alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Blumenthal v. Al Appel Motors, Inc.

*Juiliante, Juiliante & Schaaf,*for plaintiff.

*Isaac J. Silin, Vernon H. Elderkin, Jr., Warren W. Bentz*and *J. Leonard Ostrow,*for defendants.

May 9, 1958.

Evans, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on preliminary objections to a bill of complaint. Paragraph 3 of the original complaint was amended to read as follows: “On April 7, 1956, at 609 French St. in the City of Erie within this county, plaintiff and Aladar Appel on behalf of himself and as a duly authorized officer of Al Appl Motors, Inc., did enter into an oral contract by the terms of which plaintiff was to assume the position of General Sales Manager of A1 Appel Motors, Inc.”

Thereafter it is averred that plaintiff performed *734certain services for the corporation, and was entitled to compensation in amounts set forth and part of which he did not receive.

We are unable to determine from the pleading whether or not plaintiff is suing on the theory that defendants are separately liable or jointly liable, assuming the facts as averred to be true. There seems to be the thought that because Aldar Appel, individually, owned most or all of the stock in the corporation, the existence of the corporation may be ignored, and that the obligation be, therefore, treated as a personal one. If such is the theory, there is no basis averred to sustain such a claim. He had the right to incorporate his business for the purpose of escaping individual liability for debts of that corporation, and because he owns all or most of the stock therein does not make him liable for the corporate debts.

It may be that there are facts existing which will create liability on the part of Appel, and if such facts exist, he may be joined as a party defendant under Civil Procedural Rule 1020. In this case there may be a common factual background for joint complaint.

However, there is no allegation that as an individual Appel was to receive any services for himself nor does it appear that any were furnished him. If the liability is claimed to be joint as in a partnership, an allegation to that effect should be made. If there are special circumstances creating liability on the part of Appel individually as distinct from the obligation of the corporation, a separate cause of action with supporting allegations of fact should be averred against him individually.

Now, to wit, May 9,1958, the preliminary objections to amend complant, filed February 7, 1958, are sustained, and the plaintiff is allowed 20 days within which to amend in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
#### § 1903.20 Informal conferences.

At the request of an affected employer, employee, or representative of employees, the Assistant Regional Director may hold an informal conference for the purpose of discussing any issues raised by an inspection, citation, notice of proposed penalty, or notice of intention to contest. The settlement of any issue at such conference shall be subject to the rules of procedure prescribed by the Review Commission. If the conference is requested by the employer, an affected employee or his representative shall be afforded an opportunity to participate, at the discretion of the Assistant Regional Director. If the conference is requested by an employee or representative of employees, the employer shall be afforded an opportunity to participate, at the discretion of the Assistant Regional Director. Any party may be represented by counsel at such conference. No such conference or request for such conference shall operate as a stay of any 15-working-day period for filing a notice of intention to contest as prescribed in § 1903.17.

[36 FR 17850, Sept. 4, 1971. Redesignated at 62 FR 15337, Mar. 31, 1997]
#### WILNER v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9643.

Decided Feb 18, 1929

A. L. Edgerton, Cleveland, for Wilner.

Leo Weil, Cleveland, for State.

*182VICKERY, PJ.

It was very questionable whether the plaintiff in error had a right to this commission, or perhaps it could be said outright that he had none, but however that might be, the parties had some controversy .about it, and finally the wholesaler agreed to the allowance of the fifty dollars commission, on condition that the account that was then due, which included these articles for which the plaintiff in error was convicted of converting, be paid in cash by the plaintff in error. The plaintiff in error said he could not do that, but he would give a note as usual, at least he could not pay it ,all in cash. This was not satisfactory to the wholesaler, and so nothing was done, but this arrest for converting these few articles followed hard on the failure to settle the dispute over the fifty dollars.

