alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Keith L. Browne, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 282]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 24, 2005, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant failed to timely request a hearing challenging the September 24, 2004 initial determination ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The record establishes that claimant received the initial determination shortly after it was mailed on September 24, 2004. Although the instructions on the reverse side of the determination indicated that he had 30 days to request a hearing, claimant failed to request a hearing until December 2004. According to claimant, the delay occurred because he misunderstood information from a representative of the Department of Labor regarding the time for an appeal. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with the 30-day statutory time period in which to request a hearing *(see*Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; *Matter of Jarrett [Commissioner of Labor],*13 AD3d 965 [2004]; *Matter of Meltzer [Commissioner of Labor],*298 AD2d 827 [2002]). Accordingly, the merits of the initial determination denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court *(see Matter of Brown [Commissioner of Labor],*4 AD3d 604 [2004]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ, concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 150

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘September

5 30, 1996’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Eagle Insurance Company, Respondent, v Osvaldo Sanchez, Respondent. Anthony Scarito, Proposed Additional Respondent; Allstate Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 103]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Allstate Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme *656Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.H.O.), dated August 11, 2004, which determined that its disclaimer of coverage as to its insured, Anthony J. Scarito, was invalid and, in effect, granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

For an insurer to disclaim its liability to its insured on the ground of lack of cooperation, the insurer must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction *(see Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co.,*19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]). Even assuming that hearsay testimony of the appellant’s witnesses adduced at the hearing was admissible to demonstrate diligence, the appellant failed to establish a right to disclaim.

The record reveals that there was insufficient proof of the three-prong test set forth in *Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co. (id.).*Allstate failed to establish that it was sufficiently diligent in seeking to bring about its insured’s cooperation *(see Alexander v Stone,*45 AD2d 216, 220 [1974]; *Wallace v Universal Ins. Co.,*18 AD2d 121, 125 [1963], *affd on opn below*13 NY2d 978 [1963]), or that its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain its insured’s cooperation *(see Coleman v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*28 AD2d 1073, 1074 [1967], *affd*23 NY2d 836 [1969]; *National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Lococo,*20 AD2d 785, 786 [1964], *affd*16 NY2d 585 [1965]). Further, the nonaction of the insured did not, in this case, constitute “willful and avowed obstruction” *(Coleman v New Amsterdam Cas. Co.,*247 NY 271, 276 [1928]; *see Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Stroud—Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.],*36 NY2d 719, 721-722 [1975]; *Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., supra*at 168; *Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Bresil,*7 AD3d 716, 717 [2004]; *Matter of Metlife Auto & Home v Burgos,*4 AD3d 477 [2004]; *Matter of Statewide Ins. Co. v Ray,*125 AD2d 573, 574 [1986]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dora Garcia, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 908]

*294Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J), rendered January 20, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of perjury in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of lVs to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arguments concerning corroboration of accomplice testimony are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the trial witnesses were not accomplices to the crime, perjury before the grand jury, with which defendant was charged; that certain of the witnesses may have jointly participated with defendant in other illegal activity to which the perjury related is of no moment *(People v McAuliffe,*36 NY2d 820 [1975]).

Defendant’s argument that evidence of uncharged crimes was improperly admitted also is unpreserved and we similarly decline to review it in the interest of justice. Again, however, were we to review it, we would reject it. The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving background evidence of a pattern of criminal conduct by defendant and others that directly related to the perjury charge, and that was not inflammatory or unduly prejudicial (see *People v Scarola,*71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]).

We perceive no basis to disturb the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims we would reject them. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the terms of offices of Members of Congress and increasing the term

of Representatives to four years.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. COBLE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States limiting the terms of offices of Members of Congress and increasing the term of Representatives to four

years.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 24 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. The term of office of Representatives

6 shall be four years.

7 ‘‘No person shall be elected to the office of Represent8 ative more than three times, excluding any election of a

9 person to fill a vacancy of an office of a Representative

10 if such person has held such office for less than two years.

11 ‘‘The second clause of this section shall not apply to

12 any person who is a Representative on the date of ratifica13 tion of this Article so long as such person continues there14 after to be a Representative without an interruption in

15 service.

16 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person shall be elected to the office

17 of Senator more than twice, excluding any election of a

18 person to fill a vacancy of an office of a Senator if such

19 person has held such office for less than three years.

20 ‘‘This section shall not apply to any person who is

21 a Senator on the date of ratification of this Article so long

22 as such person continues thereafter to be a Senator with23 out an interruption in service.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                     1904339
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               724487
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            32358855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                24491981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              32358855
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           8928672
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           6370713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             90212
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          516778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            1950969
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        1950969
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              97608
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               2048577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 403.62 Sale on sealed, competitive bids.

