alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10468]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Titian's Lady in White: A Renaissance 
Portrait Revealed'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition 
``Titian's Lady in White: A Renaissance Portrait Revealed,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Columbus Museum 
of Art, Columbus, Ohio, from on or about August 30, 2018, until on or 
about December 9, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#becddbddcad7d1d08c8a8b87fecdcadfcadb90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="57243234233e38396563626e17242336233279303821">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.

Jennifer Z. Galt,
Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-15409 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Craig Lopez, Appellant, v Northern Assurance Company of America et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[735 NYS2d 253]

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered November 8, 2000 in Sullivan County, which granted the motion of defendants Northern Assurance *629Company of America and Commercial Union Insurance Companies to vacate a default judgment entered against them.

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received $300,000 under his parents’ uninsured motorist insurance policy issued by defendant Commercial Union Insurance Companies (hereinafter CUI). Plaintiff then commenced this action against his parents, CUI and defendant Northern Assurance Company of America (hereinafter Northern) for a judgment declaring the availability of umbrella coverage under his parents’ homeowner’s policy issued by Northern and/or CUI. Having received no answers to the complaint, plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for judgment by default. Supreme Court granted the requested relief, and defendants CUI and Northern (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) then moved to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). Supreme Court granted their motion, and plaintiff now appeals.

The question of whether a party seeking to vacate a default judgment has sufficiently demonstrated the requisite reasonable excuse, meritorious defense, absence of willfulness and lack of prejudice to the opposing party is “ ‘ordinarily * * * left to the discretion of the lower courts’ ” *(Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693, 695, quoting *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594, 599). Here, defendants’ excuse for their default is based on the affidavit of Meredith Furel, a CUI claims representative, who averred that she had obtained an “open ended extension of time” from plaintiff’s counsel. Although plaintiff’s counsel denied agreeing to any extension, Supreme Court was not required to hold a hearing to resolve the issue before exercising its discretion *(see, Scielzi v Gold,*213 AD2d 872, 873). As a meritorious defense, CUI produced a general release executed by plaintiff. Understandably, Supreme Court questioned the integrity of the default judgment once it learned that plaintiffs counsel had not filed proof of service on all defendants and failed to disclose either the existence of the general release or his admitted contact with Furel. Given the lack of evidence that defendants’ default was willful or that plaintiff will be prejudiced thereby, we find no abuse of Supreme Court’s discretion in granting defendants’ motion to vacate their default.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### Icelene BROWN et al., Petitioners, v. The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, Respondent.

No. 43,552.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Morris W. Milton of Minnis, Williams & Milton, St. Petersburg, for petitioners.

John C. Chew, City Atty. and H. Pope Hamrick, Jr. of Kinsey, Vincent, Pyle & Williams, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J„ and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting):

This case relates to City of Daytona Beach v. Brown (Fla.App.1973), 273 So.2d 124. The Circuit Court on due appeal from the Municipal Court had held a disorderly conduct ordinance facially unconstitutional. On a second appeal to the Dis*548trict Court from the Circuit Court, that court held the ordinance constitutional. Irrespective of the merits of the ordinance, certiorari lies here to quash the unauthorized appellate decision of the District Court which acted beyond its appellate jurisdiction. See Section 6, Article V, Constitution of Florida 1885, as amended (now an unrepealed statute), which governed the jurisdiction of the appeals below in this case. Also see State v. Katz (Fla.App.3d), 108 So.2d 60. The question arises do we exercise our supervisory jurisdiction to maintain the appellate jurisdiction of our judicial system, as the Constitution provides, or do we “sweep under the rug” constitutional jurisdictional limits when we disagree with an initial decision below.
#### Ervin David FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
# PHANTOM PILOT TRAINING GUIDE 

# Earning Your Stripes Vl.l

Learn More: www.dji.com

# Basic Flight Maneuvers ( 

# *)
Slowly fly forward/back/left/right with bac:k of Phantom pointed at yourself.

Fly forward to a spot 20-30 feet away. Then fly back keeping the battery pointed at yourself.

