alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irving Zola, Landlord, *v.*Mosa Havivi, Tenant.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,

February 19, 1959.

*Max Steinberg*for landlord.

*Nearing <& Gim (Victor J. Nearing*of counsel), for tenant.

Maurice Wahl, J.

The landlord has instituted this holdover proceeding against the tenant to obtain possession of the premises. It is conceded that the premises are not subject to the emergency housing rent control laws, and are, therefore, decontrolled. The parties hereto had entered into a written lease dated October 23, 1950 for a term commencing November 1, 1950 and expiring on October 30, 1953. Thereafter, on November 10, 1953, the parties entered into another written lease for a period commencing December 1, 1953 and expiring May 31,1955. There is no renewal provision in the lease. Paragraph “ 21 ” of said lease provides: “ Upon the expiration or other termination of the term of this lease, Tenant shall quit and surrender to Landlord the demised premises ”.

*367Upon the expiration of the lease on May 31, 1955, the tenant remained in possession of the premises. Recently, the landlord caused to be served upon the tenant a 30-day notice purporting to terminate the tenancy as of December 31, 1958. The landlord maintains that the tenant became a month-to-month tenant upon the expiration of the lease and that there can be no renewal of a renewal unless the lease expressly provides for such condition and that no implication can be drawn in the absence of such a provision; and the contention of the tenant is that he became a holdover tenant from year to year by renewal of the terms for one year commencing June 1, 1955 and every year thereafter, upon the expiration of the lease, and is entitled to possession of the premises until May 31, 1959.

Upon the expiration of the original term, the landlord was required to elect to treat the tenant as a trespasser, a month-to-month tenant or as a holdover tenant for one year. Since nothing was done or said by the landlord on the expiration of the lease, it is the opinion of this court that the tenant became a holdover tenant from year to year, and that since several months have elapsed since May 31, 1958, the tenant is a holdover tenant for an additional year until May 31, 1959. In short, when an expired lease covers a term of over one year, the duration of the holding over will be for units of one year, if the conduct of the landlord indicates an election to treat the tenant as a holdover. *(Kennedy*v. *City of New York,*196 N. Y. 19; *Watterman*v. *Falk,*11 Misc 2d 1074; *Syndicate Bldg. Corp.*v. *Hide Trading Corp.,*12 Misc 2d 134.)

This proceeding is therefore premature and must be dismissed.

Final order for the tenant.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council, January 18, 2024, 11:00 a.m. to January 19, 2024, 6:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 03, 2023, FR Doc. 2023-24224, 88 FR 75295.                

This notice is being amended to change the meeting date from January 18, 2024, to January 19, 2024. The meeting times and location remain the same as stated above. This meeting is partially closed to the public.

Dated: December 4, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-26903 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
23310, 23319

#### Doe (John), In re; Doe (Jane), In re

Affirmed
# C_2019155EN.01001701.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/17

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by Sevenfriday AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2018 in Case T-449/17: Sevenfriday v EUIPO

(Case C-733/18 P)

(2019/C 155/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sevenfriday AG (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Seven SpA

By order of 19 March 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
# C_2020095EN.01002501.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-505/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Support for rural development - Support granted to producer groups - Expenditure incurred by Hungary - Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Qualified recognition - Eligibility of the beneficiary of the aid - Calculated financial correction - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Sincere cooperation - Protection of legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Ineligible amounts)

(2020/C 95/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, M. Tátrai, A. Pokoraczki and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Camelid Commodity Import Into the

United States: Disease Status Table

Last Modified: 

Print

The following is a list of commodities with import status and diseases present in

each country. Reorder the table by selecting a column header. 

See USDA APHIS Definitions below for additional information.

Loading...

Camelid Commodities Import Status and Diseases Present

USDA APHIS Definitions

Bovine- Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and Bison bison (domestic cattle, bison).

Bovid- All members of the family Bovidae, including domestic cattle, bison, water

buffalo, yak etc.

Cervid- All members of the family Cervidae and hybrids, including deer, elk, moose,

caribou, reindeer, and related species.
Camelid- All species of the family Camelidae, including camels, guanacos, llamas,

alpacas, and vicunas.

Prohibited- The importation of this commodity is banned by federal regulations.

Not Currently Allowed- The importation of this commodity is not currently allowed

due to other foreign animal diseases of concern in the country of origin, the lack of a

negotiated or updated import protocol, or the lack of a negotiated export health

certificate from the country of origin. Please contact APHIS for more information.

Allowed- The importation of this commodity is permitted.

