alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Matter of the Accounting of George B. Owen, as Executor, Etc., of David F. Beck, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

January, 1899.)

Will — Probate — When a subscribing witness does not forfeit his legacy by testifying.

Where two subscribing "witnesses to a will give the necessary proof of its execution, a third subscribing witness, who is also a beneficiary, does not, by testifying in the probate proceeding, forfeit Ms legacy, as Ms evidence is unnecessary.

Proceedings upon an accounting by an executor.

George C. Comstock, for executor.

Charles M. Camp, special guardian.

Robert M. Stewart, for Martin L. Kay and others.

*180Abbott, S.

In the proceeding to probate this will, I held that the testimony of the two subscribing witnesses Slandorff and Parrish was sufficient to warrant probate being granted in every respect, except as to the identity of the testator; and opportunity was afforded the proponents to- introduce further testimony upon that point alone.

Such testimony was afterwards satisfactorily supplied, and I then permitted Mr. Owen’s testimony to be stricken from the record, as he was a beneficiary under the will, and by testifying was presumed to have forfeited his legacy.

The Appellate Division (Matter of Beck, 6 App. Div. 211), affirmed my conclusion in all respects, except as to- the striking from the record of Mr. Owen’s testimony, and directed that it be reinstated.

The Appellate Division declined to pass upon the question of the forfeiture of Mr. Owen’s legacy in the probate proceeding, holding that such question must be passed upon in an accounting or in an action brought for that purpose.

The referee before whom this question has been litigated in an accounting proceeding holds, that the legacy to Mr. Owen is not void; that although he was a subscribing witness and his testimony was received in the probate proceeding, yet the will could have been proved without his testimony and it was unnecessary.

I concur with the decision of the learned referee, and his report is in all respects confirmed. See Caw v. Robertson, 5 N. Y. 125, and Cornwell v. Wooley, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 441.

Two subscribing witnesses having given all the testimony necessary to probate the will, except as to the identity of the testator, and that having been supplied from sources outside of Mr. Owen, his testimony is plainly superfluous and unnecessary.

Decreed accordingly.
#### § 423.452 Scope.

This section sets forth the application of Part D rules to Part C plans; establishes waivers for MA-PD plans, employer-sponsored group prescription drug plans, cost plans, and PACE organizations; and establishes requirements for coordination of benefits with State Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs and other providers of prescription drug coverage.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2239 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2239

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for 
  vocational rehabilitation benefits administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Early Access to Vocational 
Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION BENEFITS 
              ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 3102 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) the person--
                    ``(A) at the time of the Secretary's determination 
                under subparagraph (B), is a member of the Armed Forces 
                who is hospitalized or receiving outpatient medical 
                care, services, or treatment;
                    ``(B) is determined by the Secretary to have a 
                total disability permanent in nature incurred or 
                aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, 
                naval, or air service; and
                    ``(C) is likely to be discharged or released from 
                such service for such disability.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2239

