alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2089 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2089 EH

1 SECTION 1. LOUISIANA ARMED SERVICES VETERANS POST 

2 OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orle5 ans, Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Louisiana Armed 

11 Services Veterans Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2089 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostServices Veterans Post Office’’. Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Louisiana Armed al Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New
§ 1.705 Restrictions on use of missing children information. Missing children pictures and biographical data shall not be: ( a ) Printed on official envelopes and other materials ordered and stocked in quantities that represent more than a 90-day supply.
( b ) Printed on blank pages or covers of publications that may be included in the Superintendent of Documents Sales Program or be distributed to depository libraries.
( c ) Inserted in any envelope or publication the contents of which may be construed to be inappropriate for association with the missing children program.
( d ) Inserted in any envelope where the insertion would increase the postage cost for the item being mailed.
( e ) Placed on letter-size envelopes on the official indicia, the area designated for optical character readers (OCRs), bar code read area, and return address area in accordance with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention guidelines and U.S. Postal Service standards.
(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3220(a)(2), 5 U.S.C. 301)
[52 FR 10889, Apr. 6, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 48388, Sept. 19, 1995]
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32760

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Colton R

. FAULKNER Senior Airman ( E

- 4 )
, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 28 August 20 2 4

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge : T yler B. Musselman

. S entence : Sentence adjudged 20 July 202 3 by Sp C M convened at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware

. Sentence entered by military judge on 2 4 August 202 3 : Bad

- conduct discharge
, confinement for 7 months
, and reduction to E

- 1

. For Appellant : Lieutenant Colonel Jarett Merk
, USAF ; Captain Michael J. Bruzik , USAF

. For Appellee : Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete r Ferrell, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before RICHARDSON
, MASON , and KEARLEY Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

_______ _______ __________ PER CURIAM : The findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred . Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d)United States v. Faulkner , No. ACM S32760

2 ( Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2024 ed.)) . Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
§ 18.545 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act or these regulations; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of VA's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
----

(2004/C 88 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2199/03

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject:   Imprisonment in Cuba, in inhuman and degrading conditions, of 75 opposition figures sentenced by show trial in April 2003, and the particular case of Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello

Knowing that:

The Commission:

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission is closely following the human rights situation in Cuba and the recent detention and sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalist in Cuba, including Martha Beatriz Roque, particularly through our Delegation in Havana.

The recent large-scale arrest of dissidents, the unfair trials and the arbitrary sentences imposed on them have had a prompt, firm and sustained reaction from the Union. The Commission has fully and actively supported the actions that have been taken in this context.

The Union has strongly condemned such arrests in two declarations published on 26 March 2003 and 5 June 2003, followed in each case by a formal démarche in Havana, calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners. In its declaration and démarche of 5 June 2003, the Union also appealed to the Cuban authorities that, in the meantime, the prisoners do not suffer unduly and are not exposed to inhumane treatment.

The Union has decided a series of political sanctions against Cuba, including limits to high-level visits and an early re-evaluation of the Union common position.

The Commission considered on 30 April 2003, that the examination of the Cuban request for membership of the Cotonou Agreement should be delayed, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to furthering cooperation between the Union and Cuba. The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw their application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement.

Through these actions, the Cuban authorities have been made aware that detentions on political grounds are not acceptable and that the Union urges the release of all prisoners held due to their opinions or political activities. In this context, we will certainly bring the case of Martha Beatriz Roque to the attention of the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the Cuban authorities.

----
41777, 41778.

#### UNDERCOFLER, Commissioner v. BROSNAN (two cases).

Bell, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of the same cases in this court. See *Brosnan v. Undercofler,*111 Ga. App. 95 (140 SE2d 517). The State Revenue Commissioner filed affidavits in garnishment to collect a deficiency assessment of income taxes upon which executions had issued. Taxpayers filed dissolution bonds and traverses to the garnishee’s answers, denying liability for the deficiencies assessed by the Commissioner. This court affirmed the judgments of of the trial court sustaining the Commissioner’s general demurrers to taxpayers’ pleadings. After the decision of this court was rendered in the former appearance of the cases, taxpayers filed motions to dismiss the garnishments, alleging that the Commissioner had failed to comply with provisions of *Code*§ 92-7501. *Held:*

As garnishment proceedings are purely statutory they cannot be extended to cases not enumerated in the statutes, and the courts have no power to enlarge the remedy or hold under it property not made subject to the process. *Few v. Pou,*32 Ga. App. 620, 625 (124 SE 372); *Arnold v. Citizens &c. Nat. Bank,*47 Ga. App. 254 (3) (170 SE 316); *Redwine v. Morgan,*88 Ga. App. 625, 628 (77 SE2d 330).

“Summons of garnishment can in this State issue in but three classes of cases: (1) where there is a suit pending *(Code*§§ 8-501, 46-101) ... (2) where a judgment has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction *(Code*§ 46-101) . . . and (3) where a tax collector has issued an execution, has it in his hands, and, being unable to find any property of the defendant, makes an entry of nulla bona thereon *(Code*§ 92-7501). . . To entitle the plaintiff to the benefit he claims, he must show that his case is one clearly contemplated by the statute. . .” *Davis v. Millen,*111 Ga. 451, 452 (36 *476SE 803); *Weston v. Beverly & McCollum,*10 Ga. App. 261, 26-2 (73 SE 404).

Argued February 9, 1966

Decided April 6, 1966.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John A. Blackmon,*As*sistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Fred E. Bartlett, Jr., Smith, Gardner, Kelley & Wiggins,*for appellee.

The garnishments in question are not provided for in the first and second classes of cases. In the third class of cases authority for issuance of process of garnishment is conditional upon the entry of nulla bona upon the tax execution. *Code*§ 92-7501. Since the affidavits in garnishment and the attached copies of the executions here failed to show this jurisdictional fact and since it was not shown by amendment duly offered (see *Stovall & Brother v. Joiner,*10 Ga. App. 204 (73 SE 22)), it appears that the trial court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of this litigation. As stated in *Davis v. Millen,*111 Ga. 451, 452, supra, “Process of garnishment issued in any other case or upon any other ground [than those enumerated] is without authority of law, and a judgment based upon it is binding upon no one.”

The trial court did not err in dismissing these garnishment proceedings.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
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
January 20, 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.
Exhibit 10.80


 


	
   

  	
  July 2, 2003

  



 


 


	
  Michael Saunders

  c/o Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.

  111 Bauer Drive

  Oakland, NJ 07436

  



 


Dear Michael:


 


As you know, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the
exploration of a possible sale of the Company, although no decision to effect a
sale has been made and there can be no assurance that it will occur or as to
the timing thereof.


 


The Board of Directors believes that your continued service as an
executive and effective participation in the exploration of a possible sale is
important to the Company.  Accordingly,
the Board of Directors has determined that if an unaffiliated purchaser
acquires substantially all of the Company’s outstanding stock or assets through
a negotiated transaction on or before December 31, 2003, and you remain
employed by the Company through the consummation of that transaction, you will
be awarded a special bonus of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).  (If for any reason you are not employed by
the Company when the sale is consummated, you will not be entitled to any
payment under this letter.)


 


The bonus contemplated above is in addition to any other compensation
to which you may be entitled from the Company. 
Nothing in this letter alters any of the terms of your employment with
the Company or creates any obligation on the part of the Company to retain you
as an employee.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Angelica Berrie

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Angelica Berrie

  Chief Executive Officer
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.515 Determination of the request for *ex parte* reexamination.

(a) Within three months following the filing date of a request for an *ex parte* reexamination, an examiner will consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior art cited therein, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. A statement and any accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) will not be considered by the examiner when making a determination on the request. The examiner's determination will be based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the official file of the patent, and will be given or mailed to the patent owner at the address provided for in § 1.33(c) and to the person requesting reexamination.

(b) Where no substantial new question of patentability has been found, a refund of a portion of the fee for requesting *ex parte* reexamination will be made to the requester in accordance with § 1.26(c).

(c) The requester may seek review by a petition to the Director under § 1.181 within one month of the mailing date of the examiner's determination refusing *ex parte* reexamination. Any such petition must comply with § 1.181(b). If no petition is timely filed or if the decision on petition affirms that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the determination shall be final and nonappealable.

[65 FR 76775, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 77 FR 46626, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 17.4105 Purpose and Scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* Sections 17.4100 through 17.4135 implement 38 U.S.C. 1703A, as required under section 1703A(j). Section 1703A authorizes VA to enter into and utilize Veterans Care Agreements to furnish hospital care, medical services, and extended care services to a covered individual when such individual is eligible for and requires such care or services that are not feasibly available to the covered individual through a VA facility, a contract, or a sharing agreement.
( b ) *Scope.* Sections 17.4100 through 17.4135 contain procedures, requirements, obligations, and limitations for: The process of certifying entities or providers under 38 U.S.C. 1703A; entering into, administering, furnishing care or services pursuant to, and discontinuing Veterans Care Agreements; and all disputes arising under or related to Veterans Care Agreements. Sections 17.4100 through 17.4135 apply to all entities and providers, where applicable, that are parties to a Veterans Care Agreement, participate in the certification process, or furnish hospital care, medical services, or extended care services pursuant to a Veterans Care Agreement.
#### Malcolm A. Broadbent, Respondent, *v.*Mary Marley, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment, rendered in the Municipal Court, eighth district, borough of Manhattan,' in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

*779Jeroloinan & Arrowsmith, for appellant.

Henry Dailey, Jr., for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The proof is insufficient to sustain the finding in favor of the performance by the plaintiff of the painting contract. The work, labor and services done for plaintiff, and for which he brings this action, were done under a written estimate made by plaintiff, containing full specifications which he was bound to comply with in doing the work.

The proof is clear that he did not perform all the work according to the contract, but left a substantial portion unperformed, and he fails to show, any reasonable excuse for nonperformance, and to portions of the work which was done the weight of evidence is to the effect that it was not done in a skillful and workmanlike manner. -

Performance in accordance with the terms of the contract is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s.right to recover. Bien v. Abbey, 36 N. Y. St. Repr. 791;. Crane v. Knubel, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. (2 J. & S.) 443. Judgment must be reversed.

Levbbtbitt, J., concurs.

MacLean, J. (concurring).

Under an oral complaint for *“*work, labor and services and materials furnished,” the plaintiff testified to services rendered and materials furnished under a written estimate to do certain work in and upon the premises of the defendant. The evidence, however, is insufficient to sustain the finding of the trial justice that the plaintiff performed his work in a workmanlike manner and according to the terms of his contract, performance according to which is essential to his right to recover. Bien v. Abbey, 36 N. Y. St. Repr. 791; Crane v. Knubel, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 443.

Judgment must,-therefore, be reversed.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. .
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
                     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              nov-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   aug-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,661,441
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  389,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    181,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,418,576
<PP&E>                                         33,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,603,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,841
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,955,489
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,603,245
<SALES>                                        353,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               386,010
<CGS>                                          102,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  485,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               3,618
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (99,481)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (103,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (103,099)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### Nancy L. Sherwood et al., Plaintiffs, v. Abraham Ellenstein et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1899.)

Foreclosure — Discontinuance cannot be prevented by a judgment creditor party whose lien lapsed pending the action.

An application to discontinue an action to foreclose a mortgage cannot be successfully resisted by a judgment creditor, made a defendant, whose lien upon the premises, alive when the action was begun, has now ceased by the lapse of ten years since the filing of his judgment-roll. .

Motion to discontinue the action, without costs, and to cancel, the notice of *lis pendens*filed herein. .

Gross & Sneudaira (Moses J. Sneudaira, of counsel), for motion.

Theodore H. Friend, opposed.

Giegerich, J.

Discontinuance, of an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage is resisted by a judgment-creditor defendant, whose lien upon the mortgaged premises, which was alive at the commencement of the action, has now ceased because of the lapse of ten years. Code Civ. Pro., § 1251; Matter of Harmon, 79 Hun, 226; Nutt v. Cuming, 155 N. Y. 309. I do not think that a right to resist the discontinuance is thus presented. .The creditor - might, perhaps,, have had a.lien on the surplus "by virtue of his standing at the commencement-of the action, but its pendency did not preclude him from enforcing his execution, and his failure to enf orce it was at the risk that the action might not be prosecuted. Certainly, he cannot compel the parties to continue the prosecution in order to enable him to discover if there may be a srirplus, and, at. most, for the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute, this defendant might finally take a dismissal of the complaint, with costs. This, however, would not aid his asserted lien, and, at the present time, it, is not apparent that the discretion of the court should be exercised in his favor, so far as to give him costs in any amount, for he has not been called upon to do anything. The opposition to the motion is not reasonable and the application is accordingly granted, with $10.. costs.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.