alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Adolph, Respondent, *v.*Nathan Klein, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1898.)

Appellate Term — Orders not reviewable — Remedy under Code C. F., § 3057,

The Appellate Term has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from two orders, one made by a municipal court of the city of New York vacating a judgment against a defendant in that court, who had neither been served with the summons nor appeared voluntarily, and another order of the same court vacating the first order and denying the original motion.

*Semble,*that the defendant might have-been relieved by an appeal from the judgment, taken under section 3057 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeal from two orders bearing date, respectively, March 22, 1898, and March 29,- 1898, .made by the justice sitting in the Mu*701nicipal Court of the City of New York, borough of Manhattan, fifth' district.

Rudolph Marks, for appellant.

Joseph J. Harris, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order of March 22, 1898, vacating a judgment which had been obtained against the defendant, was granted on the ground that there had been no service of a summons nor a voluntary appearance by the defendant in the action. The second order, dated March 29, 1898, was made on a motion for the resettlement of the first order, upon which, after hearing further argument, the justice determined that his former order was erroneous, vacated the same accordingly, and denied the original motion. Without expressing any opinion with respect to the propriety of either order, it is sufficient to say that neither is appealable to this court. Appeals from determinations of the Municipal Court to the Supreme Court are limited to judgments and to such orders as are in terms máde appealable under some specific statutory provision. We have been unable to discover any such provision which will support this appeal. Chapter 748 of the Laws of 1896 sanctions appeals in the cases there referred to only where an order opens a default or grants a new trial for the grounds stated in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither of the orders in question comes within either description. Possibly the defendant might have obtained relief by an appeal from the judgment under section 3057 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although it has been intimated that this section does not apply to the District Courts, now the Municipal Court of the City of New York. Jourdan v. Healey, 46 N. Y. St. Repr. 198. The court there, however, seems to have overlooked the provisions of section 3213 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sanctions an appeal from a judgment rendered in a District Court of the city of New York *“*in the cases and in the manner prescribed in articles first and second of title eight of chapter nineteen ” of such Code, which include section 3057 above referred to. As we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, it must be dismissed.

Present: Beekmau, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42



                        LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PROGRAM (LTI)



1.       Program is stock-option based.

2.       Grants will be made at the discretion of the CEO and the Board
         Compensation Committee.

3.       Employment vesting occurs in years five and six at 50% each year. Early
         vesting will occur based on achieving "hurdles." The following are the
         plan "hurdles:"

                  1st      hurdle-$10.00 over stock price at grant
                  2nd      hurdle-$20.00 over stock price at grant
                  3rd      hurdle-$30.00 over stock price at grant

4.       Once each $10.00 hurdle is met, the participant would immediately vest
         1/6 in the option and 120 days later would vest in the remaining 1/6.

5.       Stock must hold hurdle price for 20 days before acceleration.

6.       Participation levels:

                  CEO               300,000 shares
                  COO               150,000 shares
                  CFO               100,000 shares
                  SVP                75,000 shares
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.379 When CMS accepts a request. ( a ) Upon receiving a request for an advisory opinion, CMS promptly makes an initial determination of whether the request contains a level of detail sufficient for CMS to process the request.
( b ) If CMS determines that the request submitted lacks details necessary for CMS to process the request, CMS will provide notification to the requestor within 15 working days of receiving the request.
( c ) If the requestor provides the additional information CMS has requested, or otherwise resubmits the request, CMS processes the resubmission in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section as if it were an initial request for an advisory opinion.
( d ) CMS formally accepts a request when CMS determines that the request (inclusive of any supplemental submissions) describes the arrangement at issue with sufficient detail and that the grounds for rejection of a request listed at § 411.370(e) do not apply. Upon accepting the request, CMS notifies the requestor by regular U.S. mail of the date that CMS formally accepts the request.
( e ) The applicable time period that CMS has to issue an advisory opinion set forth in § 411.380(c) does not begin until CMS formally accepts the request for an advisory opinion.
[69 FR 57229, Sept. 24, 2004, as amended at 84 FR 63192, Nov. 15, 2019]
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-09-628 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 34
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-09-628 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-09-628 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-09-628 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 34
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-09-628 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 34
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 34
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 34
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 34
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 34
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 34
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 34
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 34
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 34
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-09-628 

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 34
Support - P-09-0628 Engineering.3.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0628

Post-Focus Draft Revision 3 12/6/2010

ENGINEER: Jon \ AH

PV (kg/yr): 

Revision Notes / Assessment Overview: 

 

 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

 

 

OTHER USES: None found.

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: 

TLV/PEL:

none established

CRSS :

Chemical Name:

S-H20: Reacts g/L @

VP: 

MW: Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Neat: Mfg: Proc/Form:

 End Use: 

Page 1

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 34
Support - P-09-0628 Engineering.3.txt

 

 

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (09/25/2009):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Moderate to Rapid

PBT rating: P2B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt P2B1T1

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claims: 

 

Page 2

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 34
Support - P-09-0628 Engineering.3.txt

 

 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0628

Use:

Number of Sites/ Location: 

unknown sites

Days/yr: 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

High End: 

to:

from:

basis:

Page 3

EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 34
Support - P-09-0628 Engineering.3.txt

RELEASE TOTAL

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:

Inhalation:

Dermal:

Exposure to 

High End: 

Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 

Basis:

Page 4

EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 34
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-09-628 

EPA SANITIZED Page 23 of 34
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 24 of 34
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 25 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 26 of 34
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 27 of 34
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 28 of 34
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 29 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 30 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 31 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 32 of 34
EPA SANITIZED Page 33 of 34
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 34 of 34
40973.

#### HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA v. KOLOKURIS (KELLIS) et al.

Frankum, Judge.

The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta has abandoned all of the grounds of its motion for a new trial except special ground 3, and the sole question for decision under this ground is stated in the brief of counsel for the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta as follows: “When inadmissible evidence is interjected into a trial, may the *870party who did not object to such evidence explain or rebut the effect of that evidence by using similarly inadmissible evidence?” The answer is, “No.” “The admission of illegal testimony on one side will not justify illegal rebutting testimony on the other. 'Two wrongs do not make a right.’ ” *Woolfolk v. State,*81 Ga. 551, 558 (8 SE 724); *Candler v. Byfield,*160 Ga. 732, 739 (129 SE 57). See *Bennett v. State,*86 Ga. 401, 405 (12 SE 806, 12 LRA 449, 22 ASR 465). “There can be no equation of errors in the trial of a case.” *Stapleton v. Monroe,*111 Ga. 848 (36 SE 428); *Savannah News-Press, Inc. v. Hartridge,*110 Ga. App. 203, 215 (138 SE2d 173).

Decided January 5, 1965.

*King & Spalding, William H. Izlar, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Peek, Whaley & Blackburn, J. Corbett Peek, Jr., Glenville Haldi,*contra.

In *Caldwell v. State,*82 Ga. App. 480 (1) (61 SE2d 543), relied upon by plaintiff in error, evidence otherwise admissible was objected to by the defendant on the grounds that the proper foundation had not been laid for its admission. It appeared that the defendant prior thereto had, on cross examination of a State’s witness, introduced such evidence into the case. This court held that, under the circumstances, it was not reversible error to permit the State to explain or rebut the evidence introduced by the defendant. In the *Caldwell*case, the ultimate inadmissibility of harmful evidence was not involved but only the preliminary requirements for the introduction of admissible evidence, which requirement the defendant had waived by introducing such evidence himself. The *Caldwell*case is thus distinguishable from the case now before the court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Financial Facilitation Networks that Benefit Iran’s Military

# 									Designating Financial Facilitation Networks that Benefit Iran’s Military							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

November 29, 2023

The United States is imposing sanctions today on over twenty individuals and entities involved in a financial facilitation network that benefits Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force.

Iran’s commodity sales, carried out through a network of foreign-based front companies, provide revenue that helps the regime to continue its support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizballah.  Iranian military entities and their business partners enable these sales and exploit the international financial system to recoup the revenue.

The Iranian regime uses this illicit revenue to support conflict and spread terror throughout the Middle East.  The United States will continue to disrupt Iran’s funding support for terrorists.

*The Department of the Treasury is taking this action pursuant to**Executive Order 13224,**as amended, which targets terrorists, terrorist organizations, leaders and officials of terrorist groups, and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism.  For more information on these designations, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsDefenseIranOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsTerrorism

Back to Top
IB

House Calendar No. 237

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3186

[Report No. 104–609]

To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in Overland,

Missouri, as the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 1996

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

JUNE 6, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson

Road in Overland, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis

Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road

5 in Overland, Missouri, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.
2

•HR 3186 RH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

House Calendar No. 237

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3186

[Report No. 104–609]

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 1655

‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.Woodson Road in Overland, Missouri, as the

JUNE 6, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         294,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,323,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         363,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,370,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,479,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,699,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,370,653
<SALES>                                     19,810,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,810,873
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,717,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             342,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,750,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,615,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,135,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,135,986
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.8


 


MINEOLA
COMMUNITY BANK


 


SPLIT
DOLLAR LIFE INSURANCE PLAN


 


PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT


 


I,                
an eligible Employee as determined in Section 2.1 of Mineola Community Bank Split Dollar Life Insurance Plan (the “Plan”)
dated December 18, 2013 hereby elect to become a Participant of the Plan in accordance with Section 2.2 of the Plan.


 


I acknowledge that I have read the
Plan document and agree to be bound by its terms.


 


The death benefit to which my Beneficiary
is entitled is the lesser of $100,000 or (ii) the Net Death Proceeds.


 


Executed
this            day of  _______.





	 	 	 
	 	Participant




 


	Received by the Administrator this	 	day of	 	.




 


	By:	 	 
	 	 
	Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                            428,754
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     929,807
<ALLOWANCES>                       19,020
<INVENTORY>                     1,436,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,968,142
<PP&E>                          2,130,256
<DEPRECIATION>                    997,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,473,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             635,031
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           12,536
<OTHER-SE>                      2,611,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,473,412
<SALES>                         1,682,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,682,304
<CGS>                             800,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     800,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  599,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 26,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   272,458
<INCOME-TAX>                      105,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               166,958
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      166,958
<EPS-BASIC>                           .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .10



</TABLE>
HomeUnited Arab Emirates

# United Arab Emirates

254 items

        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, and United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 19, 2023Palace HotelNew York, New York 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council Member States	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 18, 2023Palace HotelNew York City, New York 
        -    Press Statement  		Welcoming Talks in Saudi Arabia Advancing Yemen’s Peace Process	  Matthew MillerSeptember 15, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Third Anniversary of the Signing of the Abraham Accords	  Matthew MillerSeptember 14, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 5, 2023	  Vedant PatelSeptember 5, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – August 9, 2023	  Matthew MillerAugust 9, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 31, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 31, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 25, 2023	  Vedant PatelJuly 25, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 18, 2023 

previous page1…45678…26next page

Back to Top
#### Matter of the Estate of Peter Scherrer, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

July, 1898.)

Testamentary trustees — May be compelled to apply accrued income to the support of an infant beneficiary — His guardian cannot be reimbursed for past maintenance;

Upon the application of the general guardian of an infant, his testamentary trustees may, under sections 2804 and 2805 of the Code of Civil procedure, be required to apply to the support, maintenance and education of the infant a certain sum per week from trust income on hand, which they neglect so to apply, although directed to do so by the terms of their trust.

In a proceeding, taken under sections 2804 and 2805, an application of the general guardian, to be reimbursed by the trustees for the past maintenance of the infant, cannot be granted by the Surrogate’s Court.

*352Proceedings by á general guardian of an infant to be reimbursed by the trustees for past maintenance of said infant.

James Nixon, for petitioner.

C. J. G. Hall, for executors.

Arnold, S.

The respondents, who are testamentary trustees, are directed by the will of the decedent to' apply the income of the trust estate created for the benefit of the minor, Philip Scherrer, or so much of the principal as they may consider proper, to the support, maintenance and education of such infant during his minority.- They have now in their hands a. considerable sum derived from such income, but, although requested, have not made any application thereof to the infant’s benefit. Ho order can be made transferring such income to the general guardian of the infant for application by her, as that duty devolves upon the trustees; but, under the provisions of sections 2804-2805 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I think a direction can and should be made, under the circumstances of this case, for the application from the income by .the trustees to the support,.maintenance and education of the minor, to the extent of $10 per week, dating from- May 28, 1898, until the further order of the court. The application of the guardian to be reimbursed by the trustees for past maintenance of the infant cannot be granted in this proceeding. There are cases, like Matter of Kerwin, 59 Hun, 589, and Matter of Haslehurst, 4 Misc. Rep. 366, in which it was held that general guardians could be compelled by the surrogate to make compensation to parties for past maintenance of the ward, but the decisions therein were based upon the provisions of section 2746 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has no application to the present proceeding, which is brought against testamentary trustees. I know of no authority which authorizes me to direct the respondents to make such payment. An order in accordance herewith may be submitted on- notice of settlement, - •

Decreed accordingly.