alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, Plaintiff, v Resource Recycling, Inc., et al., Defendants, Jack O. A. Nelson Agency et al., Appellants, and Universal Welding & Engineering, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of Wisconsin et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[722 NYS2d 571]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a contract to procure insurance, the defendants Jack O. A. Nelson Agency and Donald Miller appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), entered March *57528, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendant third-party plaintiff, Universal Welding & Engineering, and the third-party defendants, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of Wisconsin and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of New York, for summary judgment on the cross claim of Universal Welding *&*Engineering insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“[A]n agent or broker may be held liable for neglect in failing to procure insurance with liability limited to that which would have been borne by the insurer had the policy been in force” *(Kinns v Schulz,*131 AD2d 957, 959; *see, Tucci v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.,*167 AD2d 387, 388; *American Motorists Ins. Co. v Salvatore,*102 AD2d 342, 346). Liability may be based upon either breach of contract or tort *(see, Kinns v Schulz, supra; American Motorists Ins. Co. v Salvatore, supra).*The fact that an agent acts for a disclosed principal does not relieve the agent of liability for its own negligent acts *(see, Tucci v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., supra,*at 388).

Here, the respondents proffered sufficient evidence to establish the entitlement of the defendant third-party plaintiff to summary judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim against the appellants. The appellants’ opposing papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact that they were not negligent in failing to procure the requested insurance coverage *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany the  Registrant's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
January 29, 2005:

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Del Global  Technologies  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mark
Koch,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350,  adopted pursuant to Section 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
            Section  15(d),  as applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                          /s/ Mark Koch
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Mark Koch
                                          Title: Principal Accounting Officer
                                          Date:  March 16, 2005

      (1)   A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906
            has  been  provided  to Del  Global  Technologies  Corp  and will be
            retained  by Del Global  Technologies  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
            Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

            The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
            U.S.C.  Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or
            as a separate disclosure document.
```
No. 11153.

#### The City of Cincinnati, by etc., *v.*Von Bargen, Auditor, et al.

Decided March 10, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Edward M. Ballard,*city solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Ellis G. Kinkead*and *Mr. Jonas B.' Frenkel,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sitaucic, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40456 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS ISRAEL ARCE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-496-01

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Israel Arce appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Arce contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Arce concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5thNo. 02-40456 -2- Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40504

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO CESAR BARRERA-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-386-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Julio Cesar Barrera-Guzman has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 2, 200 5 I N RE 

### M. J.M ., JR. , L .P .M ., & C .A .O. M. Ap peal fromthe Juvenile C ourt f or White Coun ty N o. JU 183 9 S am Be nn in gf ie ld , Ju dg e

N o. M 2004 -0 2377 -C OA -R 3- P T - F ile d A pr il 14, 200 5

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J

. , co n cu rr i n g. I continue to disag ree with the standard of revie w employ ed b y t h e C o u rt in this case for r e asons discussed at leng th in In Re Z.J.S. No

. 2 0 0 2 -0 2 2 3 5 -C OA -R 3 -J V, 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 2 6 6 8 5 4 at *18- 22 (Tenn.Ct.App.June 3, 2003) (no Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 11 application filed) and Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger , 56 S.W .3d 527, 533-37 (Te nn.Ct.App.2001). A pre ponderance of the evidenc e standa

rd is inconsistent and irre concilable with a clear a nd convincing evidenc e standa rd e ith e r i n th e tr ia l c ou rt

or on app e a l. I concur with the result in this case e ven under my view of the clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e standard. T his case pr esents a tr oubling e x ample of w hat has a ppear ed i n a number of pre vious case s. T h e Pe r man e n c y

Pl a n w a s o r d e r e d o n M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 3

. T h e Pe ti ti o n to T e r mi n a te Pa r e n ta l Rig hts wa s f

ile d N ov e mbe r 2 1, 20 03

. Af te r the fi lin g of

the Pe tit ionto T e rm inate Pare nta l Rig hts , th e Dep art men t paid s c a nt atte nti on to D .M . e ve n th ou g h th e Pe rm a ne nc y Pla n b y its ve ry te rm s envisioned a completion date of May 22, 2004. The Court c orre ctly holds that the unilateral de cision of the De partment a s to the timi ng of t he filing of a Petition to Terminate Par ental Rig hts does not discharg e the De partment fr om continuing to he lp the pare nt to mee t the g oals of the Permanenc y Plan. The “too-little, too-late” conce pt should not be determined a s of the date of the f iling of the Petition t o Terminate without reg ard to e ither th e t er m i nation of the Perma nency Plan or de ve lop me nts that oc c ur

be tw e e n th e fi lin g of

the Pe tition to Te rm inate a nd the he ari ng on the me ri ts of the Petition. Given the fac t that D .M. suffe rs from a powerful addiction, it may well be that she will never be able t o free hers elf fr om i t, b ut the re c or d d isc los e s a de te rm ine d e ff

ort onhe r p art

to t ry . It is simplyto ear ly

to say “too little, too late.” I c on c ur in the jud g me nt.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7375 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7375

 To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise rules to 
  exclude business development companies from certain ``Acquired Fund 
         fees and expenses'' reporting, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

  Mr. Sherman (for himself and Mr. Stivers) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise rules to 
  exclude business development companies from certain ``Acquired Fund 
         fees and expenses'' reporting, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Small Business Investor 
Capital Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUDING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES FROM CERTAIN 
              ``ACQUIRED FUND FEES AND EXPENSES'' REPORTING.

    (a) Revision to Rules.--Not later than the end of the 2-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission shall revise any rule of the Commission relating to 
investment company registration statements to specify that, when 
calculating the fees and expenses of an Acquired Fund, the term 
``Acquired Fund'' does not include a business development company.
    (b) Failure To Issue Rules.--If the Commission does not make the 
revisions required under subsection (a) before the end of the 2-year 
period described in subsection (a), any reference to an Acquired Fund 
in a rule of the Commission relating to investment company registration 
statements (including in any item in or instruction to Forms N-1A, -2, 
-3, -4, and -6) shall, when used in the context of calculating the fees 
and expenses of an Acquired Fund, be deemed to not include a business 
development company.
    (c) Business Development Company Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``business development company'' has the meaning given that term 
under section 2(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80a-2(a)).
    (d) Rules of Construction.--Any reference in this section to--
            (1) a form means such form and any successor form; and
            (2) the terms ``Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses'' and 
        ``Acquired Fund'' defined or otherwise used in such a form 
        shall mean any successor terms or provisions adopted by the 
        Securities and Exchange Commission.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 20526]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-9]                         

[[Page 20526]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2010-1]

 
Section 111 and Interest Payments

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule: technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office makes a technical amendment to its rule 
on interest payments by cable operators.

DATES: This technical amendment is effective April 20, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben E. Golant, Assistant General 
Counsel or Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, 
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. 
Telefax: (202) 707-8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cable systems submitting statutory payments 
in an untimely fashion, or who have underpaid the amount due, must 
include the proper interest charge along with their royalties. See 
Assessment of Interest Regarding the Cable Compulsory License, 54 FR 
14217, 14220-21 (Apr. 10, 1989). It has been the Office's longstanding 
practice that interest is not due when the amount has been less than or 
equal to five dollars. Section 201.17(i)(2)(iii) had codified this 
practice. However, this rule was inadvertently removed when the Office 
updated its electronic funds transfer requirements four years ago. 
Prior to the adoption of these regulations, Section 201.17(i)(2)(iii) 
read as follows, ``Interest is not required to be paid on any royalty 
underpayment or late payment from a particular accounting period if the 
interest charge is less than or equal to five dollars.'' To correct 
this error we are amending Section 201.17(i)(4) to restore this 
language on the five dollar threshold.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

Final Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, part 201 of 37 CFR chapter II is 
amended as follows:

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1.The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.

Sec.  201.17 [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  201.17(i)(4) by adding ``Interest is not required to be 
paid on any royalty underpayment or late payment from a particular 
accounting period if the interest charge is less than or equal to five 
dollars.'' after ``then the accrual period shall end on the date of the 
actual receipt by the Copyright Office.''

    Dated: April 14, 2010
Tanya Sandros,
Deputy General Counsel,
U.S. Copyright Office
[FR Doc. 2010-8970 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-S
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7337 

To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 

6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012 is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews. 

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 ‘‘Proportional Reviews 

5 for Broadband Deployment Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7337 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF NEPA AND NHPA TO WIRELESS 

2 FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT. 

3 Section 6409(a)(3) of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

4 and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(a)) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION OF NEPA; NHPA.— 

7 ‘‘(A) NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—An eligible facili9 ties request shall be categorically excluded 

10 from the requirement to prepare an envi11 ronmental assessment or an environmental 

12 impact statement under section 102 of the 

13 National Environmental Policy Act of 

14 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

15 ‘‘(ii) RELATION TO EXTRAORDINARY

16 CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEDURES.—The use 

17 of the categorical exclusion under clause (i) 

18 shall not be considered to include extraor19 dinary circumstances under section 220.6 

20 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, or 

21 section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal 

