alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reuben E. Gross, Appellant, v. State Cooperage Export Crating and Shipping Co. et al., Respondents.

In an action *inter alia*to rescind a contract under which defendants agreed to transport goods for plaintiff, on the ground of fraud, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 29, 1968, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the law and the facts, and plaintiff is granted a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from negotiating or demanding payment upon the bill of lading referred to in the complaint, pending determination of the - action, on condition that plaintiff, on or before 10 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, give an undertaking with corporate surety, in the amount of $3,000, that if it is finally determined that he was not entitled to an injunction he will pay defendants all damages and costs which may be sustained by reason of the injunction. In our opinion, the amended complaint on its face sufficiently alleges a cause of action for rescission on the ground of fraud. Under certain circumstances an expression of opinion, including an estimate, may he fraudulently uttered (37 C. J. S., Fraud, § 12; *Downey*v. *Mallinson,*232 App. Div. 703). Although the placing of $3,800 with a bank by plaintiff to secure the release of his goods sufficiently alleges injury and damage, it is not necessary for a defrauded party to show that he has suffered pecuniary damages in order to obtain rescission *(Downey*v. *Mallinson,*supra;*Commercial Credit Corp.*v. *Third & Lafayette Sts. Garage,*226 App. Div. 235). Nor will rescission be necessarily denied where the plaintiff cannot return consideration in the form of labor and services that have been bestowed upon him by defendant. The value of the benefits received may be allowed in lieu of restoration *(Buffalo Bldrs. Supply Co.*V. *Reeb,*247 N. Y. 170, 176; *Ballantine*v. *Ferretti,*28 N. Y. S. 2d 668; 5 Corbin, Contracts, § 1114). It is also our view that plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction, since demand by defendants for payment upon the bill of lading may render the judgment ineffectual (CPLR 6301). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### § 227.1 General purpose and scope.

The purpose of these regulations is to implement section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act (added by Pub. L. 95-166, effective November 10, 1977) which authorizes the Secretary to formulate and carry out a nutrition information and education program through a system of grants to State agencies to provide for (a) the nutritional training of educational and foodservice personnel, (b) the foodservice management training of school foodservice personnel, and (c) the conduct of nutrition education activities in schools and child care institutions. To the maximum extent possible, the Program shall fully utilize the child nutrition programs as a learning experience.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (3.6)


                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF DIRECTORS IN LIEU OF
                     SPECIAL MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS


        The undersigned, being all of the directors of JONES MEDICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, do hereby consent, effective April 1,
1992, in lieu of a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation
on that date to the following action:

                RESOLVED, that the corporation reappoints the accounting firm of
        Ernst & Young as independent auditors for the corporation for fiscal
        year 1992 and that this reappointment be submitted to the shareholders
        of the corporation for ratification at the next annual meeting of
        shareholders.

                RESOLVED, that the Bylaws of the corporation be, and they hereby
        are, amended by deleting Section 3.02 in its entirety and by
        substituting in lieu thereof the following:

                Section 3.02  Number, Term and Qualification.  The number of
                directors to constitute the Board of Directors of the
                corporation shall be seven (7). The number of directors to
                constitute the Board of Directors may be changed from time to
                time by amendment to the Bylaws by the Board. Subject to death,
                resignation or removal in the manner provided by law, each
                director shall hold office for a term of one (1) year, provided,
                however, if his successor is not elected after one year, then he
                shall hold office until his successor is duly elected and
                qualified.

                RESOLVED, that J. Foster Irwin is hereby nominated as a director
        of the corporation subject to approval by the shareholders of the
        corporation at the next annual meeting of shareholders.

                RESOLVED, that this unanimous consent be filed by the Secretary
        of the corporation with its minutes.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this unanimous
consent effective as of the day and year first above written.


      /s/ Dennis M. Jones                           /s/ Stanley Lopata
------------------------------                ------------------------------
        Dennis M. Jones                               Stanley Lopata


      /s/ Judith A. Jones                           /s/ Edward A. Chod
------------------------------                ------------------------------
        Judith A. Jones                               Edward A. Chod


   /s/ Michael T. Bramblett                       /s/ L. John Polite, Jr.
------------------------------                ------------------------------
     Michael T. Bramblett                            L. John Polite, Jr.



                           Being all of the Directors
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 5, 2021

NO. 03

- 18

- 00790

- CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton,

Attorney General of the State of Texas , Appellant s

v.

El Paso E l ectric Company , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER,

TRIANA, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN;

DISSENTING OPINI ON BY JUSTICE KELLY, JOINED BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 5 , 2018

. The Court’ s

opinion , dissenting opinion, and judgment dated August 13, 2020 are withdrawn. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Co urt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### § 29.2264 Dirty.

The state of tobacco containing an abnormal amount of dirt or sand, or tobacco to which additional quantities of dirt or sand have been added. (See Rule 22, § 29.2413.)
2006-0616.

#### Webb v. McCarty.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-698, 2006-Ohio-795. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would also accept the appeal on all other Propositions of Law.

Resnick, Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theaccompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 ofGlobal Partners LP (the “Partnership”) and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric Slifka,President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, the general partner ofthe Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Dated: November 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/Eric Slifka |                                  |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------|
|                     |   |           | Eric Slifka                           |
|                     |   |           | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |   |           | of Global GP LLC, general partner     |
|                     |   |           | of Global Partners LP                 |
|                          |        |                |                                       |  |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Patricia A. Buchek, Respondent, v Joseph Buchek, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered June 26, 1980, which awarded custody of a child and exclusive possession of the marital residence to petitioner and directed respondent to pay child support and alimony. Petitioner and respondent were divorced by a judgment entered March 29, 1979. It was provided in the divorce decree that matters of custody and support of the children be referred to Family Court. The decree contained no provision for alimony payments to petitioner. In an order entered June 26, 1980, the Family Court ordered, *inter alia,*that respondent make alimony payments of $50 per week. On this appeal, respondent’s sole contention is that the Family Court was without jurisdiction to grant alimony to petitioner. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has made no referral of alimony applications to the Family Court in the present case, the Family Court was precluded from making directions regarding alimony unless petitioner was likely to become in need of public assistance (Family Ct Act, §464, subd [b]; *Matter of Sergi v Sergi,*58 AD2d 692). Petitioner made no claim of being likely to become in need of public assistance and, consequently, the award of alimony was improper (see *Matter of Sergi v Sergi, supra).*Accordingly, the order must be *949modified so as to reverse so much thereof as granted alimony to petitioner. Order modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as awarded petitioner alimony, and, as so modified, affirmed, without prejudice and without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### § 1775.67 Allocation of funds.

The maximum amount for a single applicant for a Solid Waste Management project will be 25 percent of available grant funds.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29172]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 2501 SE Columbia Way, STE 
300, Vancouver, WA 98661, has been approved to gauge and accredited to 
test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in 
accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. 
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and 
gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the 
entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service 
this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b1b0a2fcbeb3b0baa392b6baa1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e6d6c7e20626f6c667f4e6a667d20696178">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories. http:[sol][sol]cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/
operations--support/labs--scientific--svcs/commercial--gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
August 02, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled 
for August 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29172 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10539 

To amend section 222 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit 

the rejection of immigrant and nonimmigrant applications for omissions 

in certain fields not required. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2024 

Mrs. RAMIREZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 222 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to prohibit the rejection of immigrant and nonimmigrant applications for omissions in certain fields 

not required. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATIONS FOR VISAS. 

4 Section 222 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

5 (8 U.S.C. 1202) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by adding after the period 

7 at the end the following: ‘‘An application that is sub8 mitted in such form and manner and at such place 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10539 IH

1 as prescribed by regulations may not be rejected 

2 solely because it contains an omission in a field of 

3 the application not required under such regula4 tions.’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (c), by adding after the period 

6 at the end the following: ‘‘An application that is sub7 mitted in such form and manner as prescribed by 

8 regulations may not be rejected solely because it 

9 contains an omission in a field of the application not 

10 required under such regulations.’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

13 Secretary of Homeland Security shall promulgate rules 

14 and regulations to carry out any change to the adjudica15 tion criteria for an application or petition related to the 

16 immigration status of an alien under this section that 

17 would preclude or restrict consideration of such applica18 tion or petition.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
CLEAN AIR ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

February 2 and 3, 2010 

Double Tree Hotel

AGENDA 

February 2, 2010 - Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Subcommittee Meetings