FMD- Foot and Mouth Disease

CSF- Classical Swine Fever

ASF- African Swine Fever

BSE- Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

SVD- Swine Vesicular Disease
* 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. 98-10234 Conference Calendar

BILLY RAY GILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GEORGE R. PIERSON ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CV-407

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy Ray Gilbert, Texas prisoner #653239, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Warden George R. Pierson, Disciplinary Captain J. Chism, and Patron, who acted as counsel substitute at his disciplinary proceeding. Gilbert alleged that he was falsely accused and found guilty of verbally threatening Pierson, that the disciplinary proceeding violated his due process rights, and that Patron was ineffective. The district court dismissed theNo. 98-10234 -2- complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (e)(2)(B)(ii). We have reviewed the record and perceive no error by the district court. Gilbert v. Pierson et al. , No. 2:97-CV-407 (N.D. Tex. February 3, 1998). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2

.
#### Wiener v. Santangelo Investors

16265

5/08/96

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,053                  16,982
<SECURITIES>                                     7,329                  10,010
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,105                  15,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,388                  44,514
<PP&E>                                           3,242                   3,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                     297                     261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,978                  50,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,799                   9,965
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        32,139                  31,521
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,786                   6,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,978                  50,073
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,642                  14,224
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,481                   5,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,643                   6,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5                       3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (411)                   1,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                       145                     661
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (266)                   1,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.024)                     .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.024)                     .10
        

</TABLE>
May 17, 2002

22729

#### Arenas v. State

Affirmed
### S o l a O pt i ca l , notes fro m 11 /8/ 11 conve rsa t i on w i t h H e r b Lev i ne D ante R od r i gue z to: Dante Rod r i guez 02 / 08 /2012 12 : 21 PM T ue s da y , 11/8/12 Con v e rs at i on w i th He r b Le v i ne T a l k ed w i th He r b about what to do w i th S o l a. He r b s a ys that to p ro v e we c an c l o s e s i te we wou l d need at l ea s t 2 y ea rs of data s how i ng the c l eanup goa l wa s met. S i n c e we ha v e one data po i nt f rom l a s t y ea rthat wa s be l ow MCL, i f we get mo re th i s y ea rthat c onf i r m s i t, then we c ou l d ma k e a good c a s e. T he P R P s d i d not pe rfo r m the requ i red 2 s amp li ng e v ent s l a s t y ea ro rth i s y ea r . T he yon l yd i d one e v ent i n 2010 and none y et i n 2011. Had the ydone the 3 e v ent s a s the ywe re s uppo s ed to, and a ll c onf i r med the 2010 re s u l t, then we wou l d ha v e had a robu s t enough data s et to j u s t i f y c l o s u re. T he NC P s a ys that th roughout the p l ume the c l eanup s tanda rd gene r a ll ymu s t be met. H Q j u s t s ta rted wo rk i ng on gu i dan c e fo r " e x i t s t r ateg i e s , " ba s i c a ll yan i nte r p retat i on of that. Don't e x pe c t i t an y t i me s oon. T o ha s ten c l o s u re, we c an ha v e the P R P s do the 3 s amp li ng e v ent s , ment i oned abo v e, i n a c omp re ss ed t i mef r ame, li k e month l yfo ra qua rte r . O f c ou rs e, i f the f i rs t s u c h month l ye v ent doe s not c ome i n be l ow MCL, then we s hou l d c an c e l the othe rmonth l ye v ent s . T he po i nt wou l d be to c onf i r m the MCL i s met. If not met, go ba ckto s em i - annua l s amp li ng. I w ill fo ll ow - up b y c onta c t i ng the P R P c ont r a c to r , then w r i te a l ette rto the P R P about how the ya re beh i nd i n s amp li ng and p ropo s e th i s c l o s u re i dea. Dante Rod r i gue z , P
. E. Remed i a l P roj e c t Manager U. S

. EPA

Reg i on 9 ( 415 ) 972 - 3166 rod r i gue z .dante @ epa.gov
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

) CHANDLERAIR SERVICE, INC., ) Complainant ) ) 

### v. ) ) CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA, ) Respondent ) FAA Docket No. 16-13-05

ORDER On March 4, 2016, counsel for Respondent, City ofChandler, requested an extension oftime until March 23,2016, to file its action plan in response to the Director's Determination issued on February 9, 2016. Counsel advised that the Cityneeds additional time to locate the necessary records and provide a complete response. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. See 78 Fed. Reg. 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013); 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Parties may file a written motion for an extension oftime. 14 CFR § 16.19(e). The Director may issue an order extending any time period prescribed where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. 14 CFR § 16.ll(a). An extension oftime is reasonable underthe circumstances. Accordingly, the Respondent's motion is hereby GRANTED. The action plan and any other documentation necessary to evaluate the City'stax on aviation fuel is now due onMarch23, 2016. A copy ofthis Order and incoming request will be included inthe docket and electronic docket (FAA-2013-0733), available at www.regulations.gov.

yr

ing Director, 

### 0 1ce ofAirport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis DateUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

) CHANDLERAIR SERVICE,INC., ) Complainant ) ) FAADocketNo.l6-13-05

**~** 

### ) ) CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA, ) Respondent )

ORDER OnMarch 4, 2016, counsel for Respondent, City ofChandler, requested an extension oftime until March 23, 2016, to file its actionplan inresponse to the Director's Determination issued on February 9, 2016. Counsel advised that the City needs additional time to locate the necessaryrecords and provide a complete response. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. See 78 Fed. Reg. 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013); 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Parties may file a writtenmotionfor an extension oftime. 14 CFR § 16.19( e). The Directormay issue an order extending any time periodprescribed where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. 14 CFR 

