alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Beatrice E. Ralston, Plaintiff, v. Allen V. Ralston, Defendant.

*(March*17, 1950.)

Layton, J, sitting.

*David B. Co.ve, Jr.,*for Plaintiff.

*306Superior Court for New Castle County,

No. 965,

Civil Action, 1949.

Layton, Judge.

 Section 3516 of the Revised Code of Delaware 1935, provides in effect that a divorce should not be granted based alone upon an admission of the defendant. The statute was obviously designed to prevent collusion in obtaining divorces. It does not render admissions against interest on the part of a defendant inadmissible, but rather requires that the decree shall not be made unless there is other competent evidence to establish the cause. *Bancroft*v. *Bancroft, 4 Boyce*9, 10, 85 *A.*561. And it has been long settled that the record in a criminal case reflecting a plea of guilty by the accused is admissible in a subsequent civil action against him arising out of the same offense. *Hendle*v. *Geiler, Del. Super.,*50 *A.*632. However, the record of such a conviction is not admiss*307ible as proof of the fact in issue in the civil case but rather the plea of guilty is regarded as having the weight of a solemn admission against interest on the part of the defendant. *Hendle*v. *Geiler, supra.*

The important question for consideration here is whether or not the plea of guilty in the Virginia criminal proceeding, having the force and effect of an admission only, is competent evidence to sustain a decree for adultery in the light of Section 3516 of the Revised Code. I am of the opinion that it is. In this connection *Stewart*v. *Stewart,*93 *N.*J. *Eq.*1, 114 *A.*851, 852, is a case flatly in point. There it was said: “Upon this question I am clearly of the opinion that the plea of guilty of a charge of adulter)' by a defendant in a criminal court is substantive evidence by way of an admission by that defendant. While it is an inflexible ime m this state that a divorce will not be granted upon the uncorroborated testimony or admission of a party to the suit *(Garrett*v. *Garrett,*86 *N. J. Eq.*293, 98 *A.*848; *Foster*v. *Foster,*93 *N. J. Eq.*182, 114 *A.*33, *March term*1921, *Court of Errors and Appeals),*yet the admission in a plea of guilty, made on arraignment for adul-' tery in a criminal court, is made under the sanction of the law and the protection of the judge. It cannot be presumed to be procured by the husband’s coercion, as in *Summerbell*v. *Summerbell,*37 *N. J. Eq.*603, nor can it be presumed to have been made through collusion with the other spouse; and this is the more apparent when we know that by interposing such a plea the defendant at' once puts himself in the situation of being liable to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, or both.”

I conclude that the plea of guilty represents affirmative evidence of adultery and, though only an admission, is of such weight and solemnity as to fall without the prohibition of Section 3516 of the Revised Code.

A decree nisi will be entered.
Docket No: FAA-2015-1383 

Directorate ID: 

Disposition Comments 

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP03630EN-E 

Next Step: 181 FRAN 0 SNPRM 

D These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

IZI No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received- If this box is checked, no signafure5 gre 

required. 

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the 

previously published NP RM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue $hOuld be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the corruil.ents received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference F AA-IR-M-8040.1 C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one. 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text. 

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text. 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text. 

Do we agree? Yes/No 

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with 

I.nsert text because Insert justiflcation Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD 

If NO, we don't agree because our rationale 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one. 

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.
§ 271.401 Annual internal assessments. ( a ) Beginning with the first calendar year after the calendar year in which FRA approves a railroad's RRP plan pursuant to § 271.301(d), the railroad shall annually (*i.e.,* once every calendar year) conduct an internal assessment of its RRP.
( b ) The internal assessment shall determine the extent to which the railroad has: ( 1 ) Achieved the implementation milestones described in its RRP plan pursuant to § 271.225(b);
( 2 ) Complied with the implemented elements of the approved RRP plan;
( 3 ) Achieved the goals described in its RRP plan pursuant to § 271.203(c);
( 4 ) Implemented previous internal assessment improvement plans pursuant to § 271.403; and
( 5 ) Implemented previous external audit improvement plans pursuant to § 271.503.
( c ) A railroad shall ensure that the results of its internal assessments are internally reported to railroad senior management.
-----Original Message----- 

