alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronald D. Betterly et al., Appellants, v Estate of Seymour Silver, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

*[698*NYS2d 17]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered July 9, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary *31judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a New York City police officer, brought this action to recover pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e and on a common law negligence theory for injuries he sustained in premises owned by defendants when, in the course of his official duties, he fell within an apartment located on defendants’ premises while attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect who was fleeing the premises through a window without bars. Under the circumstances at bar, however, neither the alleged violations of the New York City Health Code and Administrative Code of the City of New York concerning the obligation to advise tenants of the option to have the owner install window guards (24 RCNY 12-02, 12-03, 131.15; Administrative Code § 17-123), nor the owner’s obligation to secure its premises from intruders (Administrative Code §§ 27-127, 27-128) are sufficient predicates for imposition of section 205-e liability. Plaintiff did not fall from an unguarded window and was not assaulted by an assailant who may have unlawfully gained access to the building due to the failure to secure its doors". Plaintiffs injuries were sustained while attempting to prevent the suspect from fleeing. Even under the liberal causation standards applicable under section 205-e *(see, O’Connell v Kavanagh,*231 AD2d 29, 30), the causal connections between the absence of window guards and locked doors, on the one hand, and plaintiffs injuries, on the other, are too remote for the imposition of liability. Although a question of fact exists as to whether the suspect was an intruder or was lawfully on the premises *(see, Carmen P. v PS&S Realty Corp.,*259 AD2d 386, 388), the negligence cause of action, also predicated upon unlocked doors and an unguarded window, like the section 205-e claim, was properly dismissed on proximate cause grounds. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4885 

To amend the CARES Act to provide that EIDL emergency grant advance 

payments shall not be subject to certain reductions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2020 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to provide that EIDL emergency 

grant advance payments shall not be subject to certain 

reductions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EIDL Advance Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY EIDL GRANT ADVANCE PAYMENTS. 

7 Section 1110(e)(6) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 9009(e)(6)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘If an applicant’’ and inserting 

10 the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4885 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

2 subparagraph (B), if an applicant’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR PAYCHECK PROTEC5 TION PROGRAM LOAN FORGIVENESS.—If an ap6 plicant that receives an advance under this sub7 section transfers into, or is approved for, the 

8 loan program under paragraph (36) of section 

9 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

10 636(a)), as added by section 1102(a) of this 

11 Act, the advance amount may not be reduced 

12 from the loan forgiveness amount for a loan for 

13 payroll costs made under such paragraph (36), 

14 as determined under section 1106.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0629 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0629

**1999/629/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Council Decision of 13 September 1999 appointing the Secretary-General, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, of the Council of the European Union **

*
Official Journal L 248 , 21/09/1999 P. 0033 - 0033 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 13 September 1999

appointing the Secretary-General, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, of the Council of the European Union

(1999/629/EC, ECSC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 30(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 121(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Council Decision 1999/543/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 July 1999 extending the term of office of Mr Jürgen Trumpf as Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union(1),

Having regard to Mr Jürgen Trumpf's agreement to relinquish his post on 17 October 1999,

Whereas the new Secretary-General, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, of the Council of the European Union should be appointed,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Javier Solana Madariaga is hereby appointed Secretary-General, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, of the Council of the European Union for a period of five years with effect from 18 October 1999.

Article 2

Council Decision 1999/543/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 July 1999 shall be amended insofar as it runs counter to this Decision.

Article 3

This Decision shall be notified to Mr Javier Solana Madariaga and to Mr Jürgen Trumpf by the President of the Council.

It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 13 September 1999.

For the Council

The President

T. HALONEN

(1) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999, p. 28.
§ 1917.24 Carbon monoxide. ( a ) *Exposure limits.* The carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere in a room, building, vehicle, railcar, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 50 parts per million (ppm) (0.005%) as an eight hour average area level and employees shall be removed from the enclosed space if the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds a ceiling of 100 ppm (0.01%).
( b ) *Testing.* Tests to determine carbon monoxide concentration shall be made when necessary to ensure that employee exposure does not exceed the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Instrumentation.* Tests for carbon monoxide concentration shall be made by designated persons using gas detector tube units certified by NIOSH under 30 CFR part 11 or other measuring instruments whose accuracy is as great or greater.
( d ) *Records.* A record of the date, time, location and results of carbon monoxide tests shall be available for at least thirty (30) days.
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 28551, July 13, 1984; 61 FR 5509, Feb. 13, 1996; 62 FR 40197, July 25, 1997]
#### STATE ex HONEYMAN v MIAMI CO COMRS

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21213.