9:30 – 11:30 Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovation 

 

12:30 – 5:00 Permits, New Source Reviews and Toxics 

February 3, 2010 – Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Meeting

8:00 - 8:30 Registration 

8:30 – 9:20 Opening Remarks – Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Air and Radiation 

9:20 – 9:50 Update on EPA Budget – Beth Craig, Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

 Office of Air and Radiation 

9:50 – 10:30 Subcommittee Report outs 

 Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovations – Rob Brenner 

 Permits, New Source Reviews and Toxics – Bill Harnett 

10:30 – 10:45 Break 

10:45 – 11:45 Background Presentations GHG/BACT workgroup 

 Brian Doster – EPA OGC 

 Don Neal – CALPINE 

11:45 – 1:00 Lunch 

 1:00 – 3:30 BACT/GHG Report Review and Deliberation 

 Eric Svenson, PSEG 

 MarkMacleod, EDF 

 Peter Tsirigotis, EPA 

3:30 – 3:45 Public Comments 

3:45 – 4:15 Clean Air Excellence Awards/Next meeting 

4:15 Adjourn
**Exhibit 31(a)****CERTIFICATIONS****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Michael J. Quillen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (this“Report”) of Alpha NR Holding, Inc. (the “Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this Report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis Report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     /s/ Michael J. Quillen        Michael J. Quillen  *President and Chief Executive Officer*  *(Principal Executive Officer)*   Date:May 15, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.74 Debarment or suspension.

Certified packagers whose actions or acts warrant they not be allowed to participate in the program are to be investigated in accordance with agency procedures (available in any Rural Development office).

[70 FR 7651, Feb. 15, 2005]
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12690-003]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, WA; Notice of 
Teleconference

November 10, 2010.
    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Monday, November 15, 2010 starting at 
12 p.m. and ending by 2 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
    b. FERC Contact: David Turner, (202) 502-6091 or 
[email protected].
    c. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will meet with the 
Snohomish County Public Utility District (District) to clarify the 
Commission's August 6, 2010, request for additional information on the 
District's draft license application for the Admiralty Inlet Pilot 
Tidal Project, which would be located in the Puget Sound, in 
Washington.
    d. If you would like to attend the meeting or have any questions, 
contact David Turner via e-mail by November 11, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29060 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Exhibit
10.1(bm)


 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER EIGHT


TO THE


SAUER-DANFOSS
LASALLE FACTORY EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1998)


WHEREAS, Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company
(the “Company”) sponsors the Sauer-Danfoss LaSalle Factory Savings Plan (the
“Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the Company and the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, and its Local Union No. 285 (the “Union”) have agreed to
amend the Plan to increase the maximum Participant Contribution rate under the
Plan to 100% of the Participant’s Compensation.


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 14.1
of the Plan, the Company and Union hereby amend the Plan, effective as of
January 1, 2004, by deleting paragraph (b) of Section 5.2 of the Plan in its
entirety, and substituting the following new paragraph (b) as a part thereof:


“(b)                           Maximum Reduction.  The
maximum reduction for any Participant for any payroll period shall be one
hundred percent (100%) of such Participant’s Compensation for such payroll
period; notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any Participant
Contribution elected by a Participant under this Section 5.2, if a Participant
has elected to defer a percentage of his or her Compensation such that
contribution of the gross amount of the Compensation would leave insufficient
funds to satisfy all required deductions against such Compensation (including,
but not limited to, any pre-tax elective contributions or benefit contributions
made by such Participant, wage assignments, wage garnishments, child support
payments, levies, remittance of all applicable taxes to governmental
authorities (collectively the “Deductions”)), then the applicable Participant
Contribution amount shall be made net of the smallest amount of Deductions
needed to satisfy all such payments which cannot be covered from the portion of
Compensation not deferred.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
has authorized the execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Eight this
31st day of December, 2004.


 


	
  Sauer-Danfoss (U.S.) Company

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ SUZANNE R. SOBKOWIAK

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/
  JAMES T. REMUS

  



 


1





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
has authorized the execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Eight this
31st day of December, 2004.


 


	
  UAW, Local Union No. 285

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ WILLIAM C. FALASSI

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/
  EDWARD F. WROBLESKI

  



 


2