alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patrick J. O’Brien et al., Appellants, v Occidental Chemical Corp. et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[698 NYS2d 200]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from three orders of Supreme Court, all relating to a discovery dispute. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior discovery orders. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s initial case scheduling order of December 16, 1996 and engaged in dilatory tactics with respect to interrogatories and medical authorizations. On other occasions, plaintiffs’ responses to discovery requests were erroneous or incomplete. The court gave plaintiffs several opportunities to respond to the reasonable discovery requests and, based on plaintiffs’ deliberate frustration of discovery, the court’s dismissal of the complaint was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, *Frias v Fortini,*240 AD2d 467).

The court properly imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel stemming from the discovery dispute (see, CPLR 3126; see *also, Taub v Wulwick,*168 AD2d 492). “Discretion in compelling compliance and imposing penalties for noncompliance in discovery matters is soundly vested in the trial court” *(Associated Mut. Ins. Co. v Dyland Tavern,*105 AD2d 892, 893). We have considered the remaining contentions of plaintiffs and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Sum*916mary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.
#### Donald P. Rosendale, Respondent, v Miles A. Galin et al., Defendants, and Magesty Capital Corp., Appellant.

[698 *445NYS2d 884]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Magesty Capital Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated October 2, 1998, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on his second and third causes of action, and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court, entered October 8, 1998, as is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $14,412 on the plaintiffs second and third causes of action.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action" *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The appellant contends that the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to summary judgment because a stock market report submitted in support of the motion did not constitute admissible evidence. However, this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, and is not properly before this Court *(see, Rotundo v S & C Magnetic Resonance Imaging,*255 AD2d 573; *Gross v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*240 AD2d 468). “An appellate court should not, and will not, consider different theories or new questions, if proof might have been offered to refute or overcome them had those theories or questions been presented in the court of first instance” *(Fresh Pond Rd. Assocs. v Estate of Schacht,*120 AD2d 561; *see also, Rotundo v S & C Magnetic Resonance Imaging, supra).*

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly found that the appellant’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether it made reasonable efforts to sell the plaintiffs securities. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 452.47 Employer or supervisor members.

Inasmuch as it is an unfair labor practice under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) for any employer (including persons acting in that capacity) to dominate or interfere with the administration of any labor organization, it follows that employers, while they may be members, may not be candidates for office or serve as officers. Thus, while it is recognized that in some industries, particularly construction, members who become supervisors, or contractors traditionally keep their union membership as a form of job security or as a means of retaining union benefits, such persons may not be candidates for or hold office.[29] Whether a restriction on officeholding by members who are group leaders or others performing some supervisory duties is reasonable depends on the particular circumstances. For instance, if such persons might be considered “supervisors”[30] under the LMRA, their right to be candidates under the Act may be limited. Another factor in determining the reasonableness of a ban on such persons is the position (if any) of the NLRB on the status of the particular employees involved. If, for example, the NLRB has determined that certain group leaders are part of the bargaining unit, it might be unreasonable for the union to prohibit them from running for office. An overall consideration in determining whether a member may fairly be denied the right to be a candidate for union office as an employer or supervisor is whether there is a reasonable basis for assuming that the person involved would be subject to a conflict of interest in carrying out his representative duties for employees and rank and file union members.

[38 FR 18324, July 3, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 37360, Oct. 21, 1974]

###### Footnotes -
  452.47

[29] See Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, 118 NLRB No. 19 (1957). See also *Local 636, Plumbers* v. *NLRB,* 287 F.2d 354 (C.A. D.C. 1961).

[30] Under section 2(11) of the Labor Management Relations Act, supervisors include individuals “having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
#### § 452.82 Reprisal for exercising rights.

A member has a right to support the candidate of his choice without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by the labor organization conducting the election or any member thereof.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-11-021]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

August 15, 2011 at 3 p.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

## Matters To Be Considered

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-459 (Third Review) (Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film from Korea). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 29, 2011.

5. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review) (Glycine from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 30, 2011.

6. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

 Issued: August 3, 2011.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 2011-19987 Filed 8-3-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
#### § 2400.3 Delegation of authority.