Marte a spot (B) on the ground lOft 

### away from the Phantom' a take off point. Hover and fly towards that spot and land at thespot**(B~** Then go back into a hover and bring the Phantom back to its original poaition (A) and land again.


## '\ 

# ' ' 

# ' ' \ \o



# ' '**~'** 

## '**~'** 

# '



# ' '**~\** 

## eA

# Basic 

# Flight Maneuvers ( 

# *)
R Fly left 3 meters away from your take-off point, then fly right 

## g lOft from your take-off point all while keeping battery pointed at yourself. 

# t 3 meters

Then, while keeping the aircraft nose pointed forward, fly a 

### 4 point square box formation going clockwise. Be sure to be in control and stop and hover in place at each point before proceeding to the next point.

# ~~**-----~---~** 

# , ' 

# ,**~** ; 

## ' 

# -ti**~** e• I -•

### ~ 

# /
________.________**~..** 

# 0

Do the same as above but fly the

### 4 point box formation counter-clockwise. Be sure to be in control and stop and hover in place at each point before proceeding to the next point.



# _____ 

# ....., ___**~** ;**~** 

### ,' 

# ...... 

# , /

# ~- e• 

# /
_________**~**

# ________: · .. e

# Skilled Flight Maneuvers ( 

# * * ) D



# El In a hover, starting with the battery pointed at yourself, rotate 360 degrees clockwise.

In a hover, starting with the battery pointed at yourself, rotate 360 degrees counter-clockwise.

Starting with the battery pointed at yourself, go into a hover. Then rotate the Phantom 90 degreu facing left, and fly a 

### 4 point square box formation going clockwise. Be sure to be in control and stop and hover in place 

### at each point before proceeding to the next poinl 

# <p----**-~-----** I \ 

# , \ I \ 

# , \ 

# ' '**~** ' 

## , _**~ ~** 
' I ; '

# ~ 

# :r \
I L____! \**~--------·_...,**

## __________ l.
#### MELWEB SIGNS, INC., Appellant, v. BEEFY KING, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 2444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1969.

Paul R. Stern and Thomas C. Simpson, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Russell Troutman and Charles E. Davis, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Troutman & Salfi, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record in light of the appellate presentment and find no harmful or reversible error. We specifically reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to ■ admit the deposition of Tatsuo Rushing, appellees’ witness, for impeachment purposes for the reason that appellant did not properly lay a predicate in accordance with Hancock v. *829McDonald, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 56. Also see 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 240-248.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Fourth Quarter 1996 and 1995

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                     Fourth    Fourth  Standard
                                    quarter   quarter  error on   Standard      1996
Type                                   1996      1995      1996   error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  114,555   112,987       238        331       100

  Occupied........................  101,264   100,363       246        342        88
    Owner occupied................   66,277    65,355       240        333        58
    Renter occupied...............   34,987    35,008       198        274        31

  Vacant..........................   13,291    12,624       131        179        12
    Year-round vacant.............    9,979     9,529       114        157         9
      For rent....................    2,950     2,966        63         88         3
      For sale only...............    1,146     1,050        40         54         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      763       763        32         45         1
      Held off market.............    5,120     4,750        83        113         4
        For occasional use........    1,742     1,671        49         67         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.      877       786        35         47         1
        For other reasons.........    2,501     2,293        59         80         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,312     3,095        67         92         3
#### In the Matter of Lawrence Maggio et al., Appellants, v Barbara Furia et al., Respondents.

[722 NYS2d 72]

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 6, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Spitz, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied their petition to modify a prior order of the same court (Cooney, J.), dated May 13, 1997, awarding custody of the petitioners’ daughter to the respondents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking to regain custody of their infant daughter. By prior order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 1997, custody had been awarded to the respondents, the infant’s paternal aunt and uncle. In the order appealed from, the Family Court, after a plenary hearing, determined that custody should remain with the respondents and that the petitioners were entitled to supervised visitation. We affirm.

In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a biological parent may not be deprived of custody of his or her child, and an inquiry into the best interests of the child is not reached *(see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543; *Matter of Kreger v Newell,*221 AD2d 630; *Matter of Williams v Dunston,*202 AD2d 681). Here, contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Family Court properly relied on the prior order of the Family Court establishing that extraordinary circumstances existed *(see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B.,*219 AD2d 289, 292). The petitioners are barred from raising any issues regarding the propriety of the prior order on this appeal, since, by decision and order on motion dated June 10, 1998, their appeal from that order was dismissed for lack of prosecution *(see, Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750, 757; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350, 353). In any event, the record on appeal supports a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist.

The record also supports the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the infant are served by continuing her custody with the respondents *(see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*supra; *Matter of Kreger v Newell,*supra; *Matter of Williams v Dunston,*supra; *Matter of Katherine D. v Christine D.,*187 AD2d 587) and that supervised visitation with the petitioners is appropriate *(see, Matter of James P. W. v Eileen M. W.,*
      *629136 AD2d 549). Therefore, the order is affirmed. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph B. Leonard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Stanley J Gadek, Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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, 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.



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                                              
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|               |  |  | 
|August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JOSEPH B. LEONARD                        
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard                            
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer         
|               |  |  | 
|               |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ STANLEY J. GADEK                         
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                             
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and
|               |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PROLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006                    /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Charles E. Johnson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       32
```
Exhibit 
32.1.2  Certification Required Under Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated
Edison, Inc. (the Company) certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended 
December 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, (the Form
10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Joan S. FreilichJoan S. FreilichDated:  February 24, 2004
EX-10.2


  EXHIBIT 10.2

   

  AMENDMENT made effective as of September 1, 2022 to Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated July 8, 2019 between Voxx International Corporation, 180 Marcus Blvd., Hauppauge, New York 11788 (the “Company”) and Charles M. Stoehr, an individual residing at 2623 Sunset Avenue, Westhampton Beach, New York (the “Executive”) 

  WHEREAS, due the present global economic conditions (the “Recession”), the Company has instituted a multitude of cost savings actions, including, without limitation, employee furloughs and salary reductions; and

  WHEREAS, the Executive fully understands and appreciates the magnitude of the Recession and its detrimental effect on the Company’s business; and 

  WHEREAS, notwithstanding the existence of the Employment Agreement, the Executive is willing to voluntarily participate in the salary reduction program.

  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:

  1.Effective as of September 1, 2022, Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to reduce the Executive’s Base Salary from $400,000 (hereinafter, the “Original Base Salary”) to $320,000 (hereinafter, the “Reduced Base Salary”).  All capitalized terms contained herein are defined in the Employment Agreement.


  2.The Reduced Base Salary shall remain in place until such time as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company determines that it is financially prudent and in the best interest of the Company to restore the Reduced Base Salary to the Original Base Salary.


  3.In the event that Accrued Obligations or Post-Employment Benefits are due and owing to the Executive by the Company for Termination Without Cause or Executive’s Resignation for Good Reason, such Accrued Obligations or Post-Employment Benefits shall be calculated as if the Original Base Salary was in effect at the time of such Termination or Resignation, as the case may be.  


  4.Except as modified herein, the Parties ratify and confirm the Employment Agreement as written.


   

  

   

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first written above.

  EMPLOYER: 

  VOXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

   

  By: 	/s/ Patrick M. Lavelle			

  Printed:  Patrick M. Lavelle

  Title: President/CEO

   

  EXECUTIVE:

   

  	/s/ Charles M. Stoehr			

  Charles M. Stoehr
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16700]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Matters to be Considered: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules 
and practices.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Dayna C. Brown,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-16700 Filed 7-31-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P