In g.oing over this whole matter, we cannot see upon what basis the court found the plaintiff in error guilty of converting this property . He had it on memorandum for sale and was expected to sell it and he did sell it and had transferred title to it, and the relation of debtor and creditor had been established between them, and the running account based upon a settlement each six months had been established between them. Consequently there was no evidence to show any conversion of the property at all and the judgment of the court was wrong as not being supported by any evidence.

The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the plaintiff in error discharged.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Davel Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of
1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: August 14, 2003               /s/ John D. Chichester
      ---------------               -------------------------------------------
                                    John D. Chichester, Chief Executive Officer




                                       31
#### § 431.5 Policy and safety approvals.

To obtain either type of RLV mission license, an applicant must obtain policy and safety approvals from the FAA. Requirements for obtaining these approvals are contained in subparts B and C of this part. Only the license applicant may apply for the approvals, and may apply for either approval separately and in advance of submitting a complete license application, using the application procedures contained in part 413 of this subchapter.
#### §§ 1910.901-1910.999 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1910 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.
Editorial Note on Part 1904
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

§ 1904.1 Partial exemption for employers with 10 or fewer employees. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* ( 1 ) If your company had 10 or fewer employees at all times during the last calendar year, you do not need to keep OSHA injury and illness records unless OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics informs you in writing that you must keep records under § 1904.41 or § 1904.42. However, as required by § 1904.39, all employers covered by the OSH Act must report to OSHA any work-related incident that results in a fatality, the in-patient hospitalization of one or more employees, an employee amputation, or an employee loss of an eye.
( 2 ) If your company had more than ten (10) employees at any time during the last calendar year, you must keep OSHA injury and illness records unless your establishment is classified as a partially exempt industry under § 1904.2.
( b ) *Implementation* — ( 1 ) *Is the partial exemption for size based on the size of my entire company or on the size of an individual business establishment?* The partial exemption for size is based on the number of employees in the entire company.
( 2 ) *How do I determine the size of my company to find out if I qualify for the partial exemption for size?* To determine if you are exempt because of size, you need to determine your company's peak employment during the last calendar year. If you had no more than 10 employees at any time in the last calendar year, your company qualifies for the partial exemption for size.
[66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001, as amended at 85 FR 8731, Feb. 18, 2020]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4552 

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster 

relief for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 That the following sums in this Act are appropriated, out 

4 of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

5 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for 

6 other purposes, namely: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4552 IS

1 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

2 PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

3 RECOVERY 

4 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

5 DISASTER RELIEF FUND

6 (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

7 For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Relief Fund’’ 

8 $10,000,000,000, to remain available until expended: Pro9 vided, That the amount provided herein is designated by 

10 the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pur11 suant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget 

12 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 

13 901(b)(2)(A)(i)). 

14 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hurricane Laura Re15 covery Funding Act, 2020’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1307 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1307

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1307/98 of 24 June 1998 derogating, for the 1997/98 marketing year, from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied, as regards the time limit for delivery **

*
Official Journal L 182 , 25/06/1998 P. 0008 - 0008 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1307/98 of 24 June 1998 derogating, for the 1997/98 marketing year, from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied, as regards the time limit for delivery

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98 (2), and in particular the third indent of Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/98 (3) provides that the delivery of paddy rice to the intervention agency is to take place not later than the end of the second month following receipt of the offer and in any case not later than 31 August of the current marketing year;

Whereas very large quantities of paddy rice have been offered for intervention since the beginning of April 1998; whereas there are difficulties with taking over and storage in some Member States; whereas the time limit for delivery referred to above has proved to be too short under these circumstances; whereas, as a result, it is necessary to derogate from the aforementioned provision and prolong the time limit for delivery for the marketing year in progress to the last day of that marketing year;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 708/98, for the 1997/98 marketing year, delivery of paddy rice shall take place not later than 31 August of the current marketing year. In the case of staggered deliveries, the last part of the lot shall be delivered in accordance with this subparagraph.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.