The Chairman shall designate an OSHRC employee as the Privacy Officer and shall delegate to the Privacy Officer the authority to ensure agency-wide compliance with this part. As necessary, the Privacy Officer shall coordinate this delegated responsibility with the Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

Meeting Day 1 

March 19-20, 2008 

Hilton Washington Towers Cabinet Room 

1919 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: (202) 483-3000

AGENDA 

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 

(9:00 A.M. Press Conference in State Room (media only) - Release of Eleventh Report 

of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board: “Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-

Mexico Border Environment”) 

9:30 A.M. Registration 

10:00 Meeting Begins 

Welcome— Commissioner John Wood, Acting Chair, GNEB 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Office of Cooperative 

Environmental Management (OCEM) 

 Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer, OCEM 

Board Members, Attendees Self Introductions 

10:10 Keynote Remarks—EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson 

10:45 Panel Discussion on Eleventh Report: “Natural Disasters and 

Environmental Protection on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment” 

Introduction, Summary of Recommendations— Commissioner John 

Wood, Acting Chair 

11:00 Panel Discussion 

Erika J. Clesceri, Ph.D. DCHA Bureau Environmental Officer, 

USAID-Washington 
- Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, EPA Office of Emergency Management 

and U.S. Co-Chair, Border 2012 Program Emergency Preparedness & 

Response Border-Wide Work Group 

- Alejandro Posadas, SEMARNAT, Mexican Embassy 

12:00 Public Comment Session 

12:30 P.M. Lunch 

1:30 Briefings on Board’s Twelfth Report Theme: 

“Innovation, Including Incentives, to Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the 

U.S.- Mexico Border” 

Introduction, Background – Commissioner John Wood, Acting Chair 

1:45 Opportunities and Barriers for Environmental Innovation Along the 

U.S.-Mexico Border 

- Betsy Shaw, Director, National Center for Environmental Innovation, 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 

- Sue Stendebach, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 

2:30 Private Sector Leadership in Innovation for Environmental Protection at 

the Border – Al Zapanta, President and CEO, U.S.-Mexico Chamber of 

Commerce 

3:15 Break 

3:30 Energy and Innovation to Protect the Environment at the Border 

- Brian Castelli, Executive Vice President, Alliance to Save Energy 

4:15 Scrap Tires: Case in Point for Innovation at the Border 

- Tracey Norberg, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association 