Decided Feb 6, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

(140 S) Section 1121-17, General Code, does not violate' Article I, Section 19, of the Constitution of Ohio.

ANIMALS

(20 D) Under Section 1121-17, General Code, the board of county commissioners of a county may appropriate money from the general funds of such county in payment of bills to be incurred by officers, ' agents and employees of the State of Ohio in making a tuberculin test of cattle owned and located in such county, to be paid out on warrants issued by the county auditor of such county, subject to the approval of the department of agriculture.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
§ 1601.14 Service of charge or notice of charge. ( a ) Within ten days after the filing of a charge in the appropriate Commission office, the Commission shall serve respondent the charge by digital transmission, by mail, or in person, except when it is determined that providing the charge would impede the law enforcement functions of the Commission. Where the charge is not provided, the respondent will be served with a notice of the charge within ten days after the filing of the charge. The notice shall include the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Where appropriate, the notice may include the identity of the person or organization filing the charge.
( b ) District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs, and the Director of Field Management Programs, or their designees, are hereby delegated the authority to issue the notice described in paragraph (a) of this section.
[44 FR 4669, Jan. 23, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 46275, Oct. 18, 1982; 49 FR 13024, Apr. 2, 1984; 49 FR 13874, Apr. 9, 1984; 54 FR 32061, Aug. 4, 1989; 71 FR 26828, May 9, 2006; 85 FR 65218, Oct. 15, 2020]
EXHIBIT
32.1






Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of American International
Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification
as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to
the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2008.






The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and
results of its operations.






Date:  August
14, 2008


Sherry
Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry
Couturier
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to the

applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfa vors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/19/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

BEN NWOSUN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. No. 95-6375 (D.C. No. CIV-95-912-T) (W. District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Pro se plaintiff, Ben Nwosun, appeals from summary judgment granted defendant on his Title VII claim. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. In his complaint, Nwosun alleged that General Mills discriminated against him because of his race, citing a number of incidents of unfair behavior, culminating in his January 4, 1993 discharge from the Red Lobster restaurant at which he worked as a laborer. Nwosun filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 22, 1994. The EEOC issued Nwosun a Right to Sue letter on May 2, 1995, and Nwosun filed a complaint in the- 2 -

district court for the Western District of Oklahoma the following month. The district court granted defendant summary judgment because it was undisputed that Nwosun brought his claim more than 300 days after his discharge. An aggrieved person must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The court also determined that Nwosun’s claim was not saved by the “continuing violation doctrine” because he alleged no discriminatory act occurring within 300 days of the date he filed his charge with the
EEOC. See Mascheroni v. Board of Regents , 28 F.3d 1554, 1561 (10th Cir. 1994) (to establish continuing violation doctrine plaintiff must allege a series of discriminatory acts, at least one of which falls within the limitations period). The only event Nwosun pointed to in support of a claim of a continuing violation was that defendant took his deposition in connection with another employee’s workers’ compensation claim. While it is unclear from the record whether this event took place within 300 days of filing his charge, there is absolutely no indication that the deposition constituted a discriminatory act. The district court correctly granted summary judgment. On appeal, Nwosun also alleges that his attorney violated his Sixth Amendment rights by negligently or intentionally failing to file the Title VII claim within time, and that a conspiracy exists between his attorney and others to deny him his constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We generally do not address claims brought for the first time on appeal, Walker v. Mathers (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.- 3 -

1992), and, in any event, neither of these claims involves defendant. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1027 PIETER M. VAN DER SPUY, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRED W. RAUSCH, JR., Defendant - Appellant, and DEERFIELD HOLDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CECIL P. JONES; DEBORAH L. GARDNER, Defendants.
No. 98-1182 PIETER M. VAN DER SPUY, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRED W. RAUSCH, JR., Defendant - Appellant,2 and DEERFIELD HOLDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CECIL P. JONES; DEBORAH L. GARDNER, Defendants.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1233-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred W. Rausch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Gerard Test, Michelle Ann Hughes, CLARK & STANT, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Rausch appeals the district court’s order entering a judgment against him and in favor of the Appellee for federal common law fraud, Virginia common law fraud,federal mail fraud, and breach of contract. We find that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. See28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994). Further, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Furthermore, we grant Rausch’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Henry Warne *against*John Rose and Peter Leonard.

ON CERTIORARI.