(3) OJ L 98, 31. 3. 1998, p. 21.
§ 1601.30 Notices to be posted. ( a ) Every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program that has an obligation under title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises notices in an accessible format, to be prepared or approved by the Commission, describing the applicable provisions of title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA. Such notice must be posted in prominent and accessible places where notices to employees, applicants and members are customarily maintained.
( b ) Section 711(b) of Title VII and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, make failure to comply with this section punishable by a fine of not more than $680 for each separate offense.
[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977, as amended at 55 FR 2518, Jan. 25, 1990; 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 62 FR 26934, May 16, 1997; 74 FR 63982, 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 79 FR 15221, Mar. 19, 2014; 81 FR 35270, June 2, 2016; 82 FR 8813, Jan. 31, 2017; 83 FR 2537, Jan. 18, 2018; 84 FR 10411, Mar. 21, 2019; 85 FR 15376, Mar. 18, 2020; 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020; 86 FR 28264, May 26, 2021; 87 FR 10073, Feb. 23, 2022; 88 FR 17373, Mar. 23, 2023; 89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024; 89 FR 12232, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### In the Matter of Adam Goettel, Respondent, against Peter G. Ten Eyck, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Appellant.

Argued January 6, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937.

*511
      *Milo R. Kniffen*for appellant.

*Daniel F. Mathews*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and Finch, JJ.
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

     

     

    
      

    

     

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

     

     

    
       

      

       

       

      
        
          
          

        

        
          2

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

       

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:   	/s/
      Kevin McGrath	 
	 	Name:   	Kevin
      McGrath	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Ingalls
      & Snyder LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/
      Thomas O. Boucher	 
	 	Name:  	Thomas
      O. Boucher	 
	 	Its:  	Manager	 


                    

                  

                

              

            

          



      

      3
Editorial Note on Part 1904
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

§ 1904.33 Retention and updating. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* You must save the OSHA 300 Log, the privacy case list (if one exists), the annual summary, and the OSHA 301 Incident Report forms for five (5) years following the end of the calendar year that these records cover.
( b ) *Implementation* — ( 1 ) *Do I have to update the OSHA 300 Log during the five-year storage period?* Yes, during the storage period, you must update your stored OSHA 300 Logs to include newly discovered recordable injuries or illnesses and to show any changes that have occurred in the classification of previously recorded injuries and illnesses. If the description or outcome of a case changes, you must remove or line out the original entry and enter the new information.
( 2 ) *Do I have to update the annual summary?* No, you are not required to update the annual summary, but you may do so if you wish.
( 3 ) *Do I have to update the OSHA 301 Incident Reports?* No, you are not required to update the OSHA 301 Incident Reports, but you may do so if you wish.
[66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001, as amended at 81 FR 91810, Dec. 19, 2016; 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lydell Harris, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 115]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered November 18, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant killed the victim with a machete after the victim made a crude remark about the defendant’s girlfriend. With his girlfriend’s help, the defendant decapitated and dismembered the body and put the parts in garbage bags, which he discarded in the ocean near Coney Island. When the defendant confessed to his mother, his godmother, the police, and the District Attorney, he claimed that the stabbing was either accidental or in self-defense.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. For a defendant to be entitled to such an instruction, the trial court must determine that there is sufficient credible evidence for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of the affirmative defense have been established (see, *People v White,*79 NY2d 900, 902-903). In considering whether a jury instruction should be given, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused (see, *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299, 301).

Here, no reasonable view of the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance, or that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for such extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]; *People v Picozzi,*106 AD2d 413, 414). At most, the evidence showed that the defendant acted out of anger, which is not equivalent to the loss of self-control generally associated with the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, *People v Walker,*64 NY2d 741; *People v McDonald,*199 AD2d 420; *People v Tulloch,*179 AD2d 794).

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding a court officer’s comment to a juror is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Woody M. McGee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 of Davel Communications, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2004

                                                /s/ WOODY M. MCGEE
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Woody M. McGee
                                                Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7434
STEVEN W. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; HAZEL KEITH; J. W. NORRIS, Defendant - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-573-5-F) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven W. Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the districtcourt's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. French , No. CA-96- 573-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED