To the contrary, the findings are supported by the testimony of four land surveyors, a profes*744sional engineer and numerous surveys which were marked in evidence. The testimony disclosed, among other things, that petitioner incorrectly calculated a boundary line; committed traverse closure errors; incorrectly described the square footage of a certain land parcel; improperly depicted the outline of a structure; incorrectly showed a nonexistent ravine; and made incorrect descriptions on a topographic survey. The testimony indicated, moreover, that certain errors were gross and substantial. There was also evidence that, contrary to petitioner’s advertisements, he was not associated in his engineering and land surveying firm with any other licensed professional engineers or land surveyors. Accordingly, the record contains a rational basis from which respondents could conclude that petitioner was guilty as charged. Finally, we conclude that the punishment imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
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

            -           National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities      

# National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities

Resources developed by the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities are now housed by the Center for Parent Information and Resources. 

http://www.parentcenterhub.org
§ 1724.31 Engineering services contracts. The provisions of this section apply only to RUS financed electric system facilities. ( a ) RUS contract forms for engineering services shall be used. Reasonable modifications or additions to the terms and conditions in the RUS contract form may be made to define the exact services needed for a specific undertaking. Any such modifications or additions shall not relieve the engineer or the borrower of the basic responsibilities required by the RUS contract form, and shall not alter any terms and conditions required by law. All substantive changes to the RUS contract form shall be approved by RUS prior to execution of the contract.
( b ) RUS Form 236, Engineering Service Contract—Electric System Design and Construction, may be used for all distribution, transmission, substation, and communications and control facilities. These contracts are not subject to RUS approval and need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
( c ) RUS Form 211, Engineering Service Contract for the Design and Construction of a Generating Plant, shall be used for all new generating units and repowering of existing units. These contracts require RUS approval.
( d ) Any amendments to RUS approved engineering services contracts require RUS approval.
( e ) *Closeout.* Upon completion of all services and obligations required under each engineering services contract, including, but not limited to, submission of final documents, the borrower must closeout the contract. The borrower shall obtain from the engineer a completed final statement of engineering fees, which must be supported by detailed information as appropriate. RUS Form 234, Final Statement of Engineering Fee, may be used. All computations of the compensation shall be made in accordance with the terms of the engineering services contract. Closeout documents need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
[63 FR 35314, June 29, 1998, as amended at 84 FR 32617, July 9, 2019]
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1813 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1813 EH

1 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANIEL NATHAN DEYARMIN, 

2 JR., POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

4 States Postal Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in 

5 Tallmadge, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., Post Of7 fice Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel 

12 Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1813 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the facility of the United States 

ing’’. Daniel Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Buildin Tallmadge, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Postal Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue
§ 15b.37 Auxiliary aids. ( a ) A recipient to which this subpart applies that employs fifteen or more persons shall provide appropriate auxiliary aids to persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, where necessary to afford such persons an equal opportunity to benefit from the service in question.
( b ) The Secretary may require recipients with fewer than fifteen employees to provide auxiliary aids where the provision of aids would not significantly impair the ability of the recipient to provide its benefits or services.
( c ) For the purpose of this section, auxiliary aids may include Brailled and taped material, interpreters, and other aids for persons with impaired hearing or vision.
January 10, 1980.

M. P. No. 79-330.

#### Petition of Rhode Island Defense Attorneys Association.

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Aram K. Berberian,*for petitioner.

The petition of the Rhode Island Defense Attorneys Association requesting promulgation of a rule authorizing open-panel prepaid legal service plans and prohibiting closed-panel plans, as prayed, is denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS AFM-6 Boundary Layer Height DataThe Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) Airborne Fluxes and Meteorology (AFM)-6 team from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration/Environment Technology Laboratory (NOAA/ETL) operated a 915-MHz wind/Radio Acoustic Sounding System (RASS) profiler system in the Southern Study Area (SSA) near the Old Jack Pine (OJP) site. This data set provides boundary layer height information over the site. The data were collected from 21 May 1994 to 20 Sep 1994 and are stored in tabular ASCII files. The boundary layer height data are available from the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC). The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884).Document ID20000117694Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWilczak, James*(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Boulder, CO United States)*Hall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Newcomer, Jeffrey A.*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Smith, David E.Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL10Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL10NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL10Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 923-462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000117694.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 10.9 


 


 


Amendment No. 6 to Employment Agreement


 


Amendment No. 6, dated as of March 25, 2013,
by and between The Berkshire Bank, a New York banking corporation ("Employer"), and Moses Krausz ("Employee"),
to the Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1999, between Employer and Employee (the "Employment Agreement").


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into
the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish to amend
the terms of the


Employment Agreement with respect to the term thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Paragraph 3 of the Employment Agreement
shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


"3. Term of Employment. The employment by Employer
of Employee pursuant hereto shall commence as of the date hereof and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 hereof, shall terminate
on April 30 2015; provided, however, that Employee's employment hereunder shall be automatically renewed for up to three additional
periods of one year each unless Employee or Employer notifies the other, not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the
expiration of Employee's then current employment period, that he or it elects not to extend Employee's employment hereunder beyond
the expiration date of the then current employment period."


 


2. The increases in Employee's base salary
set forth in Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be applicable for the periods of employment May 1, 2013 to April 30,
2014 and May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015, and, if the Employee's employment is extended beyond April 30, 2015 as set forth in the
amended Paragraph 3, for each year thereafter.


 


3. Except as otherwise amended hereby, the
Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unamended from and after the date hereof.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 6
has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.


 


 


THE BERKSHIRE BANK


 


 


By: /s/ Moses Marx


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


Moses Marx


Chairman of the Board


 


 


/s/ Moses Krausz


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


MOSES KRAUSZ
#### CLINTON, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF PORT JERVIS, Appellant

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

September 28, 1906.)

Action by Stanley Clinton, by Nellie Clinton, his guardian ad litem, against the village of Port Jervis.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Henry Cutler, Respondent, v Poughkeepsie City School District, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Poughkeepsie City School District to reimburse petitioner for attorney costs incurred in defense of a criminal charge of sexual abuse leveled against him by one of his students, enrolled in one of the school district’s schools, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered June 12, 1979, which granted the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Section 3028 of the Education Law requires a board of education to provide an attorney and pay his fees to defend a teacher in "any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of disciplinary action taken against any pupil of the district while in the discharge of his duties within the scope of his employment”. On this record, it is apparent that the criminal charge brought against the petitioner resulted from disciplinary action taken by him in the discharge of his duties. Therefore, he is entitled to reimbursement for the fee expended in obtaining dismissal of the charge. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.