alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

March 29, 1967

No. P67/84.

#### James G. Wiley Co., a/c Rex C. Ellesworth *v.*United States,

protest 64/23060 (Los Angeles).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of anesthetic apparatus similar in all material respects to those the subject of the *O.E.M. Corp.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 2402), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|               | (1)                                  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          |        |                              |
|          | (2)                                  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|  Date: November 13, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                      |                     | /s/ A. William Allen, III |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | A. William Allen, III     |
|                                                         |                      |      | Chief Executive Officer   |
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 3.050% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/2027 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HRU6 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 11/15/2015 |   |
|                    |   |
From: bklutch@inbox.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Brianne Klotzsche

Colorado Springs, CO 80923
- 1

-

No. 95 SSM 15 The People &c., Respondent, v. Don P. Sipp, Appellant.

Submitted by J. Scott Porter, for appellant. Submitted by Mark S. Sinkiewicz, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM : The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. At a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree for slashing his former girlfriend’s face and neck with a sharp instrument and repeated ly stomping on her head with his boot

- clad f oot.- 2

- SSM No. 15

- 2

- His counsel requested that the court charge th e jury with assault in the third degree as a
lesser

- included offense ; the court declined to do so

.
B oth live and photographic evidence at trial, ten months after the attack, demonstrated that the victim’s face was disfigured with scars above one eyebrow , under the other eye, on her lip and across her neck, and that apart from the scars, her facial structure and appearance had changed significantly. Testimony from her treating physician established that she suffered at least five displaced fractures arou nd her eye sockets and nose, which were left to heal as displaced. Viewed in a light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Van Norstrand , 85 NY2d 131, 135 [1995]; People v Henderson , 41 NY2d 233, 236 [1976 ]) , we agree that no reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that the victim sustained anything less than a serious physical injury ( see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v McKinnon , 15 NY3d 311, 315 [2010] )

. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to a n instr uction on a lesser

- included charge of assault in the third degree.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.
Decided August 29, 2019
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, KONSTANTINOS ADAMOPOULOS, CERTIFY THAT:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Safe Bulkers, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

|                   |  |                              | 
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------- | 
|Date: July 6, 2012 |  | /s/ KONSTANTINOS ADAMOPOULOS | 
|                   |  | Konstantinos Adamopoulos     | 
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer and  | 
|                   |  | Director                     | 

---
From: martin7h2o@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:27:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Marlene Martin

Charlotte, NC 28226
From: Greg@AC21DOJ.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:55:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Greg Williamson

Raleigh, NC 27609
Before the Second Division,

December 2, 1965

No. 69656.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. and Hans Ohrt et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4306-S, etc. (Los Angeles).

*493Opinion by

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 60 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 60 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2
From: tmcgiffert@pacn.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Teri McGiffert

Spring, TX 77389
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Thor Kirby 3 Group, LLC v. Frances H. Pengra, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00229-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-20523

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

On August 5, 2013, the parties to this appeal filed an Agreed Amended Motion to Set 

Briefing Schedule. Appellant’s and cross-appellants’ briefs were due on June 21, 2013. 

Appellees Frances H. Pengra, et al., trial court plaintiffs, previously filed an unopposed motion 

to set briefing schedule, which requested an August 20, 2013 deadline for filing the initial 

appellant’s brief. The parties also filed an agreed motion to extend the deadline for the 

appellant’s and cross-appellants’ briefs by 30 days pending a ruling on the unopposed motion to 

set briefing schedule. The agreed amended motion to set briefing schedule requests that the filing 

date for the initial appellant’s brief be extended to September 20, 2013.

We grant the agreed amended motion to set briefing schedule. We therefore order that:

Thor Kirby 3 Group, LLC’s appellant’s brief is due no later than September 20, 2013.

Frances H. Pengra, et al.’s combined appellees’ and cross-appellants’ brief is due no later 

than October 21, 2013. 

GWV Kirby LLC’s combined appellee’s and cross-appellant’s brief is due no later than 

November 21, 2013.

Thor Kirby 3 Group, LLC’s combined appellant’s reply and cross-appellee’s brief is due 

no later than December 20, 2013.

Frances H. Pengra, et al.’s cross-appellants’ reply brief is due no later than January 9, 

2014. 

GWV Kirby LLC’s cross-appellant’s reply brief is due no later than January 9, 2014.

No further extensions will be granted.
2

We dismiss Appellee’s Unopposed Motion to Set Briefing Schedule, filed on June 3, 

2013, and the Agreed Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s and Cross-Appellants’ Briefs, 

filed on June 19, 2013, as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 14, 2013
From: keithcalhoun@carolina.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:17:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Calhoun

Bessemer City, NC 28016
No. 63760.

protests 58/4065, 317413-K, and 59/1028 (New York).

#### Electric & Musical Industries (U.S.), Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries*(US), *Ltd.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Jonathan Nieves, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Ramona Morel, et al., Respondents, v 1097 Walton Realty Co., Also Known as 1097-99 Walton Realty Co. or 1099 Walton Realty, Appellant, and National Management Consultants, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 115]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant-appellant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims against plaintiff mother and granted plaintiffs cross motion to strike defendant-appellant’s first and second affirmative defenses of culpable conduct and assumption of the risk, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the proposed counterclaims were simply a disingenuous attempt to assert a negligent supervision claim against the plaintiff mother contrary to well-settled law *(Holodook v Spencer,*36 NY2d 35, 51). Inasmuch as Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2013 (h) impose nondelegable duties upon defendant to keep its premises in good repair and remove or cover lead paint therein, respectively, the IAS Court properly struck the affirmative defenses of culpable conduct and assumption of the risk. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.
**Docket Number: FA A**  **- 2012**  **- 0590**
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

MAC Electric Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62558, 62559, 62792

)

Under Contract No. W9124R

- 11

- D

- 0214 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Gunjan R. Talati, Esq.

Kilpatrick T ownsend & S tockton LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

1LT Bryan R. Williamson, JA

MAJ Aaron McCartney, JA

Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 23, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62558, 62559, 62792

, Appeals of

MAC Electric Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 23, 2022 DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Joan Nadel, Appellant, v George Nadel, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 631]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated January 14, 1994, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) failed to separately value the defendant husband’s accounting license, (2) awarded her maintenance in the amount of $2,167 per month for a period of five years, and (3) awarded her counsel fees in the amount of $55,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting from the tenth decretal paragraph thereof the words "for a period of five (5) years” and substituting therefor the words "said payments to continue until the plaintiff’s remarriage or the death of either party”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

Contrary to the plaintiff wife’s contentions, the Supreme Court acted properly in excluding the testimony of her expert witness regarding the valuation of the defendant husband’s license as a certified public accountant. The record demonstrates that the husband acquired his license in 1968, and he thereafter fully developed his career in the field of business *566finance during the next 20 years of the marriage. Accordingly, the court accurately determined that the husband’s license had merged in his career and was not subject to separate valuation and equitable distribution *(see, Nolan v Nolan,*215 AD2d 795; *Kaufman v Kaufman,*207 AD2d 528; *Maher v Maher,*196 AD2d 530; *Kalisch v Kalisch,*184 AD2d 751).

However, while we discern no impropriety in the amount of monthly maintenance awarded to the wife by the trial court, we find that the imposition of a five-year durational limit on the award was improper. In view of the wife’s age, her physical condition, and the number of years she has remained out of the workforce in order to accommodate the husband’s career advancement, it is unlikely that she will obtain such gainful employment as would eventually make her self-supporting *(see, Neumark v Neumark,*120 AD2d 502). Moreover, given the comfortable, if not lavish, standard of living which the parties enjoyed during the marriage and the husband’s continued substantial income and earning capacity, an award of permanent maintenance in this case is appropriate *(see, Schnee v Schnee,*152 AD2d 665; *see generally, Merzon v Merzoh,*210 AD2d 462). Hence, we have modified the judgment accordingly.

Finally, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the court’s award of counsel fees in the amount of $55,000 *(see generally,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *DeCabrera v CabreraRósete,*70 NY2d 879). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.