If the property is to be sold to the highest bidder on sealed, competitive bids, the notice of sale shall so specify, and shall state the date, hour, and place of sale, and the date, hour, and place prior to the sale when and where prospective bidders may view the property and obtain necessary information. All sealed bids must be filed with the district director of the internal revenue district in which the property was seized before the sale. No bids will be accepted after the sale starts. At the appointed date, hour, and place of sale, all sealed bids timely filed shall be open in the presence of all bidders attending the sale, who shall have the privilege of inspecting the bids if they so desire.
§ 601.805 Miscellaneous administrative provisions. ( a ) *Responsibilities and relationship of Internal Revenue and program sponsor.* Substantial involvement is anticipated between the Internal Revenue Service and the program sponsors in conducting this program. Specific responsibilities and obligations of the Internal Revenue Service and the program sponsors will be set forth in each cooperative agreement.
( b ) *Administrative requirements set forth in OMB and Treasury Circulars.* ( 1 ) The basic administrative requirements applicable to individual cooperative agreements are contained in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-110, Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations (41 FR 32016). All applicable provisions of this circular and any existing and further supplements and revisions are incorporated into these regulations and into all cooperative agreements entered into between the Internal Revenue Service and program sponsors.
( 2 ) Additional operating procedures and instructions may be developed by the Internal Revenue Service to direct recipient organizations in carrying out the provisions of this subpart, such as instructions for using letters of credit. Any such operating procedures or instructions will be incorporated into each cooperative agreement.
( c ) *Joint funding.* Tax Counseling for the Elderly programs will not be eligible for joint funding. Accordingly, the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-510, December 5, 1974 (88 Stat. 1604, 42 U.S.C. 4251-4261) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-111, Jointly Funded Assistance to State and Local Governments and Nonprofit Organizations (41 FR 32039), will not apply.
( d ) *Discrimination.* No program sponsor shall discriminate against any person providing tax return assistance on the basis of age, sex, race, religion or national origin in conducting program operations. No program sponsor shall discriminate against any person in providing such assistance on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin.
[44 FR 72113, Dec. 13, 1979, as amended at 49 FR 36500, Sept. 18, 1984]
#### § 20.2056(d)-1 Marital deduction; special rules for marital deduction if surviving spouse is not a United States citizen.

Rules pertaining to the application of section 2056(d), including certain transition rules, are contained in §§ 20.2056A-1 through 20.2056A-13.

[T.D. 8612, 60 FR 43538, Aug. 22, 1995]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EDELLA JOHNSON (A/K/A EDELLA

ROBINSON A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON JOHNSON) , ERIC JOHNSON,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER

AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioners

v.

PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 11 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30 th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED to the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining

issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity is:

Did the Superior Court err in determining the mortgage at issue was not a “residential mortgage” and that petitioners are therefore not entitled to seek damages pursuant to 41 P.S. §§406 and 502?
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 69 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 1995

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in
the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal of Michigan on December 6, 
1995, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent for a term of six 
years, effective December 7, 1995.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial statements of WorldPort Communications, Inc. for the nine months ended
September  30,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          178,651
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                        812
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                186,438
<PP&E>                                           43,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                      253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  250,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60,345
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              3
<OTHER-SE>                                      187,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    250,764
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7,502
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 18,397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 343,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                     82,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             260,928
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    260,928
<EPS-BASIC>                                        8.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      4.76



</TABLE>
#### § 48.4041-7 Dual use of taxable liquid fuel.

Tax applies to all taxable liquid fuel sold for use or used as a fuel in the motor which is used to propel a diesel-powered vehicle or in the motor used to propel a motor vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft, even though the motor is also used for a purpose other than the propulsion of the vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft. Thus, if the motor of a diesel-powered highway vehicle or a motorboat operates special equipment by means of a power take-off or power transfer, tax applies to all taxable liquid fuel sold for this use or so used, whether or not the special equipment is mounted on the vehicle or boat. For example, tax applies to diesel fuel sold to operate the mixing unit on a concrete mixer truck if the mixing unit is operated by means of a power take-off from the motor of the vehicle. Similarly, tax applies to all taxable liquid fuel sold for use or used in a motor propelling a fuel oil truck even though the same motor is used to operate the pump (whether or not mounted on the truck) for discharging the fuel into customers' storage tanks. However, tax does not apply to liquid fuel sold for use or used in a separate motor to operate special equipment (whether or not the equipment is mounted on the vehicle). If the taxable liquid fuel used in a separate motor is drawn from the same tank as the one which supplies fuel for the propulsion of the vehicle, a reasonable determination of the quantity of taxable liquid fuel used in such separate motor or during such period is acceptable for purposes of application of the tax. This determination must be based, however, on the operating experience of the person using the taxable liquid fuel, and the taxpayer must maintain records which support the allocation used. Devices to measure the number of miles the vehicle has traveled, such as hubometers, may be used in making a preliminary determination of the number of gallons of fuel used to propel the vehicle. In order to make a final determination of the number of gallons of fuel used to propel the vehicle, there must be added to this preliminary determination the amount of fuel consumed while idling or warming up the motor preparatory to propelling the vehicle.

[T.D. 8066, 51 FR 16, Jan. 2, 1986]
#### § 55.4981-1 [Reserved]
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 Quarterly  Report of JACOBS  FINANCIAL  GROUP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  November 30, 2009 (the  "Report")
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  I, John M. Jacobs,  Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's  Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: January 19, 2010


                   /s/John M. Jacobs
                   -------------------------------------------------------------
                   John M. Jacobs,  Chief Executive Officer
                   and Chief Financial Officer