alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39783.

#### CHARLESTON & WESTERN CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. HEATH.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of this court in *Charleston &c. R. Co. v. Heath,*107 Ga. App. 23 (129 SE2d 92), holding that the trial judge erred in overruling a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the mistrial made by the defendant, having been reversed by the Supreme Court of *672Georgia on certiorari *(Charleston &c. R. Co. v. Heath,*218 Ga. 786), the said judgment of this court is vacated and the judgment of the trial judge in the motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial in overruling said motion is affirmed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Decided April 23, 1963.

*Cumming, Nixon, Eve, Waller & Capers, Joseph B. Gumming,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Randall Evans, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1144 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1144

    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to witness 
                               tampering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 1995

   Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to witness 
                               tampering.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1512 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a 
trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be 
imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided 
by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense 
charged in such case.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 54.9815-2704 Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions. ( a ) *No preexisting condition exclusions.* A group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in § 54.9801-2).
( b ) *Examples.* The rules of paragraph (a) of this section are illustrated by the following examples (for additional examples illustrating the definition of a preexisting condition exclusion, *see* § 54.9801-3(a)(2)): Example 1. (i) *Facts.* A group health plan provides benefits solely through an insurance policy offered by Issuer *P.* At the expiration of the policy, the plan switches coverage to a policy offered by Issuer *N. N*'s policy excludes benefits for oral surgery required as a result of a traumatic injury if the injury occurred before the effective date of coverage under the policy. (ii) *Conclusion.* In this *Example 1,* the exclusion of benefits for oral surgery required as a result of a traumatic injury if the injury occurred before the effective date of coverage is a preexisting condition exclusion because it operates to exclude benefits for a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the effective date of coverage under the policy. Therefore, such an exclusion is prohibited.
Example 2. (i) *Facts.* Individual *C* applies for individual health insurance coverage with Issuer *M. M* denies *C*'s application for coverage because a pre-enrollment physical revealed that *C* has type 2 diabetes. (ii) *Conclusion. See* *Example 2* in 45 CFR 147.108(a)(2) for a conclusion that *M'*s denial of *C*'s application for coverage is a preexisting condition exclusion because a denial of an application for coverage based on the fact that a condition was present before the date of denial is an exclusion of benefits based on a preexisting condition. Therefore, such an exclusion is prohibited.
( c ) *Applicability date.* The provisions of this section are applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Until the applicability date for this regulation, plans and issuers are required to continue to comply with the interim final regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor at 29 CFR part 2590, contained in the 29 CFR, parts 1927 to end, edition revised as of July 1, 2015.
[T.D. 9744, 80 FR 72243, Nov. 18, 2015]
§ 31.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in § 1.6107-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78453, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### Sted Tenants Owners Corp., Respondent, v Alphonso Chumpitaz et al., Appellants.

[804 NYS2d 770]

In an action for ejectment, the defendants appeal, as limited - by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated August 2, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action seeking possession of a certain apartment and a writ of assistance," and denied that branch of their cross motion which was to stay all proceedings in this action pending determination of a certain proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima *374facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Here, the plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the cause of action seeking possession of an apartment that the defendants were occupying, by establishing that the defendant Alphonso Chumpitaz was not a tenant within the meaning of the Rent Stabilization Law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]; *Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).*In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or are not properly before the court. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
# Iris Oifigiúil C 21A/30 E

| | ISSN 1725-2571 |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | C 21A |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 5030 Eanáir 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2571

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 21A

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

5030 Eanáir 2007

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2007/C 021A/01 | AVIS AU LECTEUR | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

2007/C 021A/01

AVIS AU LECTEUR

1

| | V   Fógraí |
| --- | --- |
| | NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN |
| | Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO) |
| 2007/C 021A/02 | An painéal — Comórtas oscailte EPSO/AD/45/06 — Riarthóirí teanga (AD5) a bhfhuil an Ghaeilge mar phríomhtheanga acu i réimse an aistriúcháin | 3 |

V   Fógraí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO)

2007/C 021A/02

An painéal — Comórtas oscailte EPSO/AD/45/06 — Riarthóirí teanga (AD5) a bhfhuil an Ghaeilge mar phríomhtheanga acu i réimse an aistriúcháin

3

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

30.1.2007

| 30.1.2007 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | CA 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

CA 21/1

---

FÓGRA DO LÉITHEOIRÍ

Image

---

V Fógraí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

Oifig Eorpach um Roghnú Foirne (EPSO)

| 30.1.2007 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | CA 21/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2007

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

CA 21/3

---

AN PAINÉAL
   (1)

COMÓRTAS OSCAILTE EPSO/AD/45/06

RIARTHÓIRÍ TEANGA (AD5) A BHFHUIL AN GHAEILGE MAR PHRÍOMHTHEANGA ACU I RÉIMSE AN AISTRIÚCHÁIN

(2007/C 21 A/01)

| DE PAOR | Cora |
| --- | --- |
| DUFF | Austin |
| DWYER | Patrick |
| Ó FINNEADHA | Labhrás |
| GREALY | Seán |
| GUNNING | Robert |
| HEALY | Kate |
| LAVELLE | Hilary |
| LEONARD | Tríona |
| MAC DOMHNAILL | Domhnall |
| MANGAN | Francis |
| NÍ ÚRDAIL | Róisín |
| NIC DHONNCHA | Róisín |
| Ó FATHAIGH | Gearóid |
| Ó MÁILLE | Tomás |
| NÍ SHÚILLEABHÁIN | Úna |
| MAC GABHANN | Cathal |
| STACK | Bríd |

DE PAOR

Cora

DUFF

Austin

DWYER

Patrick

Ó FINNEADHA

Labhrás

GREALY

Seán

GUNNING

Robert

HEALY

Kate

LAVELLE

Hilary

LEONARD

Tríona

MAC DOMHNAILL

Domhnall

MANGAN

Francis

NÍ ÚRDAIL

Róisín

NIC DHONNCHA

Róisín

Ó FATHAIGH

Gearóid

Ó MÁILLE

Tomás

NÍ SHÚILLEABHÁIN

Úna

MAC GABHANN

Cathal

STACK

Bríd

Beidh an painéal bailí go dtí an 31 Nollaig 2007 agus féadfar a bhailíocht a fhadú.

---

(1)  Féadfaidh iarrthóir ar éirigh léi nó leis a iarraidh go sainráite nach bhfoilseofar a hainm/a ainm.

---
39922.

#### GALLOWAY v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit on a conditional-sale contract to recover the unpaid purchase price of an automobile brought by the assignee of the seller against the purchaser. The de*335fendant’s general and special demurrers to the petition were overruled and the exception is to that judgment. *Held:*

Decided January 28, 1963

Rehearing denied February 11, 1963.

*Charles W. Anderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr.,*contra.

The allegations of the petition which stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $450.36 on a contract (a copy of which was attached to the petition as an exhibit), said sum being past due and unpaid, were sufficient to set forth a cause of action as against general demurrer *(J. C. Pirkle &c. Co. v. Lester,*79 Ga. App. 512, 54 SE2d 298); and were not subject to special demurrer upon the ground that it was not alleged what amounts the defendant had paid upon the automobile and when such payments were made. *C. I. T. Corf. v. Davis,*49 Ga. App. 634 (2) (176 SE 821).

The petition stated a cause of action and was not subject to the general and special demurrers interposed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 601.901 Missing children shown on penalty mail. ( a ) *Purpose.* To support the national effort to locate and recover missing children, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) joins other executive departments and agencies of the Government of the United States in using official mail to disseminate photographs and biographical information on hundreds of missing children.
( b ) *Procedures for obtaining and disseminating data.* ( 1 ) The IRS shall publish pictures and biographical data related to missing children in domestic penalty mail containing annual tax forms and instructions, taxpayer information publications, and other IRS products directed to members of the public in the United States and its territories and possessions.
( 2 ) Missing children information shall not be placed on the “Penalty Indicia,” “OCR Read Area,” “Bar Code Read Area,” and “Return Address” areas of letter-size envelopes.
( 3 ) The IRS shall accept photographic and biographical materials solely from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (National Center). Photographs that were reasonably current as of the time of the child's disappearance, or those which have been updated to reflect a missing child's current age through computer enhancement technique, shall be the only acceptable form of visual media or pictorial likeness used in penalty mail.
( c ) *Withdrawal of data.* The shelf life of printed penalty mail is limited to 3 months for missing child cases. The IRS shall follow those guidelines whenever practicable. For products with an extended shelf life, such as those related to filing and paying taxes, the IRS will not print any pictures or biographical data relating to missing children without obtaining from the National Center a waiver of the 3-month shelf-life guideline.
( d ) *Reports and contact official.* IRS shall compile and submit to OJJDP reports on its experience in implementing Public Law 99-87, 99 Stat. 290, as required by that office. The IRS contact person is: Chief, Business Publications Section (or successor office), Tax Forms and Publications Division, Technical Publications Branch, OP:FS:FP:P:3, Room 5613, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224.
( e ) *Period of applicability.* This section is applicable December 13, 1999 through December 31, 2002.
[T.D. 8848, 64 FR 69398, Dec. 13, 1999; 65 FR 15862, Mar. 24, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6341-1 Expense of levy and sale.

The district director shall determine the expenses to be allowed in all cases of levy and sale. Such expenses shall include the expenses of protection and preservation of the property during the period subsequent to the levy, as well as the actual expenses incurred in connection with the sale thereof. In case real and personal property (or several tracts of real property) are sold in the aggregate, the district director shall properly apportion the expenses to the real property (or to each tract).
§ 15.737-20 Hearings. ( a ) *In general.* The Administrative Law Judge shall preside at the hearing on a complaint for the suspension of a former officer or employee from practice before the Department. Hearings shall be stenographically recorded and transcribed and the testimony of witnesses shall be taken under oath or affirmation. Hearings will be conducted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556.
( b ) *Public access to hearings.* Hearings will be closed unless an open hearing is requested by the respondent, except that if classified information or protected information of third parties (such as tax information) is likely to be adduced at the hearing, it will remain closed. A request for an open hearing must be included in the answer to be considered.
( c ) *Failure to appear.* If either party to the proceeding fails to appear at the hearing, after due notice thereof has been sent to him/her, he/she shall be deemed to have waived the right to a hearing and the Administrative Law Judge may make a decision against the absent party by default.
40083.

#### GRINER v. UNION TEXAS NATURAL GAS CORPORATION.

Decided May 23, 1963

Motion to Amend Judgment denied June 5, 1963.

*Shirley C. Boykin, Claude V. Driver,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. B. Jones, Jr., Harold L. Murphy,*contra.

Russell, Judge.

The only assignment of error in this bill of exceptions is to an order reciting that “plaintiff’s general demurrer to defendant’s answer as amended is hereby sustained and said answer is hereby dismissed as to the defense of estoppel.” That this is not such a final judgment as will support a direct bill of exceptions, even though it leaves the case, a suit on a promissory note, without any issuable defense, see *Johnson v. First Nat.*Bank, 50 Ga. App. 90 (177 SE 73) and citations.

It follows that the bill of exceptions must be

*Dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Raphael Lewenthal *et al.*to Adolph M. Petshaw for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided October 10th, 1878.)

An assignee for the benefit of creditors and the sureties on his bond will be discharged only upon a proceeding for an accounting instituted by citation, of which all persons interested in the estate, even though they have signed releases, must have notice.

The assignee must advertise for claims before he can be discharged by reason of a compromise between the assignor and the creditors.

Application by an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors for a reference of his accounts, and for the discharge thereupon of himself and the sureties on his bond.

The application was made upon the petition of the assignee, with affidavits by the assignors, showing the making of the assignment, the filing of schedules, inventory, and bond of the assignee, proof of claims by all the creditors, a compromise between the creditors and the assignors, and the execution of releases by all the creditors to the assignors.

J. F. Daly, J.

No discharge will be granted the assignee except upon a proceeding for an accounting to be instituted by citation. The statute is clear upon this point. The assignee must apply by petition for a citation to all persons interested in the estate, to attend the settlement of his accounts, and all parties, whether they have signed releases or not, must be notified.

Advertisement for claims must be made where the assignee seek relief by reason of a compromise between the assignor and the creditors. »

Application denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin L. Hodge, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 189]

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered June 2, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree *1063(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [7]), defendant contends that County Court erred in accepting his *Alford*plea and in refusing to allow him to “withdraw” that plea. “Although defendant contends that [the court] erred in denying his motion to withdraw the [Alford] plea, defendant did not in fact make such a motion,” and therefore defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently enter his plea *(People v Sherman,*8 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 681 [2004]). Rather, defendant made a request to “change [his] plea to no contest.” In any event, the court did not err in accepting the plea inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant “was advised of his rights and that his *Alford*plea . . . was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of its consequences” *(People v Alfieri,*201 AD2d 935, 935 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 908 [1994]; *see People v Castricone,*19 AD3d 1101 [2005]; *Sherman,*8 AD3d at 1026-1027; *People v Casco,*4 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2004]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court properly denied his request to change his plea from an *Alford*plea to a no contest plea inasmuch as no contest pleas are not permitted in New York *(see*CPL 220.10; *People v Daiboch,*265 NY 125, 128-129 [1934]; 32A NY Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 1350).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the procedure by which he was adjudicated a second felony offender did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 400.21 inasmuch as he did not object to any alleged procedural error with respect thereto *(see People v Oliver,*63 NY2d 973 [1984]; *People v Caballero,*293 AD2d 401 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 673 [2002]; *People v Smith,*291 AD2d 292 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 655 [2002]). In any event, defense counsel expressly agreed to use the CPL 200.60 statement in lieu of a CPL 400.21 statement and thus waived compliance with CPL 400.21 *(see generally People v Santiago,*269 AD2d 770 [2000]).

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is improper. Where, as here, a defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration, that defendant is not subject to a period of postrelease supervision *(see*Penal Law § 70.45 [1]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
80

271

80

82

271

82

Aurora Road

Chaffee Road

Chippewa Road

Snowville Road

Red 

Lock

Stanford Road

Holzhauer Road

Vaughn Rd

Highland Road

Hines Hill Road

Boston Mills Road

Stine Road

Chippewa Creek Parkway

Chippewa Creek

Cuyahoga River

Riverview Road

Cuyahoga River

Boston Mills Road

Parkview Drive

Valley Parkway

Mile

22

Mile

21

Lock

32

Lock

31

Mile

23

Lock

30

Lock

33

Mile

20

Mile

19

Mile

18

Lock

35

Mile

17

Brandywine Road

Boyden Road

Columbia Road

Buckeye

Trail

Buckeye

Trail

Valley Trail

Towpath Trail

Bike & Hike Trail

2.4

1.7

2.9

2.0

2.3

1.2

1.5

1.0

0.6

1.6

2.6

2.1

0.5

0.1

1.4

2.6

0.7

2.6

0.2

Brecksville Reservation

Hike & Bridle Trails

Stanford Trail

Brandywine

Gorge Trail

Old 

Carriage 

Trail

BOSTON STORE

VISITOR CENTER

Brandywine

Falls

0

0

1 Kilometer

1 Mile

Buckeye Trail

Connector Trails

Valley Bridle Trail

Towpath Trail

Other Trails

Parking

Trailer Parking

Restrooms

Primitive Camping

Picnic Area

Train Station

Park Boundary

Distance between

arrows (in miles) 0.2

To 

Peninsula

To 

Route 21 

(Brecksville Rd.)

Coonrad

Ranger

Station

National

Park Service

Headquarters

Stanford

House

Blue Hen 

Falls

Station

Road

Bridge

Brecksville

Station

Jaite

Boston

Trailhead

Inn at

Brandywine

Falls

Boston

Stumpy

Basin

Brecksville

Stables

Map updated 8/2013.

Buckeye and Valley Trails

Station Road to Boston

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

BUCKEYE & TOWPATH TRAIL

Loop Distances

Station Road Bridge

to Red Lock................ 10.3 miles

Red Lock to Boston ..... 8.1 miles

Boston to Peninsula .... 7.4 miles