### § 16.1l(a). An extension oftime is reasonable underthe circumstances. Accordingly, the Respondent's motion is hereby GRANTED. The actionplan and any other documentation necessaryto evaluate the City's tax on aviation fuel is now due onMarch 23,2016. A copy ofthis Order and incoming request will be included inthe docket and electronic docket (FAA-2013-0733), available at www.regulations.gov.

yr

ting Director, 

### 0£ 1ce ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis Date
October 18, 2001

23617

#### State v. Cabanting

Affirmed
#### Louise Guidone, Plaintiff, *v.*Saint Aloysius Church, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Cayuga County,

March 22, 1971.

*Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust (Melvin E. Holm*of counsel), for defendant. *William Goldman*for plaintiff.

Marshall E. Livingston, J.

This motion is brought by defendant to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211. Defendant *1020says that the court does not have jurisdiction because it has not been served personally with the summons, pursuant to CPLR 311.

The matter came on before me at the October 1970 term of this court and was adjourned to permit plaintiff to furnish further proof of personal service upon the pastor or appropriate officer of the defendant.

Plaintiff subsequently submitted an affidavit of the Reverend Edward A. Shamon, defendant’s pastor and treasurer. Father Shamon avers that on March 14, 1968, a summons in the action was served on Bernadine Bearsch, his secretary. Thereafter the summons was given by Miss Bearsch to the pastor, and he forwarded it to defendant’s insurance carrier. Miss Bearsch confirms these facts in her affidavit attached to the moving papers. It appears that the summons was served on her by a deputy sheriff of Cayuga County. Miss Bearsch was at no time a person authorized to receive service of process for the defendant church.

Plaintiff cites *Green*v. *Morningside Hgts. Corp.*(7 A D 2d 708), a 1958 First Department case as authority for the proposition, as Mr. Justice Steuee put it at Special Term *(Green*v. *Morningside Hgts. Corp.,*13 Misc 2d 124, 125), that “Where the delivery is so close both in time and space that it can be classified as a part of the same act service is effected ’ ’. It is asserted here that, as a practical matter, Miss Bearsch served the summons on Father Shamon shortly after it had been served on her by the deputy sheriff.

Defendant, on the other hand, cites two Fourth Department cases *(Baker*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*258 App. Div. 854; *Hotel Glenmore*v. *American Eagle Fire Ins. Co.,*280 App. Div. 445) as contrary authority.

The practicalities of permitting redelivery of a summons served upon an unauthorized person by such person to a proper officer or agent of a defendant is, in the words of Mr. Justice McNally in his dissent in *Green*v. *Morningside Hgts. Corp.,*(7 A D 2d 708, 709, *supra),*“ fraught with danger ”. He goes on to say, “ Once it is held that there can be an equivalent for procedure mandated by the Legislature or that there can be degrees of compliance with the legislative mandate, abuses too numerous to mention will creep in.”

In 1968 the Court of Appeals unanimously held ‘ ‘ that redelivery of a summons by the person to whom delivery was wrongly made does not constitute personal ‘ delivery ’ to the ultimate *1021proper recipient ” *(McDonald*v. *Ames Supply Co.,*22 N Y 2d 111, 115).

Service of a summons to the wrong person cannot ripen into valid personal service even when the summons is promptly delivered into the hands of the person upon whom it should have been served in the first place.

The motion to dismiss the action is granted.
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0235 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. SHELDON PATRICK TRACY ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including July 1 8 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 9 2022

06/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0235
EX-(4).(l)



 AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

PENSION AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN ENDORSEMENT 

This Endorsement forms a part of the Contract to which it is attached. The effective date of this Endorsement is the Contract Date shown on
the Contract Data Page. 
 THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS APPLY TO A CONTRACT WHICH IS ISSUED UNDER A PLAN QUALIFIED UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
(“IRC”) SECTION 401. IN THE CASE OF A CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ENDORSEMENT WILL CONTROL. 
  

	1)	 The Annuitant of this Contract will be the applicable Owner under the Plan and the Owner of this Contract will
be as designated in the Plan. 


  

	2)	 This Contract, and the benefits under it, cannot be sold, assigned, discounted, pledged as collateral for a
loan or as security for the performance of an obligation or for any other purpose to any person other than the Company. 


  

	3)	 The terms of this Contract and Endorsement are subject to the provisions of the plan under which this Contract
and Endorsement are issued. 


  

	4)	 The Unisex annuity rates pertaining to the Actuarial Basis of Computation shown in the Contract will be
furnished upon Your request. 


 All other terms and conditions of the Contract remain unchanged. 

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 
  

			
	 




	  	 







  

					
	AGE-6067 (12/15)	  	1