From: jkn@freedoniagroup.com [mailto:jkn@freedoniagroup.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:25 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jean Nadeau 

4237 Verona Rd 

Cleveland, OH 44121
KBL
Healthcare Acquisition Corp. II

757 Third
Avenue
21st Floor
New York, New York
10017


March  28,
2006

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust
Company
17 Battery Place
 New York, New York
10004
Attn: Steven G.
Nelson

EarlyBirdCapital, Inc.
275 Madison
Avenue, Suite 1203
New York, New York 10016
Attn: Steven
Levine

Re: Investment Management Trust
Agreement


Gentlemen:

Reference is made to that
certain Investment Management Trust Agreement (the
‘‘Agreement’’), dated as of April
21,  2005, between KBL Healthcare Acquisition Corp. II
(‘‘Company’’) and Continental Stock
Transfer & Trust Company. Section 1(c) is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the
following:

‘‘(c) In a timely manner, upon
the instruction of the Company, to invest and reinvest the Property in
United States ‘‘government securities’’
within the meaning of Section 2(a)(16) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 having a maturity of 180 days or less, and/or in any open ended
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
that holds itself out as a money market fund selected by the Company
meeting the conditions of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) of Rule
2a-7 promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
determined by the Company;’’








Except as indicated above, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.


		KBL HEALTHCARE
 ACQUISITION CORP.
II





		By: /s/ Marlene Krauss,
M.D.
        Name: Marlene Krauss,
M.D.
        Title: Chief Executive
Officer




Acknowledged and agreed this
 28th
day of March, 2006

CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER
&
TRUST COMPANY

By: /s/ Frank A.
DiPaolo

        Name: Frank A.
DiPaolo
        Title: CFO

The
undersigned is required to consent to this amendment pursuant to
Section 5(c) of the Investment Management Trust Agreement and hereby
does so.

EARLYBIRDCAPITAL,
INC.

By: /s/ Steven
Levine

        Name: Steven
Levine
        Title: Managing
Director
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/27/15 8:22 AM

Received: May 18, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ixf-s6bb

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0286

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: ketan shukla

General Comment

We believe this new rule is a step in the right direction toward the financial industry working in 

the interest of the customer instead of brokers. 

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ae7ae0&format=xml&show... 5/27/2015
United Technologies Executive Leadership Group Agreement, as amended



 Exhibit 10.1 
 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP AGREEMENT 
 United Technologies Corporation 
 The undersigned Executive acknowledges receipt of the materials summarizing the Corporation’s Executive Leadership Group Program (“ELG”)
and the benefits available to the Executive as a member of ELG as well as the Executive’s obligations and commitments to the Corporation as an ELG member. ELG benefits include a restricted share unit retention award that vests at retirement
(age 62 minimum), special life insurance and disability benefits under the ELG Income Protection Program, the Flexible Perquisites Allowance and eligibility for the pre-retirement Standard Separation Arrangement. While employed and for a 2-year
period thereafter, ELG members must agree to protect Company information and to refrain from activities that could lead to the recruitment of Company employees. If eligible for the Pre-Retirement Separation Agreement in the event of separation prior
to age 62, or upon vesting in the restricted share unit retention award at retirement on or after age 62, the Executive will make additional commitments to the Company, including a non-compete agreement and a waiver of claims. UTC share ownership
levels must reach 3 times base salary within five years of appointment to the ELG. 
 In consideration of the ELG benefits, the Executive
hereby commits to membership in the ELG in accordance with its terms and conditions described in the ELG materials. The Company, in turn, agrees to provide ELG benefits to the Executive upon its receipt of this Agreement in accordance with the
applicable terms and conditions as described in the ELG materials. 
  
  

					
		 	  

		 	 Executive

		
		 	  

		 	 Date

		
		 	UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
			
		 	 By:
	 	  

		
		 	  

		 	 Date
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/6/15 8:44 AM

Received: May 04, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8io1-6p9v

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0265

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: MARK RENZ

Address: 

9857 SE BUTTONWOOD WAY

TEQUESTA, FL, 33469

Email: mrenz@sociusfamilyoffice.com

Phone: 5614040484

Organization: Socius Family Office

General Comment

In the context of the proposed rules for advice to retirement plans and IRA account holders, the 

fiduciary standard requires giving advice that is in the client's best interests, avoiding 

misleading statements and receiving no more than reasonable compensation. Those should not 

be controversial rules or statements. There is no reason that commissions need to hidden from 

plain sight, buried in products where unsuspecting clients pay far more than they normally 

would while often not understanding the risks involved in the products they are purchasing. 