22 Regulations (or any successor to those reg23 ulations). 

24 ‘‘(B) NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION

25 ACT EXEMPTION.—An eligible facilities request 

26 shall not be considered an undertaking under 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7337 IH

1 section 300320 of title 54, United States 

2 Code.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Mariposa County 1978 SIP Compilation – Permit related rules

A review of the June 30, 1972 California SIP submittal for Mariposa County shows that Rules 

12-17, pertaining to the permit program, were included in this submittal. The June 30, 1972 

submittal was approved by EPA in their entirety. (40 CFR 52.220 (c)(6))

In August 1978, EPA published a compilation of the California SIP for each District. Rules 12-

17, relating to the permit program are contained in this compilation. The current electronic 

version of California’s approved SIP, as shown on EPA’s website shows that Rules 14 – Posting 

of Permit and 15 – Altering of Permit remain in the SIP, while Rules 16 – Revocation of Permit

and 17 – Penalty were formally removed from the SIP through an EPA rulemaking action. While 

Rule 12 and 13 are not listed in EPA’s current on-line SIP for Mariposa, EPA has no evidence 

that these rules were ever removed from or replaced in the SIP. In addition, EPA is not aware of 

any reason that required SIP elements for a minor source permit program would have been 

removed from the SIP without replacement. Therefore EPA finds that Rules 12 and 13, as 

provided below, remain part of the Mariposa County portion of the California SIP. 

Below is a copy of the SIP approved rules.

12. Permits Required.

No person shall build, alter, or replace any equipment, the use of which may cause the issuance 

of air contaminants, without first having been issued a special use permit by the Mariposa 

County Planning-Commission. The Planning Commission shall not approve an application for a 

special use permit until it has been proven, by the applicant, that the Air Quality Standards set 

forth by the California Air Resources Board, or the U.S. Air Quality Board (whichever is more 

strict) and the Mariposa County Air Pollution Control Board, can, and will be complied with at

all times while the equipment is in operation. Whenever specialized testing equipment, 

laboratory services, recording equipment, or other equipment, services, or devices are required, 

or deemed to be beneficial to the county, such equipment, services or devices shall be provided, 

or financed, by the person applying for and receiving the special use permit. ·

13. Appeals.

In the event a special use permit application is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant 

may, within ten days apply in writing for an appeal hearing by the Air Pollution Control Hearing 

Board of the Mariposa Air Pollution Control District.
#### Laird B. LEGG, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1028.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Warren H. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 4.2


 


		
        INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
        OF DELAWARE

        NANO VIBRONIX, INC.

         
	


 


	SHARES OF COMMON STOCK	PREFERRED STOCK
	PAR VALUE $        EACH	PAR VALUE $            EACH


 


THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE
TO ANY SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS,


PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING,
OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES


THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS
OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS


 


	This is to Certify that	 	is the owner of
	 


 


FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF
THE COMMON STOCK OF


 


NANO VIBRONIX, INC.


 


transferable on the books of the Corporation
by the holder hereof in person or by duly


 


authorized Attorney, upon surrender of this
Certificate, properly endorsed.


 


Witness, the seal of the Corporation and
the signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 


Dated: 





 


	 	 	 
	SECRETARY	THIS CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS

SET FORTH ON THE BACK HEREOF.	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH


THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR


  


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on
the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


 


	TEN COM	-as tenants in common	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -	.....Custodian .........
	 	 	 	(Cust)                 (Minor)
	TEN ENT	-as tenants by the entireties	 	Under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
	JT TEN	- as joint tenants with right of 

  survivorship and not as tenants in common	 	Act .............................             

                  (State)


 


Additional abbreviations may also be used
though not in the above list.


 


For value received _____ hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER


IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


	
         

         
	 	 


 


 


(PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)


 


 





 



 


 


 






 


___________________________________________________________________________Shares


 


represented by the within Certificate,
and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


____________________________________________
Attorney


 


to transfer the said Shares on the
books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitition in the premises.


 


Dated _________________ 20__


 


In presence of
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350








The undersigned, Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Royale Energy, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that:





(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:  August 4, 2010
By:
/s/ Stephen M. HosmerStephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer