alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.500 Secretary of Defense. ( a ) The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibition whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of each such written exemption to Congress immediately after making such a determination.
( b ) The Department of Defense may issue supplemental regulations to implement paragraph (a) of this section.
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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Donald M. EarhartDonald M. EarhartChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ James R. TalevichJames R. TalevichChief Financial Officer
#### Daniel A. YOUNG, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John KENNEDY, Clerk of Court/Wake; Betty Wall, Deputy Clerk/Wake; Gerald Arnold, Justice; Burley Mitchell, Justice; John Exum, Justice; I. Beverly Lake, Justice; Lacy Thornburg, United States District Judge, Western District of North Carolina; John Lewis, Justice; Mike Easley, North Carolina Attorney General; Fred Morelock, Judge; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-1840.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Féb. 22, 2001.

Decided Feb. 27, 2001.

Daniel A. Young, Sr., pro se. Staci Tolliver Meyer, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel A. Young, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Young’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Young’s motion to expedite the appeal to the extent possible given the court’s busy docket, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Young v. Kennedy,*No. CA-00-51-5-BR (E.D.N.C. May 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2515

For the relief of Florence Barrett Cox.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 1995

Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Florence Barrett Cox.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR FLOR4 ENCE BARRETT COX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Florence Barrett Cox shall be eligible for issuance

8 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that

9 of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

10 upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant

11 visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of

12 status to lawful permanent resident.
2

•HR 2515 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Florence Barrett

2 Cox enters the United States before the filing deadline

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of

7 the enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Florence Barrett Cox, the Secretary of State

16 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the

17 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of

18 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

23 202(e) of such Act.

Æ
ex10-1.htm







 


FIRST EXTENSION OF STOCK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


 


That certain Stock Repurchase Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated August 31, 2011, by and between Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB ("Seller") and Artesian Resources Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Buyer") is hereby extended as follows:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
Pursuant to Section 7.01 of the Agreement, by mutual written consent of Seller and Buyer the termination date of the Agreement is extended to August 31, 2013, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 7.01 or extended for an additional







 


period of time by the written mutual consent of Seller and Buyer.


 







 


2.           Except as modified hereinabove the terms of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


 







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Extension of Stock


 







Repurchase Agreement to be executed as of August 31, 2012 by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.













	  	  	
SELLER:


	  	  	  
	  	  	
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


	  	  	  
	  	  	
BY:

	
/s/ Mark M. Pryslak


	  	  	  	
Name:  Mark M. Pryslak


	  	  	
Title:  Vice President












 








	  	  	
BUYER:


	  	  	  
	  	  	
ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION


	  	  	  
	  	  	
BY:

	
/s/ David B. Spacht


	  	  	  	
Name:  David B. Spacht


	  	  	
Title:  CFO Treasurer
Exhibit 10.9 Purchase and Sale Amend 1






EXHIBIT 10.9




FIRST AMENDMENT TO SALE AGREEMENT


This First Amendment to Sale Agreement (this “Amendment") is made as of the 7th day of May, 2012, between 150 NORTHWEST POINT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Purchaser"), and AMERICAN SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation  (''Seller'').


A.       Purchaser and Seller are parties to that certain Sale Agreement dated as of April 5, 2012 (the "'Sale Agreement"), regarding real property commonly known as 150 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, as more particularly described in the Sale Agreement. All  initially capitalized  terms  used but not otherwise defined  herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Sale Agreement.


B.     The parties desire to amend the Sale Agreement to extend the Inspection Period as provided herein.


AGREEMENTS


In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1.     Extension of Inspection Period.   The Inspection Period is hereby extended to expire at 5:00 p.m Chicago, Illinois time on May 11, 2012.  All references in the Sale Agreement to the expiration of the Inspection Period shall mean 5:00p.m Chicago, Illinois time on May 11,2012.


2.     Sale Agreement in Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly set forth above, all of the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement remain in full force and effect.


3.     Delivery:   Counterparts.      This   Amendment   may   be  executed   in   any  number  of counterparts, all of which taken together will constitute one agreement binding on all the parties.     This   Amendment   may  be  delivered   by  facsimile  or  electronic   (e-mail) transmission of signed original counterparts.


[Signatures on Following Pages]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above.


PURCHASER:


150 NORTHWEST POINT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


By:         /s/ Thomas Frey
Name:        Thomas Frey
Title:        Senior Vice President & CFO




[Signatures Continue on Following Page]











[Signature  Page to First Amendment to Sale Agreement made by and between American Service
Insurance Company, Inc. and 150 Northwest Point LLC]








SELLER:


AMERICAN SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., an Illinois corporation




By:         /s/ Scott D. Wollney
Name:         Scott D. Wollney
Title:        President & CEO




Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc., which executed a Joinder to the Sale Agreement for the purposes therein stated, hereby consents to this Amendment.


ATLAS FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.


By:         /s/ Scott D. Wollney
Name:         Scott D. Wollney
Title:        President & CEO
§ 526.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name. Note 1 to § 526.504 .
*See* § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. *See also* § 526.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.
§ 546.502 Effect of license or other authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by OFAC, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license specifically refers to such part.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizing any transaction prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property that would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
( d ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data that are not prohibited by this part or that do not require a license by OFAC nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. government.
( e ) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
( f ) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.
[89 FR 15749, Mar. 5, 2024]
HomeTransportation Recent Actions...Transportation – Airport Protocol – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; San Marino, April 19, 2024

# 									Transportation – Airport Protocol – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; San Marino, April 19, 2024							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [145 KB]

Tags

San MarinoTransportationTreaties

Back to Top
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JUN 0 ~ 2015 

Mr. Jose Mora-Vargas 

Certification Director 

Associated Air Center 

8321 Lemmon Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

Dear Mr. Mora-Vargas: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter dated May 7, 2015, requesting exemption from 

§§ 25.785(h)(2), 25.7850), 25.813(e), 25.815, and 25.853(d), ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal 

Regulations. This exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the requirements of 

flight-attendant direct view; firm handholds along each aisle; interior doors between 

passenger compartments and emergency exits; minimum aisle width in the passenger 

compartment; and maximum heat release rates for large panel interior materials and large 

non-metallic seat panels. You stated that the proposed exemption is specifically intended 

for application to an executive interior on an Airbus Model A320-232 airplane, Serial 

Number 6659, designated as "private use, not for hire, not for common carriage." 

This request was posted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket Management 

System (at Regulations.gov) on May 19,2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA20 15-1773. We are in the process of reviewing your request and would like to know if you 

intend to exercise the privileges ofthe exemption outside the United States per 14 CFR 

11.81(h). If so, please provide this additional information to Mr. Dan Jacquet at (425) 227-

2676, or by e-mail at Daniel.Jacquet@faa.gov. 

We will contact you ifwe need any additional information. If you have any questions or 

concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. Jacquet. 

Sincerely, 

Deana 

J~~ M. Stedman 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
#### 8902 Corporation et al., Appellants, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 725]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered September 30, 2004, which, in an action by a commercial tenant and its principal (Leahy) against the landlord and managing agent arising out of the termination of the parties’ lease, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate Leahy’s first cause of action for conversion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 18, 2004, unanimously dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

The tenant does not claim any legally cognizable interest in the personal property that, as conceded by defendants for present purposes, remained on the premises after the tenant’s eviction. Accordingly, the tenant has no cause of action for conversion. However, as to Leahy, who claims to be the owner of such personalty, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendants unreasonably denied him access to the premises after the eviction, raised by, inter alia, Leahy’s claim that he orally requested access multiple times but was refused (see *Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). We affirm in all other respects. Plaintiffs’ allegations of conversion do not warrant an award of punitive damages (see *Boston Concessions Group v Criterion Ctr. Corp.,*250 AD2d 435, 436 [1998]; see *also Don Buchwald & Assoc. v Rich,*281 AD2d 329, 330 [2001]). The cause of action for breach of contract was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs never provided defendants with financial information about their prospective assignee as required by the lease, lacking which defendants cannot be found to have unreasonably withheld their consent to the requested assignment *(see 200 Eighth Ave. Rest. Corp. v Daytona Holding Corp.,*293 AD2d 353 [2002]). Dismissal of the cause of action *317for breach of contract necessarily requires dismissal of the cause of action for tortious interference with its prospective business relations, the claimed interference with the prospective assignee being a mere incident of the claimed breach of contract *(see Rodriguez-Nunci v Clinton Hous. & Dev. Co.,*241 AD2d 339 [1997]). The cause of action for bailment was properly dismissed for lack of evidence of an agreement by defendants to maintain the personal property left on the premises *(see Funding Assistance Corp. v Mashreq Bank,*277 AD2d 127 [2000]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                           5
<LEGEND>
(Replace this text with legend, if applicable)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                      0000857615
<NAME>                                               Redwood Equipment Leasing
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                        332,611
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 191,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              524,391
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              1,442,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          40,964
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                1,442,467
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              160,862
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               87,423
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                73,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            73,439
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   73,439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.000
        



</TABLE>
#### Charles Dusenbury *et*al., as Surviving Partners, &c., of Thomas Dusenbury & Sons, Respondents, *against*William W. Dusenbury, as Administrator, &c., of Thomas Dusenbury, Deceased, Appellant.

(Decided June 5th, 1882.)

An application by one of the parties to an action for the appointment of a receiver before final judgment in the action, founded only upon concurrent demands by both parties in their respective pleadings for such appointment, should not be granted.

Appeal from an order of this court appointing a receiver.

The action was brought by plaintiffs, as surviving partners of the defendant’s intestate, to recover possession of goods, chattels and money alleged to be in defendant’s *113hands as administrator of the deceased partner. The answer, besides other allegations, put in issue the partnership. It included in its demand for relief a prayer for the appointment of a receiver, in which the plaintiffs joined by their reply. The latter moved for the receiver. The defendant resisted the application. The motion was granted, and from the order appointing the receiver the defendant appealed.

*Ira D. Warren,*for appellant.

*Hall & Blandy,*for respondents.

Beach, J.

[After stating the facts as above.] —The learned counsel for the respondents admits that the order cannot be sustained save upon the concurrent demands in the answer and reply. The motion papers do not bring the case within the provisions of the Code authorizing the court to grant such an order (Code Civ. Pro. § 713,, subd. 1).

I am of opinion the learned court below gave an effect to-the defendant’s demand for relief much greater than is-warranted by its nature or force. A party should ask any relief to which he supposes himself entitled. But his so-doing does not preclude him from declining to take any part thereof, nor from demanding aught additional supported by the facts. Neither is the court limited, in awarding judgment. That is given in accord with the facts, and. not the requests of the suitor. A different principle would, make the action of the court subordinate to the wish of parties instead of the rules of law or practice. This portion of a pleading is given controlling effect but in one-instance. It is, when there is no answer, the judgment must be restricted to what is asked for in the complaint.. If an answer is interposed, the court grants any relief within the case shown by the complaint, and embraced in the issue.

*114The order should be reversed, with costs.

J. F. Daly and Van Hoesen, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with costs.