Transparency and doing what is right for the client are simple standards that even my children 

can understand.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481acc1c1&format=xml&showor... 5/6/2015
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening and Extending of Joseph Rodman Drake Park. George F. Johnson, Appellant.

*Matter of City of New York (Drake Park),*134 App. Div. 965, affirmed.

(Argued June 1, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered *532November 22, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.

*Herman C. Storck*for appellant.

*Archibald, JR. Watson, Corporation Counsel {Theodore Gonnoly, Joel J. Squier*and *James Regan Fitz Gerald*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with *costs;*no opinion.

Concur: Cray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscook and Chase, J J. Absent: Cullen, Ch. J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, May 1, 1995 (59), Para 59.16 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 609]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.59.16  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 1139. A 
     bill to amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and 
     for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-105). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. H.R. 1361. A bill to authorize appropriations 
     for fiscal year 1996 for the Coast Guard, and for other 
     purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-106). Referred to 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. QUILLEN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 136. 
     Resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     655) to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and 
     demonstration programs of the Department of Energy, and for 
     other purposes (Rept. No. 104-108). Referred to the House 
     Calendar.
       Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. H.R. 1323. A bill to reduce risk to public 
     safety and the environment associated with pipeline 
     transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids, and for 
     other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-110, Pt. 1). 
     Ordered to be printed.
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2254

To repeal the requirement that the Delegates to the Congress from Guam,

the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa be elected by a separate ballot.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1995

Mr. UNDERWOOD (for himself, Mr. FRAZER, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To repeal the requirement that the Delegates to the Congress

from Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa

be elected by a separate ballot.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SEPARATE BALLOT REQUIREMENT.

4 (a) GUAM AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Section 2(a) of the

5 Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide that the unincorporated

6 territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands shall each be

7 represented in Congress by a Delegate to the House of

8 Representatives’’ approved April 10, 1972 (48 U.S.C.
2

•HR 2254 IH

1 1712(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘, by separate ballot

2 and’’.

3 (b) AMERICAN SAMOA.—Section 2(a) of the Act enti4 tled ‘‘An Act to provide that the Territory of American

5 Samoa be represented by a nonvoting Delegate to the

6 United States House of Representatives, and for other

7 purposes’’, approved October 31, 1978 (48 U.S.C.

8 1732(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘, by separate ballot

9 and’’.

Æ
#### § 29.700 May a Tribe retrocede a PSFA and the associated funds?

A Tribe may voluntarily retrocede (fully or partially) its PSFA and the associated funds under a compact and funding agreement. A Tribe may retrocede for any reason.
EXHIBIT
21.6
 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA
ELECTRIC COMPANY
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
REGISTRANT
 AT DECEMBER 31,
2006
 
 
 Name of
      Subsidiary
    
    Business
    
    State of
      OrganizationThe Waverly
      Electric Light and Power Company
    
    Electric
      Distribution
    
    New
      YorkPenelec
      Funding LLC
    
    Special-Purpose
      Finance
    
    Delaware
 
 
 
 Note: Penelec, along
with its affiliated JCP&L and Met-Ed, collectively own all of the common
stock of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation, a Pennsylvania non-profit
corporation organized for nuclear experimental purposes which is now inactive.
The carrying value of the owners' investment has been written down to a nominal
value.
 
 Exhibit Number 21,
List of Subsidiaries of the registrant at December 31, 2006, is not included in
the printed document.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.27    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANT NO. 2    
    


        This Amendment No. 2 to Warrant No. 2 is made and entered into as of the 30th day of December, 2005, by and among Digital Generation
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Scott K. Ginsburg ("Ginsburg"). 


        WHEREAS,
the Corporation issued Warrant No. 2, dated as of December 9, 1998 for 1,548,460 shares of common stock of the Corporation (the "Warrant") to Ginsburg; 



        WHEREAS,
the Warrant was amended on or about November 30, 2000 pursuant to that certain Amendment No. 1 to Warrant No. 2 and again on or about June 24, 2004
pursuant to resolutions adopted by the unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Corporation; and 


        WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Ginsburg wish to further amend the terms of the Warrant as described herein; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants herein contained, the Corporation and Ginsburg hereby agree as follows: 



        1.     Unless
otherwise defined, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Warrant. All references to Section herein shall be to Sections
of the Warrant. 


        2.     The
introductory heading of the Warrant shall be amended to read "Void after December 31, 2010." 


        3.     The
entirety of Section 2 in the Warrant shall read as follows: 



        "2.   Exercise Price.    The purchase price for the Shares shall be $1.00, as adjusted from time to time pursuant to
Section 10 hereof (the "Exercise Price"). 


   




        [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]








        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Warrant No. 2 as of the date first above written. 



	 	 	DIGITAL GENERATION SYSTEMS, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO      
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	Name:	Anthony J. LeVecchio
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	Title:	Audit Committee Chairman
	 	 	 	 	

	

 	
 	

GINSBURG:
	

 	
 	

/s/  SCOTT K. GINSBURG      
 Scott K. Ginsburg, Individually















QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.27


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANT NO. 2
§ 26.86 Decision letters. ( a ) When a certifier denies a firm's request for certification or decertifies the firm, the certifier must provide the firm a NOD explaining the reasons for the adverse decision, specifically referencing the evidence in the record that supports each reason. A certifier must also include, verbatim, the instructions found on the Departmental Office of Civil Rights' web page, available at *https://www.transportation.gov/dbeappeal*.
( b ) The certifier must promptly provide the applicant copies of all documents and other information on which it based the denial if the applicant requests them.
( c ) The certifier must establish a waiting period for reapplication of no more than 12 months. That period begins to run the day after the date of the decision letter is emailed. After the waiting period expires, the denied firm may reapply to any member of the UCP that denied the application. The certifier must inform the applicant of that right, and specify the date the waiting period ends, in its decision letter.
( d ) An appeal does not extend the waiting period.
[89 FR 24976, Apr. 9, 2024]
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
  






 
 Name of Company: SUNGY MOBILE LIMITED Number: Class A Ordinary Share(s): -[no. of shares]- Issued to: [name of
shareholder] Dated Per Directors’ Resolutions dd [ ] 2013 Transferred from: SUNGY MOBILE LIMITED Number Class A Ordinary Share(s) -[no. of shares]- Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands Share capital is US$100,000 divided into
1,000,000,000 Shares comprising of (i) 850,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each and (ii) 150,000,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder] is the registered
holder of [no. of shares] Class A Ordinary Share(s) in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the day of 2013 by: DIRECTOR 







 




 
 TRANSFER I (the Transferor) for the value received DO HEREBY transfer to (the Transferee) the shares standing
in my name in the undertaking called SUNGY MOBILE LIMITED To hold the same unto the Transferee Dated Signed by the Transferor in the presence of: Witness Transferor
# EUR-Lex - 52004DP0093 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004DP0093

**European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Rainer Wieland (2004/2174(IMM)) **

*
Official Journal 226 E , 15/09/2005 P. 0050 - 0050 *

P6_TA(2004)0093

Request for the waiver of Mr Rainer Wieland's parliamentary immunity

European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Rainer Wieland (2004/2174(IMM))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Rainer Wieland forwarded by the Ministry of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany on 17 August 2004 and announced in plenary sitting on 13 September 2004,

- having given Rainer Wieland the opportunity to be heard pursuant to Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure, whereupon he declared that he would not oppose the waiver of his parliamentary immunity,

- having regard to Article10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 6(2) of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, of 20 September 1976,

- having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986 [1],

- having regard to Article46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany,

- having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0059/2004),

1. Decides to waive the immunity of Rainer Wieland;

2. Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible to the appropriate authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany.

[1] See Case 101/63 Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, and Case 149/85 Wybot v. Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

--------------------------------------------------