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for 
  vocational rehabilitation benefits administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.
```
• ,: r; ~; !-~- '1 t~ 

SERVED: April 27, 2015 '·: :- ·~~.--~-~. ~·:J.• : .. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ARASH DURRANt 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2015- 0209 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

.. I . , 

,_,...,. -- -. r. 

~:~~~J fHi'~ ,, 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint dated 

February 25, 2015. Arash Durrani, (hereinafter "Durrani") filed a Request for Hearing 

dated February 10, 2015. We served our Procedural Order on March 19, 2015. 

On April 7, 2015, the FAA filed a Moti01i for Judgment on the Pleadings. 

Durrani has failed to file an Answer to the Complaint, failed to file a response. to 

our Procedural Order and failed to respond to the Agency's Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. On or before May 8, 2015, Ourrani shall file a response to this Order 

stating why the relief requested in the Agency's Motion should not be granted; and. 

2. On or before May 8, 20 I 5, Ourrani shall answer the Complaint: and 

3. On or before May 8, 2015, Durrani shall fully comply with our Procedural 

Order; and 

4. Absent full and c()mplete responses to paragraphs I, 2 and 3 hereinabove. 

Ourrani may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint 

may be deemed admitted; and/or Durrani t may be precluded from introducing any 

evidence at the hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Durrani's Request for 

Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Durrani in 

the full amount of the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 

Arash Durrani, Respondent 

141 Arena Street 

El Segundo, CA 90245-3902 

Stefan Sacks, Respondent 's Counsel 

Sacks & Sacks 

1901 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 200 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Lierre Green, Complainant 's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7.3 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 3 I 0-725-71 I 7 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Adm-inistrative Law .Jud~e 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366~7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0209 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2WIOOO, Washington. 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

PARKWAY PROPERTIES, INC.

Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors

Revised as of August 9, 2007

Thecompensation program for the non-employee directors, approved by theCompensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, consists of thefollowing:  

AnnualStock Retainer.  Each non-employeedirector will receive an annual retainer of 600 shares of Common Stock on thedate of the annual meeting of stockholders.  Such shares will be granted underthe terms of the Company's 2001 Non-Employee Directors Equity CompensationPlan, as amended (the "2001 Directors Plan").  

AuditCommittee Chairperson Annual Cash Retainer.  The chairperson of the Audit Committee will receive an additionalannual cash retainer in the amount of $15,000 payable on a quarterly basis. 

Boardand Committee Meeting Fees.  Each non-employeedirector will be paid $1,500 for each Board meeting attended.  Members of theAudit Committee will receive $1,500 for each meeting attended and thechairperson of the Audit Committee will receive $2,000 for each meetingattended.  Members of all other committees will receive $750 for each meetingof a committee established by the Board of Directors attended.  In each case,the non-employee director will be reimbursed for his or her expenses inconnection with attendance at each meeting.

StockAward upon Initial Election or Appointment.  A new director will receive, upon initial election or appointment asa non-employee director, a stock award of 600 shares of Common Stock and, ifthe election or appointment is on a date other than an annual meeting date, apro-rata portion of the 600 share annual retainer award.  Such shares will begranted under the terms of the Company's 2001 Directors Plan.
§ 380.1 Scope and compliance. ( a ) *Scope.* Subparts A and B of this part codify rates and terms of royalty payments for the public performance of sound recordings in certain digital transmissions by certain Licensees in accordance with the applicable provisions of 17 U.S.C. 114 and for the making of Ephemeral Recordings by those Licensees in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 112(e), during the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2025.
( b ) *Limited application of terms and definitions.* The terms and definitions in subpart A of this part apply only to subpart B of this part, except as expressly adopted and applied in subpart C or subpart D of this part.
( c ) *Legal compliance.* Licensees relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 must comply with the requirements of this part and any other applicable regulations.
( d ) *Voluntary agreements.* Notwithstanding the royalty rates and terms established in any subparts of this part, the rates and terms of any license agreements entered into by Copyright Owners and Licensees may apply in lieu of these rates and terms.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60683

Summary Calendar

Yuehua Li, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206 038 131

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Yuehua Li, a native and citizen of China, was ordered removed from 

the United States after overstaying her nonimmigrant visa. She petitions for 

review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60683 Document: 00516347964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2022
No. 21-60683

2

untimely motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the ground that her 

former counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Generally, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry 

of the challenged removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Li’s removal 

order was issued on May 28, 2020, so the filing period ended on August 26, 

2020, well before the filing of her motion to reopen in October 2020. 

However, equitable tolling of the filing period is available if the movantshows 

“(1) that [she] has been pursuing [her] rights diligently, and (2) that some 

extraordinary circumstance stood in [her] way and prevented timely filing.” 

Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

The BIA determined that Li had not shown the requisite due diligence 

to warrant equitably tolling the filing period for her motion to reopen. Li 

asserts that the filing period should have been equitably tolled until she 

learned of her former counsel’s ineffective assistance; however, she has 

failed to provide a date of discovery, stating only that it occurred at the 

earliest in late July 2020 and at the latest in early September 2020. Li adds 

that her new counsel was not provided with her complete immigration file 

until late July 2020, although she has not explained any steps she took to 