Joint action b(a) constables,

THIS was an action of trover and conversion, brought ^ ^wo p¡ajn^g below, as constables, for certain goods, on which they alleged that they had levied, by virtue of several executions, which had come into their hands. Judgment was given for them. *Ewing*moved the reversal of the judgment, and

(a)

*Bishop vs. Harvey, Pen. *645. Maffett ads. Pen, Tonkins, 1 Hal. 228. Church vs. Muir, 4 Vr. 322.*

By the Court.

No joint rights can exist in these plaintiffs, in consequence of separate levies made by them, on the goods, in virtue of separate executions. No joint action can be maintained by them.

Judgment reversed.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R2067 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R2067

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2067/96 of 29 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1000/96 as regards certain marketing standards for poultrymeat **

*
Official Journal L 277 , 30/10/1996 P. 0011 - 0011 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2067/96 of 29 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1000/96 as regards certain marketing standards for poultrymeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for poultry (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3204/93 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991, introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1000/96 (4) as regards the definition of capon and the relevant production criteria; whereas it is necessary to provide for a transitional period for the application of the new definition in order to take account of the interests of certain producers during the end-of-year marketing period;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1000/96 is hereby replaced by the following:

'Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 March 1997.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of 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, 29 October 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 173, 6. 7. 1990, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 289, 24. 11. 1993, p. 3.

(3) OJ No L 143, 7. 6. 1991, p. 11.

(4) OJ No L 134, 5. 6. 1996, p. 9.
#### ELLIOTT v WOOSTER FARM DAIRIES CO et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Wayne Co

No 851.

Decided April 12, 1929

Weygandt & Ross, Wooster, for Elliott.

Weiser & Weimer and L R Critchfield, both of Wooster, for Wooster Farm Dairies Co.

Clark & Costello, Cleveland, for Ohio Farmers Co-Operative Milk Assn.

*279PER CURIAM

In the light of the facts in this case, it is not important that the contract of sale was signed by the officers of the Wooster company.

Moine had in his possession several contracts of sale signed by said officers, but blank as to number of shares and name of purchaser, which he had been provided with in order to make sales to farmers, and the Ohio company and Elliott and Moine all knew and understood that it was not the intention of the Wooster company to authorize the use of such blank contract to make a sale of said stock or any part thereof to the Ohio company or any one acting in its behalf.

The contract sued upon was obtained in pursuance of a fraudulent scheme, which at' the time it was entered into was known to Elliott and the Ohio company, for which Elliott was acting.

Decree for the Wooster company, denying specific performance.

Funk, PJ, Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 828 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to make cost-share payments for on-farm energy production under 

the environmental quality incentives program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2007 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the 

Secretary of Agriculture to make cost-share payments 

for on-farm energy production under the environmental 

quality incentives program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘On-farm Energy Pro5 duction Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM. 

7 (a) PURPOSES.—Section 1240 of the Food Security 

8 Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa) is amended— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 828 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(6) assisting producers in accordance with sec7 tion 1240J in producing on-farm energy.’’. 

8 (b) LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.—Section 1240G of 

9 the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa–7) is 

10 amended by inserting ‘‘(or $50,000 in the case of a con11 tract entered into under section 1240J)’’ after ‘‘under this 

12 chapter’’. 

13 (c) ON-FARM ENERGY PRODUCTION.—Chapter 4 of 

14 subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 

15 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) is amended by adding at the 

16 end the following: 

17 ‘‘SEC. 1240J. ON-FARM ENERGY PRODUCTION. 

18 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program 

19 under this chapter, the Secretary shall promote on-farm 

20 energy production by providing cost-share payments to 

21 producers that produce energy on the farms of the pro22 ducers, including— 

23 ‘‘(1) solar energy; 

24 ‘‘(2) wind energy; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 828 IS

1 ‘‘(3) renewable fuel (as that term is defined in 

2 section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 7545(o)). 

4 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—In determining whether to pro5 vide cost-share payments to producers under this section, 

6 the Secretary shall consider— 

7 ‘‘(1) the amount of on-farm energy produced by 

8 the producers as compared to the amount of assist9 ance provided to the producers; 

10 ‘‘(2) whether the producers are actively engaged 

11 in farming; and 

12 ‘‘(3) the degree to which the on-farm energy 

13 produced by the producers assists the producers in 

14 attaining energy self-sufficiency.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133728 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133728 COA: 265143 Oakland CC: 05-202095-FH KURTIS LANE MIDDLETON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 27, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk