alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter A. Noyes et al., Respondents, v Evan Galen et al., Defendants, and Robert Merrill, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 73]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Robert Merrill appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered September 23, 1998, which, upon the granting of the plaintiffs’ application made at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ application for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability is denied, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff Peter Noyes alleged that he was injured by a *366“shingling hatchet” he was holding when the scaffolding on which he was working “see-sawed”, causing him to fall. Noyes and his wife (asserting derivative claims) thereafter commenced this action against, *inter alia,*the defendant Robert Merrill, the general contractor on the job, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240. After the close of evidence, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ application for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. We now reverse and order a new trial.

In granting an application for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must determine that by no rational process could the triers of fact find in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented *(see, Ampolini v Long Is. Light. Co.,*186 AD2d 772). In considering such a motion, the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where the credibility of the witnesses is in question *(see, Ampolini v Long Is. Light. Co., supra).*Here, on the evidence presented, the jury could have drawn conflicting inferences as to the credibility of the witnesses, and as to how the accident occurred *(see, Ampolini v Long Is. Light. Co., supra; Garbacki v Hovnani at 80 N. Westchester,*248 AD2d 434). Accordingly, the trial court should not have granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiffs, and a new trial is required. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
Before the First Division,

December 12, 1945

No. 50760.

#### Protest 93818-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 50248, the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 (b) (2) was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50635-50636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

State Energy Advisory Board Teleconference

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference call of the State 
Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 18, 2014 from 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. (ET). To 
receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Hughes, STEAB Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. 
Phone number (202) 320-9703, or email at: Julie.Hughes@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative 
policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as 
designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Receive STEAB Task Force updates on action items 
and next steps, review of feedback from DOE and EERE with regards to 
recently submitted recommendations regarding the Lab Impact Initiative, 
the Weatherization Program and the Quadrennial Energy Review, discuss 
potential engagement on relevant issues related to the Engagement Plan, 
and receive updates on member activities within their states.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Julie Hughes at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must 
be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will 
be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the 
Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site at: 
www.steab.org.

[[Page 50636]]

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 19, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-20131 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 19-2008]

Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the application requesting special-purpose subzone status for the motor vehicle manufacturing plant of Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. The application was filed on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 20247, 4-15-2008).

The withdrawal was requested due to changed circumstances involving potential expansion of FTZ 26 to include new general-purpose (multi-user) sites in the western Georgia area, and the case has been closed without prejudice.

Dated: April 25, 2008.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-10077 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 43227.

#### Protests 882392-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paperweights chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. On the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 211, C. A. D. 20) the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2035 

To provide support for workforce residential housing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2012 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide support for workforce residential housing, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workforce Residential 

5 Housing Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WORKFORCE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. 

7 Section 513 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

8 1731b) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b)— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2035 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘or (2)’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘(2)’’; and 

3 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

4 end the following: ‘‘, or (3) the project is for 

5 workforce residential housing property and is 

6 covered by a mortgage insured under section 

7 207’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (e)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘and (2)’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘(2)’’; and 

11 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

12 end the following: ‘‘, and (3) the term ‘work13 force residential property’ means multifamily 

14 housing that rents units for a minimum stay of 

15 7 days and does not provide retail hotel amen16 ities, as defined by the Secretary’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 9926)

#### James G. Wiley, a/c Yale Sales Company *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-2904, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1961)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for tbe plaintiff.

*'William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. EitzGitton,*trial attorney), for tbe defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Mk. Glad: If it please tbe Court, this appeal is abandoned except as to entries number 2904 and 9639, and as to entry number 2904, the appeal is abandoned except as to items number 217/Z1 and 2, and as to that item, I offer to stipulate that at tbe period of exportation the export value of such or similar merchandise, as defined by Section 402 of tbe Act, was $75.30, less 33% per cent.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : Tbe Government agrees.

> Me. Glad : I further offer to stipulate that during the period of exportation there was not any higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : Government agrees.

> Mr. Glad : And that this was a net packed figure.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : Government agrees.

> Mr. Glad : As to entry number 9639, this appeal is abandoned except as to item number H 300/R5, and as to that item, I offer to stipulate that during the period of exportation there was no foreign, export or United States value, as defined by Section 402 of the Act, for such or similar merchandise.

> I further offer to agree that cost of production of such or similar merchandise during that period is represented by the figure of $3.70, less 33% per cent.

> Mb. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

On the agreed facts, I find (1) that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described *606on the invoice covered by entry No.' 2904 as items numbered 217/Z1 and 2, and that such value is $75.30, less 33% per centum, net packed; and (2) that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described on the invoice covered by entry No. 9639 as item number H 300/R5, and that such value is $3.70, less 33% per centum.

As to all other entries and all other items of merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Veronica Chen,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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: May
11, 2009




/s/ Veronica ChenVeronica
      Chen
                Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
No. 96-6029.

#### Altamirano *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
USGS HomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 388
#### Person & Weidhorn et al. *v.*United States

No. 6616.

Entry No. 749298, etc.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, March 28, 1942, etc.

Certified March 31, 1942, etc.

Entered at' New York, N. Y., April 28, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisemént listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*481On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised yalues, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.4.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                       CHANTAL PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

               (UNDER SECTION 242 OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW)


      CHANTAL PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing
under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),
does hereby certify that:

      FIRST:   The name of the Corporation is Chantal Pharmaceutical
Corporation.

      SECOND:  The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby
amended by striking out the first sentence of Article "FOURTH" thereof and by
substituting in lieu of said sentence the following provisions:

               "FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the Corporation is
      authorized to issue is 51,000,000, divided into 1,000,000 shares of
      Preferred Stock, par value $.10 per share, and 50,000,000 shares of Common
      Stock, par value $.01 per share."

      THIRD:   The Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation herein
certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Sections
222 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate this
17th  day of July, 1997.


                                       /s/Chantal Burnison
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Chantal Burnison, Chairman of
                                        the Board and Chief Executive Officer
No. 96-7843.

#### Wharton *v.*Johnson et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 6142.

#### GARLICK POSTER ADV. CO. vs. GEO. R. STRICKLE.

Syllabus.

1. No obligation can arise out of a transaction where there is error on both sides, except the obligation to restore what has been received in error.

2. A lease for no fixed time may be terminated at the will of either party.

Appeal from t)he Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 103,198. Hon. Porter Par-' leer, Judge

Stafford and Robinson, for plaintiff and appellant. Emile Pomes, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

To make a long story short: When Junius G-arlick paid and defendant received the $100 in Septemebr, 1912, both were under the impression that it was a payment of rent up to date. So that no contractual relations grew up between the parties out of that transaction, giving Garlick the right to use the premises for another year. *319For neither party had at that time any thought that he; was entering into such a^ contract, C. C., 1798, 1819.

Opinion and decree June 15, 1914.

For the rest the agreement of June 28, 1910, by which for “$50 per year,” Garlick obtained the right to erect a fence on defendant’s property and use the same “-until the property is sold or improved for other purposes,” was nothing more than a lease for no fixed time, and therefore terminable at the will of either party after the first year (O. C., 2686).

Plaintiff was notified to remove its fence but failed to do so; and defendant was only using his own right when he removed it himself.

Defendant, however, must return (as he admits) the $50.00 received in error.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Garlick Poster Advertising Co., and against the defendant, George E. Strickle, for the full sum of Fifty Dollars, with legal interest from judicial demand, and the costs of both Courts.
No. 47754.

#### Protest 961673-G of Great Lakes Foundry Sand Co.

C. D. 685. Government’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 10.18



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into as of January 1, 2006, by and among NEW YORK RADIATION THERAPY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and YONKERS RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., a New York professional corporation (the PC). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative
Services Agreement dated January 1, 1999 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $605,650.00 paid in 2005 to a monthly Service Fee of $583,150.00, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated
January 1, 2005. From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:



3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a
monthly Service Fee of $583,150.00. The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services
provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                      |  |                             
|--------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Accepted: |  | NEW YORK RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                      |  | David Koeninger             
|          |  |                                                      |  | Vice President and CFO      
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | YONKERS RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C.            
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                      |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.    
|          |  |                                                      |  | President
# C_2012209EN.01000703.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/7

---

Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)

(Case T-191/12)

2012/C 209/12

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher and C. Onken, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles Well SA (Le Vigan, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 2552/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 2552/2010-1;

| — | Reject the Opposition No 1299967; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the Opposition No 1299967; and

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark ‘wellness inspired by nature’, for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No W00924808

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 527630 of the word mark ‘WELL’, for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99804486 of the word mark ‘WELLNESS’, for goods in class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and refused protection to the international registration for all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---