obtain the file or why it was not available earlier.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Li failed to show the necessary 

due diligence for equitable tolling. See Londono-Gonzalez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 

965, 967 (5th Cir. 2020); Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1238 (2021) (denying equitable tolling where 

there was a lack of evidence regarding the steps the movant had taken to 

preserve his rights). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Li’s motion to reopen as untimely. See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). Li’s petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60683 Document: 00516347964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2232 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2232

 To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on 
 the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the 
                               contrary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2007

   Mr. Waxman (for himself, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Davis of 
   Illinois, Mr. Shays, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Norton, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. 
Berman, Mr. Engel, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Schakowsky, and 
   Mr. Wu) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on 
 the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the 
                               contrary.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clarification of Federal Employment 
Protections Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION PROHIBITED.

    (a) Repudiation.--In order to dispel any public confusion, Congress 
hereby repudiates any assertion that Federal employees are not 
protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
    (b) Affirmation.--It is the sense of Congress that, in the absence 
of the amendment made by subsection (c), discrimination against Federal 
employees and applicants for Federal employment on the basis of sexual 
orientation is prohibited by section 2302(b)(10) of title 5, United 
States Code.
    (c) Amendment.--Section 2302(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
            (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) on the basis of sexual orientation.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending October 1, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 21, 2006

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### Jacob Baiz, Plaintiff, *v.*Raphael M. Malo et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, *New*York Special Term,

June, 1899.)

Witness — Exemption, of vice-consul of the Republic of Colombia.

Under the treaties existing between the United States of America and the Republic of Colombia, a vice-consul of the latter country cannot be compelled by subpoena to become a witness in proceedings supplementary to execution.

*686Application to set aside a subpoena requiring Jose Gerardo Polo, vice-consul of Colombia, to attend as a witness. The facts are set forth in the opinion.

T. L. C. Keating, for motion.

Cardozo & ¡Nathan, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

It is-here sought to compel the attendance as a witness in supplementary proceedings, of J. G. Polo, who is the vice-consul at ¡NTew York of the Republic of Colombiai. Article 30 of the Bidlack-Mallarino treaty of 1846, between .this country and Colombia, which, appears still to be in force, gives to the consuls and vice-consuls of Colombia» in the United States “ all the rights, prerogatives and immunities of the consuls and vice-consuls of the most favored nation.” The Everett-Sartiges treaty of 1853, between the United States and France, in article 2, which does not appear to have been abrogated, provides that, consuls and vice-consuls “ shall never be compelled to appear as witnesses before the courts. When any declaration for judicial purposes, or deposition, is to be received from them in the administration of justice, they shall be invited, in writing, to appear in court, and if unable to do so, their testimony shall be requested in writing,, or be taken orally at their dwellings.” Article 5, subdivision 4 of the OlaytonRivas treaty of 1850, between Colombia and the United States, is as follows, viz.: “ Whenever the presence of consuls may be required in courts or offices of justice, they shall be summoned in writing'.” There, however, does not appear to be anything in this treaty of 1850, annulling the provision in the treaty of 1846 giving the “most favored nation” privileges and immunities to the consuls and vice-consuls of Colombia in this country. In 1853, France became the “ most favored nation ” in the respect under consideration, and, under the treaty of 1846, the vice-consul of Colombia appears to be entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to his French colleague in article 30 of the treaty of 1853, above quoted. It seems to me, therefore, that the presence, as a witness, of Mr. Polo cannot be compelled. In arriving at this conclusion, I am controlled by the case of United States v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. Repr. 96, as I am unable to find any authority antagonistic to the doctrine there laid down.

Ordered accordingly.
- Division Home
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of Economic and Business Affairs...Key Topics

# Key Topics

## Investment Relationships, Development Finance, and Monetary Affairs

*Protecting U.S. national security while promoting balanced investment relationships, fostering sustainable development, and supporting international financial stability to create prosperity and growth in the U.S. and abroad.*

The International Finance and Development (IFD) Division leads the Bureau’s engagement in development finance, investment, and monetary affairs, in cooperation with other U.S. government agencies. We promote prosperity at home and abroad by encouraging sound macroeconomic and fiscal policy, sustainable development in accordance with international standards, private sector growth, good governance, and transparency.

We support foreign investment in the United States and work to develop new markets and stable, transparent investment climates overseas. IFD engages in regional and multilateral fora to promote economic policies that support U.S. economic and foreign policy interests.

## 							Key Topics						

		Development Finance		Read more 

		Macroeconomic Affairs		Read more 

		Investment Affairs		Read more 

		Investment Disputes		Read more 

		Fiscal Transparency Report		Read more 

		Investment Climate Statements		Read more 

		Transparency, Governance, and Anti-Corruption		Read more 

		Fiscal Transparency Innovation Fund		Read more 

		Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials		Read more 

Back to Top
exv10w2



 



Exhibit 10.2


Michele J. Langstaff has entered into a Transition Assistance Agreement that is
substantially identical in all material respects to the agreement with Clyde L.
Thomas that was filed as Exhibit 10.34 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.