5:00 Additional Discussion, Report Outs 

5:30 Day One of Meeting Ends 

### 

3/11/08 

2
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.55 Issuance and revision of wage determinations. ( a ) Determinations will be reviewed periodically and where prevailing wage rates or fringe benefits have changed, such changes will be reflected in revised determinations. For example, in a locality where it is determined that the wage rate which prevails for a particular class of service employees is the rate specified in a collective bargaining agreement(s) applicable in that locality, and such agreement(s) specifies increases in such rates to be effective on specific dates, the determinations would be revised to reflect such changes as they become effective. Revised determinations shall be applicable to contracts in accordance with the provisions of § 4.5(a) of subpart A.
( b ) Determinations issued by the Wage and Hour Division with respect to particular contracts are required to be incorporated in the invitations for bids or requests for proposals or quotations issued by the contracting agencies, and are to be incorporated in the contract specifications in accordance with § 4.5 of subpart A. In this manner, prospective contractors and subcontractors are advised of the minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits required under the most recently applicable determination to be paid the service employees who perform the contract work. These requirements are the same for all bidders so none will be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
( c ) Determinations issued by the Wage and Hour Division with respect to particular contracts are required to be incorporated in the invitations for bids or requests for proposals or quotations issued by the contracting agencies, and are to be incorporated in the contract specifications in accordance with § 4.5 of subpart A. In this manner, prospective contractors and subcontractors are advised of the minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits required under the most recently applicable determination to be paid the service employees who perform the contract work. These requirements are, of course, the same for all bidders so none will be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
[48 FR 49762, Oct. 27, 1983. Redesignated at 61 FR 68664, Dec. 30, 1996; 70 FR 50898, Aug. 26, 2005]
```

[115th Congress Public Law 260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 3666]]

Public Law 115-260
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
           Jr. Channel''. <<NOTE: Oct. 9, 2018 -  [S. 1668]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JOSEPH SANFORD JR. CHANNEL.

    (a) In General.--The waterway in the State of New York designated as 
the ``Negro Bar Channel'' shall be known and redesignated as the 
``Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the waterway referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph 
Sanford Jr. Channel''.

    Approved October 9, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1668:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115-221 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 26, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant 

v. 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. 

Respondent 

TO: Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAA Docket No. FAA 2016-4261 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please take notice that Paul Alp of the Jaw firm Crowell & Moring LLP hereby enters his 

appearance as counsel for Respondent United Parcel Service Co. in the above-captioned matter. 

Please serve all future correspondence, filings and submissions accordingly. Messrs. Winston 

Miller and Miles Harrison of the law firm Frost Brown Todd LLC shall continue to also 

represent Respondent United Parcel Service Co. in this matter. 

Dated: March 28,2016 Respectfully Submitted, 

~I~J¥-- CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

palp@crowell.com 

Telephone: (202) 624-2500 

Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that true and correct copies of the foregoing were served 

by hand delivery or UPS Next Day Air®, as indicated below, this 28th day of March, 2016, to 

the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

James H. Dunfee Jr. 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division,·Southem Team 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

DATED: March28,2016 

(original+ 1 copy) (via hand delivery) 

(via hand delivery) 

(via UPS Next Day Air)
(81 South. 134)

#### CLEARMAN v. FORD.

(6 Div. 438.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 11, 1916.)

Appeal and Error <@=>753(2) — Matters Reviewable — Assignments op Error.

Where there are no assignments of error in record, there are no questions presented for review, and judgment of lower court must be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Action between W. B. Clearman and E. W. Ford. From a judgment in favor of the latter, the former appeals.

Affirmed.

C. C. Nesmith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Milner & Thompson, of Vernon, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

There are no assignments of error in the record, and under the universal decisions of this court, and of the Supreme Court, there are no questions presented for review, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 4022.4 Entitlement to a benefit. ( a ) A participant or his surviving beneficiary is entitled to a benefit if under the provisions of a plan: ( 1 ) The benefit was in pay status on the termination date of the plan.
( 2 ) The benefit is payable in an optional life-annuity form of benefit that the participant or beneficiary elected on or before the termination date of the plan or, if later, the date on which PBGC became statutory trustee of the plan.
( 3 ) Except for a benefit described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, before the termination date (or on or before the termination date, in the case of a requirement that a participant attain a particular age, earn a particular amount of service, become disabled, or die) the participant had satisfied the conditions of the plan necessary to establish the right to receive the benefit prior to such date (prior to or on such date, in the case of a requirement that a participant attain a particular age, earn a particular amount of service, become disabled, or die) other than application for the benefit, satisfaction of a waiting period described in the plan, or retirement; or
( 4 ) Absent an election by the participant, the benefit would be payable upon retirement.
( 5 ) In the case of a benefit that returns all or a portion of a participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions upon death, the participant (or beneficiary) had satisfied the conditions of the plan necessary to establish the right to the benefit other than death or designation of a beneficiary.
( b ) If none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section is met, the PBGC will determine whether the participant is entitled to a benefit on the basis of the provisions of the plan and the circumstances of the case.
( c ) In a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, “bankruptcy filing date” is substituted for “termination date” each place that “termination date” appears in paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of this section. In making this substitution for purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the rule in § 4022.3(b)(2) (dealing with the situation where the condition for entitlement was satisfied between the bankruptcy filing date and the termination date) shall apply.
[61 FR 34028, July 1, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 16954, Apr. 8, 2002; 76 FR 34602, June 14, 2011]
EXHIBIT 4.2

 

SIGNAL BAY, INC.

A COLORADO CORPORATION 

750,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK, $0.0001 PAR VALUE

 

This certifies that  ____________________________________________ is hereby issued  ____________________________________________ fully paid and non-assessable Shares of Common Stock of Signal Bay, Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

 

In Witness Whereof, Signal Bay, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed as of this ______ day of __________________ 20_____.

 

	 	 	 
	
President

	 	
Secretary
§ 38.31 Equal Opportunity Officer responsibilities. An Equal Opportunity Officer is responsible for coordinating a recipient's obligations under this part. Those responsibilities include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Serving as a recipient's liaison with CRC;
( b ) Monitoring and investigating the recipient's activities, and the activities of the entities that receive WIOA Title I-financial assistance from the recipient, to make sure that the recipient and its subrecipients are not violating their nondiscrimination and equal opportunity obligations under WIOA Title I and this part, which includes monitoring the collection of data required in this part to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of WIOA and this part;
( c ) Reviewing the recipient's written policies to make sure that those policies are nondiscriminatory;
( d ) Developing and publishing the recipient's procedures for processing discrimination complaints under §§ 38.72 through 38.73, including tracking the discrimination complaints filed against the recipient, developing procedures for investigating and resolving discrimination complaints filed against the recipient, making sure that those procedures are followed, and making available to the public, in appropriate languages and formats, the procedures for filing a complaint;
( e ) Conducting outreach and education about equal opportunity and nondiscrimination requirements consistent with § 38.40 and how an individual may file a complaint consistent with § 38.69;
( f ) Undergoing training (at the recipient's expense) to maintain competency of the EO Officer and staff, as required by the Director; and
( g ) If applicable, overseeing the development and implementation of the recipient's Nondiscrimination Plan under § 38.54.