alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2006-0405.

#### Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Erie App. No. E-05-042, 2006-Ohio-321. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at paragraph 5 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Journal Entry filed January 27, 2006:

“Did the one-time special payment made by appellee General Motors Corporation to appellants constitute holiday pay remuneration such that appellant union members, laid off over the July 4,1998, holiday weekend due to a strike, were not entitled to unemployment compensation for that week?”

The conflict cases are *Ashwell v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Montgomery App. No. 20522, 2005-Ohio-1928; *Brown v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Defiance App. No. 4-05-07, 2005-Ohio-5887; *Futey v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Richland App. No. 04 CA 14, 2004-Ohio-5400; *Rodriguez v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Cuyahoga App. Nos. 86111 and 86134, 2006-Ohio-97; *Nicolas v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Franklin App. No. 04AP-771, 2005-Ohio-2635; and *Burns v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,*Trumbull App. Nos. 2004-T-0071 and 2004-T-0072, 2005-Ohio-6290.
#### § 58.52 Time limit for packaging inspected or graded products with official identification.

Any lot of butter which is graded for packaging with official grade identification shall be packaged within 10 days immediately following the date of grading, and any lot of natural cheese or dry milk shall be packaged within 30 days immediately following date of grading provided the product is properly stored during the 10- or 30-day period. Time limit for packaging other inspected or graded products shall be as approved by the Administrator. If inspected or graded product is moved to another location, a reinspection or regrading shall be required.
11.304 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.211-5, Material Requirements, in solicitations and contracts for supplies that

are not commercial products.

Parent topic: Subpart 11.3 - Acceptable Material
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00041-MP

HENRY J. USCINSKI,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 55, a letter request by United States Probation

Officer Shannon E. Angelidis, interpreted as a Motion for Return of Henry J. Uscinski's Passport. 

The United States has filed a response, wherein the Assistant United States Attorney has certified

that he has spoken with Probation Officer Angelidis and that a copy of Mr. Uscinski's passport

will be sufficient.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Motion for Return of Passport, Doc. 55, is DENIED. The United States is directed to

provide a copy of Mr. Uscinski's passport to Probation Officer Shannon E. Angelidis.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00041-MP Document 58 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


Amendment No. 3


to


2001 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock
Plan


 


Pursuant
to Section 7 of the Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. 2001 Stock Option,
Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of January 1, 2008, as follows:


 


1.  Section 5(j) of
the Plan is amended is amended in its entirety as follows:


 


(j) Annual
Limit on Awards.    The aggregate
maximum number of shares of Stock underlying Awards granted to any single
Eligible Employee during any fiscal year shall not exceed 5,000,000 shares
(subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the terms of this
Plan).


 


2. Section 6
is amended by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:


 


(e) 
Performance-Based Awards.    With
respect to performance-based Awards of Deferred Stock or Restricted Stock
granted under this Section 6 which are intended to qualify as “performance-based
compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code and the
regulations thereunder, performance targets will consist of specified levels of
one or more of the following (in absolute terms or relative to one or more
other companies or indices): operating income, net earnings, net interest
income, net interest margin and adjusted net interest margin, return on
stockholders’ equity, return on investment, return on invested assets, stock
price appreciation, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization, cash flow, sales growth, margin improvement, income before taxes
(“IBT”), IBT margin, estimated taxable income, working capital performance,
earnings per share, growth in earnings per share, expense targets, productivity
targets or ratios, portfolio quality (credit or otherwise), attainment of
specific milestones in connection with strategic initiatives.


 


To
record the adoption of this Amendment No. 3 to the 2001 Stock Option,
Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan, Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
has caused this amendment to be executed this 10th day of July, 2009.


 


	
   

  	
  IMPAC
  MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Ronald M. Morrison

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Executive
  Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lorenzo Davis, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 7, 1966, which denied the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and proceeding remanded for a hearing with respect to the issues raised in defendant’s letter-petition dated November 3, 1965. The instant *coram nobis*application is based on an allegation that defendant was prevented by Prison Hospital rule from filing a notice of appeal in a prior adjudicated matter. On consent of the District Attorney, a hearing was ordered to determine the issue raised by the letter-petition. The record discloses that on the appointed hearing date defendant was free on parole and did not appear in court. His application was thereupon summarily dismissed on the merits. Since the record does not even disclose that defendant was aware of or was given any notice of the hearing date, the interests of justice would be better served by the rescheduling of the hearing, at which time the issue raised in appellant’s November 3, 1965 letter-petition may be tried. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Wesley Johnson.

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 25, 1966, is moot and the appeal dismissed, since a hearing and resentencing have been effected as a result of the remand of this court on November 3, 1966. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and Bastow, JJ.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2008- CR
- 8627, s t y l ed The St at e of Te xas v . D avi d Kel l um , p end i ng i n t he 1 4 4 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Ca t heri ne T o rr es- Stahl presi d i ng.

2 ... Attorney

Michae l Raign w as appointed to re prese nt relator in the c riminal proce eding pending in the trial court. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 68 7- CR IN RE David KELLUM Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 4, 2009 P E T IT IO N F O R

W R IT O F M A

N D A M U S D E N IE D ; M O T IO N F O R LE A V E T O F ILE DI SMI SSED AS MOOT On October 23 2009, relator David Ke llum filed a pr o s e pe tit ion fo r wri t of

mand a mus , seeking to compel the trial c ourt to conduct a hear ing a

nd rule on motions to suppress and for quantitative weig ht analy sis, which Kellum filed pro s e i n th e u n d er l yi n g cr i m i n al p ro ce ed i n g. Ke l l u m i s re p re s en t edb y

ap p o i n t edco u n s el i nt h at p ro ce ed i n g. 2 A cr iminal defendant is not entitl ed to hy brid repr esenta

tion. Se e Ro bin so n v . S

tate , 240 S.W. 3d 91 9, 92 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Pa tri c k v . S tate , 906 S.W .2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App.04
- 09
- 00 68 7- CR

- 2- 1995). A t rial court has no leg al dut y to rule on a pr o s e motion in a criminal proce eding in which the def endant is re prese nted by

counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W .3d at 922. Consequently , the trial
c ourt did no t a

bu se its dis c re tio n b y

fa ili ngto r

ule on re lator ’s pr o s e motions, and relator’ s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a) . Relator’s motion for lea ve to file the petition is di smissed as moot.

PER C URI AM PUB L I SH
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2325 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2325

 To reduce temporarily the duty on certain audio headphones achieving 
                     full-spectrum noise reduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reduce temporarily the duty on certain audio headphones achieving 
                     full-spectrum noise reduction.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN AUDIO HEADPHONES ACHIEVING FULL-SPECTRUM NOISE 
              REDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.85.18      Audio headphones    2.5%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         achieving full-                                                    31/2009
                         spectrum noise
                         reduction by
                         using electronics
                         that equalize all
                         audio signals,
                         including those
                         passing through
                         an acoustically
                         resistive opening
                         and a port, in
                         parallel, that
                         connect walls
                         separating an
                         interior of the
                         enclosure from an
                         exterior of the
                         enclosure outside
                         the earcup
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         8518.30.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 57
Editorial Note: 1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

§ 57.105 Suspension or termination of exemptions. ( a ) The Administrator may modify or revoke any regulation of this part, granting exemptions whenever he determines such action appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
( b ) Failure to comply with the condition of the exemptions contained in § 57.100 shall subject such person to the penalties provided for in the Act and in this part.
[63 FR 69968, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57166, Sept. 24, 2004]
#### HERTER REALTY CO. v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by the Herter Realty Company against the Travelers' Insurance Company.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
§ 51.1280 Serious damage. *Serious damage* means any injury or defect which seriously affects the appearance, or the edible or shipping quality. ( a ) Russeting which in the aggregate exceeds the following shall be considered as serious damage: ( 1 ) On all varieties, excessively rough russeting (russeting which shows “frogging” or slight cracking) when the aggregate area exceeds three-fourths inch in diameter.2
( 2 ) On all varieties, thick russeting such as is characteristic of frost injury, 15 percent of the surface.
( b ) Any one of the following defects or combination thereof, the seriousness of which exceeds the maximum allowed for any one defect, shall be considered as serious damage: ( 1 ) Limbrubs which are more than slightly cracked, or excessively rough limbrubs or dark brown or black discoloration caused by limbrubs which exceeds an aggregate area of three-fourths inch in diameter. Other limbrubs which affect an aggregate area of more than one-tenth of the surface.2
( 2 ) Hail marks or other similar depressions or scars which affect an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter, or which materially deform or disfigure the fruit.2
( 3 ) Drought spot when more than two in number, or where the external injury affects an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter, or when the appearance of the flesh is seriously affected by corky tissue or brownish discoloration.2
( 4 ) Sunburn or sprayburn where the skin is blistered, cracked or shows any brownish color, or where the shape of the pear is materially flattened, or the flesh is softened or materially changed in color, except that sprayburn of a russet character shall be considered under the definition of russeting.
( 5 ) Insects: ( i ) Worm holes. More than three healed codling moth stings, of which not more than two may be over three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter, or other insect stings affecting the appearance to an equal extent.2
( ii ) Blister mite or canker worm injury which affects an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter or which materially deforms or disfigures the fruit.2
( 6 ) Disease: ( i ) Scab spots which are black and which cover an aggregate area of more than one-half inch in diameter, except that scab spots of a russet character shall be considered under the definition of russeting.2
( ii ) Sooty blotch which is thinly scattered over more than 15 percent of the surface, or dark, heavily concentrated spots which affect an area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter.2
#### Lazar Gazivoda, Appellant, v Heath Sherman, Respondent.

[816 NYS2d 417]

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered January 7, 2005, which, in a holdover proceeding, (1) reversed a judgment of Civil Court, New York County (Cyril K. Bedford, J.), entered December 17, 2002, after a nonjury trial, awarding possession of the subject rent-controlled apartment to petitioner landlord, and (2) remanded the matter for a new trial, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to condition vacatur of Civil Court’s judgment of possession in favor of landlord upon tenant’s affording landlord a reasonable opportunity to inspect and photograph the apart*459ment prior to the new trial, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The main evidence relied on by Civil Court in finding that the apartment is so cluttered with papers, refuse and/or rubbish as to constitute a nuisance are violations that were issued by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development after inspections conducted on February 25 and June 16, 2002. At the trial held on December 17, 2002, tenant testified that he had removed the clutter and that emergency health problems had forced him to cancel court-ordered inspections of his apartment that were scheduled to be conducted shortly before the trial. Landlord introduced pictures of the apartment that were taken in May 2001, admitted that the last time he was in the apartment was in August 2002, and explained that the reason he knew that tenant did not subsequently remove the clutter was because the nontestifying on-site superintendent, who helps remove garbage from the building, would have told him so. Appellate Term aptly characterized this explanation as “elliptical” and “[blalancing the possible safety concerns posed by any ‘Collyer’-type condition in the premises against the tenant’s interest in preserving his rent controlled tenancy of more than 50 years duration.” The court correctly held that there should be “a more probing inquiry into the present condition of tenant’s apartment,” and remanded for a new trial. We reject landlord’s argument that any remedial action tenant may have taken after landlord’s service of the notice of termination on April 30, 2002 is irrelevant *(cf. Kast Realty, LLC v Houston,*2003 NY Slip Op 50892[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2003] [tenant not entitled to further opportunity to cure nuisance as she was afforded ample opportunity to do so during the course of proceeding]). Landlord, however, should have a reasonable opportunity to inspect and photograph the apartment before the trial, and we modify accordingly. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ. [See 6 Misc 3d 66 (2005).]
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please submit the attached Grant Letter to Docket No. FAA-2001-10356 

that allows properly equipped USASOC aircraft to conduct low-level operations without 

complying with en route minimum altitudes for flights under instrument flight rules 

(IFR) or direction of flight requirements for IFR en route segments in uncontrollable 

airspace.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2013259EN.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 259/9 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 932/2013 of 26 September 2013 on the issue of licences for importing rice under the tariff quotas opened for the September 2013 subperiod by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 255 of 27 September 2013](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2013_255_R_TOC)
)

On page 15, Annex, point (b), footnote 1 of the table:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | No allocation coefficient applied for this subperiod: no licence applications were notified to the Commission.’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | Applications cover quantities less than or equal to the quantities available: all applications are therefore acceptable.’. |

---
116 STAT. 1496 PUBLIC LAW 107–241—OCT. 16, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3214 (S. 1972):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–569 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

July 15, considered and passed House.

Oct. 2, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–241

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the charter of the AMVETS organization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO AMVETS CHARTER.

(a) NAME OF ORGANIZATION.—(1) Sections 22701(a) and 22706

of title 36, United States Code, are amended by striking ‘‘AMVETS

(American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam)’’ and

inserting ‘‘AMVETS (American Veterans)’’.

(2)(A) The heading of chapter 227 of such title is amended

to read as follows:

‘‘CHAPTER 227—AMVETS (AMERICAN VETERANS)’’.

(B) The item relating to such chapter in the table of chapters

at the beginning of subtitle II of such title is amended to read

as follows:

‘‘227. AMVETS (AMERICAN VETERANS) ..........................................................22701’’.

(b) GOVERNING BODY.—Section 22704(c)(1) of such title is

amended by striking ‘‘seven national vice commanders’’ and all

that follows through ‘‘a judge advocate,’’ and inserting ‘‘two national

vice commanders, a finance officer, a judge advocate, a chaplain,

six national district commanders,’’.

(c) HEADQUARTERS AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.—Section 22708 of such title is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ in the first sentence and inserting ‘‘Maryland’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ in the second

sentence and inserting ‘‘Maryland’’.

Approved October 16, 2002.

Oct. 16, 2002

[H.R. 3214]
#### § 612.6 Application for water supply forecast service.

Requests for obtaining water supply forecasts or related assistance may be directed to any NRCS office in the western states areas. NRCS offices are described in part 600 of this chapter.
#### In the Matter of J. R. D. Management Corp., Appellant, v Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Rent Administrator, dated July 26, 1979, (a) that the petitioner landlord did willfully overcharge the respondents tenants a total of $2,237.04, (b) that there had been a pattern of overcharges, and (c) directing the petitioner to pay to said tenants the sum of $6,711.12 (three times the amount of the overcharges), petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 17, 1980, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent State Rent Administrator. We find no merit to appellant’s claim that the chronology of events herein shows that the State Rent Administrator, improperly and in violation of due process, has assessed treble damages in the mistaken belief that the subject lease was the third successive lease entered into at excessive rents. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### Julia Loomis, Respondent, v Civetta Corinno Construction Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Kalikow Construction Corp. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, and Dic Construction Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Judgment and order (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 24, 1980, awarding plaintiff damages in the sum of $26,118 after an assessment, unanimously modified, on the law, with costs and disbursements, to reduce said award to $15,000 and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. Having denied on the basis of surprise plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to increase the *ad damnum*clause at the outset of this contested assessment of damages, the court, sitting without a jury, erred in awarding damages in excess of the *ad damnum*in its decision rendered two months after both sides rested. While CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) provides that a pleading may be amended “at any time” by leave of the court, which leave “shall be freely given”, and although the grant or denial of a motion to amend is a matter of judicial discretion *(Murray v City of New York,*43 NY2d 400), postverdict increases in the *ad damnum*clause are prohibited *(Piccinich v Grace Lines,*62 AD2d 974). We do not consider the renewed application at the close of the evidence to have been granted or that the court in any way acted upon it by the remark, “All right, counselor. Is there anything further?” Defendant’s attorney did not address himself to this request then relying no doubt, as he had during the hearing, on the court’s earlier ruling on the same matter. Accordingly, we modify to reduce the award to the amount demanded in the complaint. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman and Carro, JJ.