alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of DAPHNE CHANOINE, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered November 26, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.</p><p>A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action has expired (<a href="../2009/2009_05107.htm" target="_blank"><i>see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr</i>, 63 AD3d 903</a> [2009]; <a href="../2008/2008_02793.htm" target="_blank"><i>Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C.</i>, 49 AD3d 815</a> [2008]). In the case at bar, MVAIC established that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the timeliness of the action (<a href="../2011/2011_52274.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 34 Misc 3d 126</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]; <a href="../2008/2008_28157.htm" target="_blank"><i>Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 19 Misc 3d 69</a> [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2008]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: October 13, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
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 quarterly report of AMHN, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2009 (the Report), I, Donald R. Mastropietro, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Donald R. Mastropietro
|Donald R. Mastropietro    
|Chief Financial Officer   
|November 16, 2009         

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MT97-3-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 3, 1997, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(El Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 357, to become 
effective March 5, 1997.
    El Paso states that the tendered tariff sheet revises the 
identification of marketing affiliates to state that affiliate contract 
information is provided on El Paso's Electronic Bulletin Board.
    El Paso states that copies of the filing have been served upon all 
interstate pipeline system transportation customers of El Paso and 
interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4128 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3729]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dry Smith Timber Sale, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Lewis 
County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: On February 22 , 1991, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Dry Smith Timber Sale on 
the Packwood Ranger District of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest was 
published in the Federal Register (56 FR 7336). A draft EIS was 
released for public comment November 1993. A Notice of Availability for 
the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 
1993 (58 FR 61090). Forest Service has decided to cancel the 
environmental analysis process. There will be no final EIS for the Dry 
Smith Timber Sale. The NOI is hereby rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
cancellation to Bill Uyesugi, Intergrated Resource Planning Assistant, 
Packwood Ranger District, 13068 US Highway 12, Packwood, Washington 
98361 or telephone 360-497-1100.

    Dated: February 7, 1997.
Ted C. Stubblefield,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-3729 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

)


In the Matter of
 ) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER ON MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING DATE 

On October 1, 2008, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore," "Daramic" or 

"Respondent"), filed a Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date. The Complaint in this matter stated 

that the hearng on the Complaint would be begin on December 9,2008, or other such date as 

determined by the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent asserts that to begin the hearing only 

eighty-four days after service of 
 the Complaint is manifestly unjust and would deprive 

Respondent of a reasonable opportunity to prepare its defense. Respondent requests that the 

hearng begin on May 18, 2009. 

Whle it is true that December 9, 2008 does not allow suffcient time for the paries to 

prepare for the administrative trial in this case, the Initial Decision is required to be issued within 

one year of the date of 
 the Complaint. Accordingly, on October 3, 2008, the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges provided the parties with a draft scheduling order in advance of the 

Initial Prehearing Conference. The draft scheduling order sets April 14, 2009 as the date on 

which the hearing in this matter wil commence. 

On October 3,2008, Complaint Counsel filed its response to Respondent's motion. 

Complaint Counsel represents it has no objection to the April 14,2009 trial date. 

Respondent's motion to reschedule the hearing date is GRANTED in par and DENIED 

in part. The administrative trial wil not begin on December 9,2008; it wil begin on April 14, 

2009. 

ORDERED: Ji~ ~f 

D. Michael Chapp 11
 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 7,2008
#### The State, ex rel. The Domhoff & Joyce Co., *v.*Harlan et al., Judges.

*Mandamus*— Adequate *remedy at law.*

(No. 18296

Decided January 22, 1924.)

In Mandamus.

*Mr. Frank Brandon*and *Mr. Murray Seasongood,*for relator.

*Messrs. Shotts & Millikin*and *Messrs. Ernst, Cassatt &*Cottle, for defendants.

The Court finds that the relator has an adequate remedy at law and the alternative writ of mandamus is therefore denied and the petition dismissed.

*Writ denied and petition dismissed. ■*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
----

----

EXHIBIT (32)(a)

| (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: July 28, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Vinod M. Khilnani                      |   |
|                |   | Vinod M. Khilnani                               |   |
|                |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                |   |                                            |   |
#### Riquilda CANCIO, Petitioner, v. SHELDEN COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 42866.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Filed 11/1/00 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2000 ND 193

Lake Region Lutheran Home, Inc.

d/b/a Heartland Care Center, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Myrtle A. Halvorson, Individually, 

Coby Dalgliesh, Individually, and 

as Attorney in Fact for Myrtle A. 

Halvorson, Defendants

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

Coby Dalgliesh, Individually, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20000120

Appeal from the District Court of Cavalier County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Laurie A. Fontaine, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Coby Dalgliesh (submitted on brief), pro se, Box 4, Sarles, N.D. 58372, defendant and appellant.

Robert G. Ackre (submitted on brief), Ackre & Baer Chartered, 517 Main Street, P.O. Box 685, Cando, N.D. 58324-0685, for plaintiff and appellee.

Lake Region Lutheran Home, Inc. v. Halvorson, et al.

No. 20000120

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Coby Dalgliesh appeals from an order dismissing his motion to vacate judgment.  Dalgliesh was unable to appear at oral argument and the appellee waived oral argument.  Accordingly, the case was decided on the parties’ briefs under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e).  The standard of review for the dismissal of a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60, N.D.R.Civ.P., is abuse of discretion.  See Braunberger v. Interstate Engineering, Inc., 2000 ND 45, ¶ 10, 607 N.W.2d 904.  Under Rule 35.1(a)(4), N.D.R.App.P., we summarily affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Carol Ronning Kapsner

James H. O’Keefe, S.J.

[¶3]The Honorable James H. O’Keefe, S.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

AN ACT 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents 

for Humanity Program to be transferable. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7259 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patents for Humanity 

3 Program Improvement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFI5 CATES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—A holder of an acceleration certifi7 cate issued pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Pro8 gram (established in the notice entitled ‘‘Humanitarian 

9 Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 

10 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the 

11 United States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer 

12 (including by sale) the entitlement to such acceleration 

13 certificate to another person. 

14 (b) REQUIREMENT.—An acceleration certificate 

15 transferred under subsection (a) shall be subject to any 

16 other applicable limitations under the notice entitled ‘‘Hu17 manitarian Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. 

18 Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor thereto. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

AN ACT 

Patents for Humanity Program to be transferable. 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the
EX-10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 

Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. 

Board Compensation 

Effective January 1, 2014 

Holding Company and Bank Directors* 
  

					
	 Director Compensation Category
	  	Effective 1/1/14	 
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	30,000	 
	 Equity - Restricted Stock
	  	$	50,000	 
	 All Boards - Meeting Fee
	  	$	1,500	 
	 All Committees - Meeting Fee
	  	$	1,200	 
	 Lead Director Annual Retainer
	  	$	30,000	 
	 Audit Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	$	12,500	 
	 Compensation Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	$	12,500	 
	 Nom. & Corp. Governance Chair Annual Retainer
	  	$	7,500	 
	 Risk Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	$	7,500	 
	 Telephone Participation Meeting Fee
	  	 
 	60% of In-Person
Meeting Fee	  
** 

  

	*	Only one fee will be paid for participation in combined holding company and bank board or committee meetings. 


	**	Includes all telephonic meetings, even if they are single topic. 

 Subsidiary Board and Committee Fees

  

					
	 Director Compensation Category
	  	Effective 1/1/14	 
	 All Boards - Meeting Fee
	  	$	1,500	 
	 All Committees - Meeting Fee
	  	$	1,200	 
	 Telephonic Participation Meeting Fee
	  	 
 	60% of In-Person
Meeting Fee	  
* 

  

	*	Includes all telephonic meetings, even if they are single topic.
In the Matter of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERA TRAE COMMSSION

CHICAGO BRIGE & IRON COMPAN, N.

a foreign corporation

PUBLIC

CHICAGO BRIGE & IRON COMPAN

a corporation, and

Docket No. 9300

PITT-DES MOINS, INC.

a corporation.

To: Commission

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO PITT-DES MOINES'

BRIEFING ON COMPLAINT COUNSEL'

MOTION FOR CLARFICATION

Complaint Counsel submit this response to Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. s April 6, 2005

Briefing on Complaint Counsel' s Motion for Clarfication ("PDM Briefmg ), which was fied in

response to the Commission s order of March 15 2005.

In its brief, Pitt-Des Moines presents certain issues concernng the feasibility of granting a

license that would allow the Acquirer of the Relevant Business divested pursuant to the

Commission s Final Order to use the "Pitt-Des Moines" or "PDM" names or marks in

connection with the Relevant Business. Although Pitt-Des Moines suggests that it may be

necessar or advisable to obtain certain third-par consents for any such license to an Acquirer

it fuer states that "it would be in a position to sell or license" such rights "for a limited or

unlimited period oftime. PDM Briefing at 13. Accordingly, it does not appear that there are

any insurountable legal barers to such a license.
Complaint Counsel believe that Respondents should be required to divest and convey the

Pitt-Des Moines" and " DM" name and marks to an Acquirer on a permanent and exclusive

basis for use in conducting the Relevant Business as divested. Therefore, in view of Pitt-Des

Moines' assessment of the legal feasibility of such licensing, Complaint Counsel believe that

Respondents are fully capable oftakng such actions as are necessar to protect the name and

marks pending divestitue and to transfer them to the Acquirer on a permanent and exclusive

basis for use in the Relevant Business.

DATED: April 11, 2005

Respectfully submitted

Rhett R. Krlla

Elizabeth A. Piotrowski

Naomi Licker

David von Nirschl

Counsel Supporting the Complaint

. Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Washington, D.C. 20580
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I today caused:

One original and twelve copies of COMPLAINT COUNSEL S RESPONSE TO PITT-DES

MOINES' BRIEFING ON COMPLAINT COUNSEL S MOTION FOR CLARIICATION to-be

served by hand delivery and one copy to be served by electronic mail upon:

Office of the Secretar

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

One copy by facsimile and by first-class mail upon:

Jennfer L. Gray, Esq.

Robert M. Unger, Esq.

Brown Raysman Milstein Felder & Steiner LLP

900 Thrd Avenue

New York, New York 10022'

Tel: (212)895-2130

Fax: (212) 895-2900

Clifford H. Aronson, Esq.

Skadden, Ars, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Four Times Square

New York, NY 10036

. 

T'el:(212173S- 2644

Fax: (917) 777-2644

Charles W. Schwarz, Esq.

Skadden, Ars, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

1600 Smith, Suite 440

Houston, Texas 77002-7348

Tel: (713) 615-5160

Fax: (888) 329-2286

Counsel for Respondents

/; 

W7 

David von Nirschl

Commission Counsel

Dated: April 11 , 2005
#### John Henry MISHALANIE, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellee.

No. 71-45.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Otis Farrington, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tony HAYES, Petitioner, v. ADOBE BRICK AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Providence Washington Insurance Co. and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38512.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 21, 1969.

John R. Young, of Hamilton & James, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Kirk Sullivan, West Palm Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date March 12, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari and attorney’s fee are hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
### Date(s) Month/Day/Year 

### Start Time End Time am / pm am / pm am / pm am / pm am / pm am / pm am / pm am / pm US Environmental Protection Agency Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation

Important: The training program ma nager may complete this samp le form or similar form when noti fying the EPA. Consult the Instructions for Notifyi ng the EPA of Lead-Based Pain t Abatement Activities and Renovation Courses when preparing training notification. Please type or print responses in black or blue ink only.



### A. Type of Notification (Choose one) 

### B. Description of Training Course Discipline: Course Type: Language Presented: (Choose one) (Choose one) (Choose one) Original Updated Cancellation

Worker Supervisor Inspector Risk Assessor Project Designer Renovator Dust Sampling Initial Refresher English Spanish Other_______

Technician

Principal Instructor:____________________________________________________________________________________ Training Location Name (if applicable):_____________________________________________________________________ Training Location Address:______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ Training Location Phone Number:_______________________________ 

### C. Training Program Name:________________________________________ Accreditation Number:_______________________________ Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number:_______________________________ 

### D. Training Managers Information (Please note that this form is incomplete without a signature) I hereby attest and affirm that the information included on this no tification form is true and accu rate to the best of my belief and knowledge. I acknowledge that any approval authorized pursuant to this notification will be subject to revocation if issuance was based on incorrect or inadequate information that materially affected the decision to issue the approval. Name_____________________________ Signature__________________________ Date Signed_________________ For information on EPA and other lead programs, see the web site: http://www.epa.gov/lead Street Address City State Zip Code

Street Address City State Zip Code
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[OR-030-08-1220-00: GP8-0062]


Notice of Meeting of Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Meeting of Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council.

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

SUMMARY: A meeting of the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council 
will be on January 27, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (MDT) and 
January 28, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Public comments are 
scheduled from 12:00 noon to 12:15 p.m. January 27, 1998.
    The meeting will be held at the National Interagency Fire Center, 
3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, Idaho. The Council will recess at an 
appropriate time for a lunch break of approximately one and one-half 
hours.
    The Council will discuss the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement and such other matters 
as may reasonably come before the Council.

ADDRESSES: The Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council will meet at 
the National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, 
Idaho.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonne Hower, Bureau of Land 
Management, Vale District, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, 
Telephone (541) 473-3144.

    Dated: December 10, 1997.
Edwin J. Singleton,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-33205 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M