alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *C. C. BARNES and others v. W. B. FORT and others.

*Practice*— Evidenee-r-New *Trial.*

Where the Court below is requested to charge the jury that there is no evidence to support a certain allegation, and “the ease” does not set out all the evidence so as to enable this Court to decide the question, a new trial will bo ordered.

Civil Action tried at January Term, 1877, of "Wayne Superior Court, before Seymour, *J.*

This action was instituted to establish a parol trust and to recover the rents and profits of certain lands mentioned in *29the pleadings, but as a new trial lias been ordered upon the ground that the case does not set out all the evidence touching the controversy, a statement of the facts is unnecessary.

Judgment for the plaintiffs. Appeal by the defendants.

*Mr. W.*JV. *JS. Smith,*for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. H. F.*Grainger, *S. W. Isler*and *F. A.*Woodard, for defendants.

*

Faircloth, J, having been of counsel in the Court below, did not .sit on the hearing of this case.

Pearson, O. J.

Upon a demurrer to evidence, “the case ” as a matter of course sets out all of the evidence, because otherwise the Court cannot decide tñe question.

Bo wheu coimsel'move the Court to instruct the jury that there is no evidence to support a certain allegation, which is refused and an appeal is taken, we had supposed it to be a matter of course, that the case would set out all of the evidence which the Judge thought tended to prove the allegation, so as to put it in the power of this Court to decide the question.

Here the statement of the case shows that the counsel of the defendants moved the Court to instruct the jury, that there was no evidence to support the allegation of a parol trust, or of any consideration to support it, (and he might have added) or of any inducement to make it.

The statement of the case, *which is settled by the Judge,*curtly cuts off' the motion by setting out, “there was evidence of the parol trust, &c.”; so the counsel for defendants says- “ there is no evidence,” and the Judge says “there is evi, deuce.” How is this Court to decide ? *JReductio ad absicr-dum.*

Upon consultation it was a question; shall we require the Judge by *certiorari*or other writ to amend “the case settled by him ” or shall we order a new trial ? We decided on the latter course and were influenced in some measure by the fact, that the Judge and the jury in a mere matter of ae *30count of rents and profits differ from $6800 to $3000, and for the further reason, that because of the vagueness of the complaint in respect to the alleged parol trust, we are not able to see what was the consideration or the inducement for Coley and Sauls to pay $4200, and let Mrs. Barnes and her children live on the laud, until after supporting the whole family the products of the land should be equal to $4200 with interest, which amount these charitable gentlemen, have paid out in cash, plus $6800 as the 'jury find, $3000 as the Judge says.

The allegation is imputable, and as the case cannot be disposed of without a statement of the evidence, a new trial is. ordered.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo..*
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25359]


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

U.S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Public Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

ACTION: Announcement of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Directors of U.S. International Development 
Finance Corporation (DFC), in accordance with the Better Utilization of 
Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018, will hold a 
public hearing to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to present 
their views. Those wishing to attend, present at, or submit a written 
statement to the Board prior to the public hearing must provide advance 
notice to the agency as detailed below.

DATES: 2 p.m. EST, Wednesday, December 4, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will take place virtually. Access 
information will be provided at the time of attendee registration.
    Registration: To attend, present at, or submit a written statement 
to the Board prior to the public hearing, individuals must notify DFC 
Corporate Secretary Daniel Woubishet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#197a766b69766b786d7c376a7c7a6b7c6d786b60597d7f7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="beddd1ccced1ccdfcadb90cddbddccdbcadfccc7fedad8dd90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a> by 
5 p.m. EST, Thursday, November 28, 2024.
    Notices of intent to attend or present at the public hearing must 
include the individual's name, title, organization, address, email 
address, phone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to 
be presented. Oral presentations may not exceed five minutes and may be 
reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants an 
opportunity to be heard.
    Written statements submitted to the Board prior to the public 
hearing must include the individual's name, title, organization, 
address, email address, and phone number. Statements must be 
typewritten, double-spaced, and less than ten pages in length.

Lisa Wischkaemper,
Administrative Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-25359 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 10.7**

**ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH, INC.**

**1998 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN**

**Amendment**

Section 19 of the Albany Molecular Research, Inc.1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by deletingthe last sentence of said section in its entirety and substituting thefollowing in lieu thereof:

“Subjectto such approval by the stockholders and to the requirement that no Stock maybe issued hereunder prior to such approval, Stock Options and other Awards maybe granted hereunder on and after the adoption of this Plan by the Board,provided that no grants of Stock Options and other Awards may be made hereunderafter August 7, 2008.”
| DATE APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: | February 5, 2004 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 677 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 677

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a limited 
waiver of a requirement for reimbursement of local educational agencies 
     for the costs of foreign students' education in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 1999

   Mr. Lugar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a limited 
waiver of a requirement for reimbursement of local educational agencies 
     for the costs of foreign students' education in certain cases.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITED WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN 
              FOREIGN STUDENTS.

    Section 214(l)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(l)(1)), as added by section 625(a)(1) of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3009-699), 
is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by redesignating clauses (i) and 
        (ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively;
            (3) by striking ``(l)(1)'' and inserting ``(l)(1)(A)''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(B) The Attorney General shall waive the application of 
subparagraph (A)(ii) for an alien seeking to pursue a course of study 
in a public secondary school served by a local educational agency (as 
defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) if the agency determines and certifies to the 
Attorney General that such waiver will promote the educational interest 
of the agency and will not impose an undue financial burden on the 
agency.''.
                                 <all>
```
| 1) | T he 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. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:            | /s/ J. Michael Pearson                               |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| August 6, 2010 | J. Michael Pearson                                   |
|           | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|           |                                                 |
|           |                                                 |
|           |                                                 |
| By:            | /s/ Mark R. Stauffer                                 |
| August 6, 2010 | Mark R. Stauffer                                     |
|           | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K REPORT  OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C.
SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation.

Date:
March 31, 2011

/s/ GILBERT M. CASSAGNE Gilbert M. Cassagne, Chief Executive Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-K to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE *v.*JIM WRIGHT.

(Same point as in the preceding case.)

IndictmeNt against defendant, a free negro, for furnishing’ spirits to a slave, tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Perquimons Superior Court.

The indictment contained two counts, one charging that the defendant unlawfully did *sell and deliver*spiritous liquor to Sam, a slave; the other charging that the defendant unlawfully did *give*the spirituous liquor; both concluding against the statute. The proof stated was that Sam gave the defendant money, with a request that he would purchase for him, spiritous liquors, which he did — one quart — and delivered it to said slave.

There were several points taken below, which it is not necessary to be stated, as the opinion of the Court proceeds on other grounds.

The Court charged the jury that, upon the facts of the case,, the defendant was guilty. Defendant excepted.

Yerdict for the State. Judgment and appeal.

*Attorney*General, for the State.

*Jordan,*for the defendant.

Nash, C. J.

The defendant in this case is a free man of color. The indictment is substantially the same as in the case of Hopkins, ante 305. In the first count, the defendant is charged with *selling*and *delivering*to the slave, Sam, the property of Mrs. Barron, a quart of spirits ; and, in the second count, for *giving*the spirits. The facts of the case, though not exactly those set forth in the case of Hopkins, are sufficiently so to call for the same judgment. In the case sent up, his Honor states the first count was for delivering the spirits. The delivery to which the statute refers is a deliveiyas a gift. If there is no gift, there is no such delivery as brings the defendant within the operation of the statute. There certainly *309was no sale by tbe defendant; nor was there, for the reasons mentioned in the case of Hopkins, any gift. From the manner in which the case is drawn np, it is evident that the main object was to obtain from this Court an opinion as to the correctness of the Court below, in the course pursued as to the verdict of the jury. 'Less attention, therefore, was paid by the Judge instating the facts as to the main subject; but, as before remarked, sufficient appears to satisfy ns that there was no breach of the law, as stated in the indictment.

It is net necessary, in the view we have taken of the case, to express an opinion upon the other question sent up.

The judgment below is reversed, and this opinion is to be certified to the Superior Court of Law of Perquimons County, that it may proceed to judgment according to law.

Pee Cubiam. ' Judgment reversed.
#### Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company of America et al., Respondents.

[773 NYS2d 301]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered December 11, 2003, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declaring that, with respect to an underlying action arising out of an accident involving a van owned by defendant Yasuda Fire and Marine’s insured and leased to and operated by plaintiff Public Service’s insureds for business purposes, Yasuda’s policy is excess to Public Service’s policy, and that Public Service is therefore obligated to defend and indemnify the owner, lessee and driver in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Public Service’s claim that the van was leased for successive weekly rentals, and that its insured, the lessee, therefore is not an “owner” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128, was properly rejected as based entirely on the conclusory assertions of its claims representative and its attorney, neither of whom were privy to or have personal knowledge of the oral lease agreement *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). On the other hand, Yasuda presented uncontroverted evidence that pursuant to an oral lease agreement, Public Service’s insured had exclusive use and possession of the van for a period of more than 30 days, making it the van’s “owner” within the meaning of section 128 *(see Hassan v Montuori,*291 AD2d 375, 376 [2002], *revd on other grounds*99 *274NY2d 348 [2003]; *Servido v Superintendent of Ins.,*77 AD2d 70 [1980], *revd on other grounds*53 NY2d 1041 [1981]; *cf. Lisogorsky v Raoufi,*227 AD2d 386 [1996]), and that Public Service’s policy, by its terms, provides coverage to vehicles owned by its insured. Public Service’s claim that it and Yasuda are coinsurers required to share equally in the loss is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
#### Ansay, Respondent, vs. Shefford Cheese Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Martin, Clifford & Warne*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Lynn D. Joseph*of Green Bay, and *William F. Schanen*of Port Washington.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 506 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-123, K2025-121.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25259 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
List of Subsidiary Corporations
AMERIGROUP Corporation
  Entity
    
    State of Incorporation
    
    Incorporation DateAmerigroup Community Care of Arizona, Inc.
    
    Arizona*
    
    8/7/2002AMERIGROUP California, Inc.
    
    California*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Colorado, Inc.
    
    Colorado*
    
    1/13/2005AMERIGROUP Connecticut, Inc.
    
    Connecticut*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Delaware, Inc.
    
    Delaware*
    
    3/1/2002AMERIGROUP Florida, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    12/31/2002AMGP Georgia, Inc.
    
    Georgia*
    
    11/8/2002AMGP Georgia Managed Care Company
    
    Georgia
    
    6/11/2003AMERIGROUP Hawaii, Inc.
    
    Hawaii*
    
    11/9/2007AMERIGROUP Health Solutions, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    8/31/2007AMERIGROUP Indiana, Inc.
    
    Indiana*
    
    3/4/2002AMERIGROUP Maryland, Inc.
    
    Maryland
    
    1/7/2009AMERIGROUP Massachusetts, Inc.
    
    Massachusetts*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Michigan, Inc.
    
    Michigan*
    
    4/1/2002AMERIGROUP Nevada, Inc.
    
    Nevada
    
    8/11/2005AMERIGROUP New Jersey, Inc.
    
    New Jersey
    
    4/3/1995AMERIGROUP Community Care of New Mexico, Inc.
    
    New Mexico
    
    12/6/2004AMERIGROUP New York, LLC
    
    New York
    
    10/10/1995AMERIGROUP Ohio, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    3/8/2002AMERIGROUP Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    Puerto Rico*
    
    3/13/2002AMERIGROUP Community Care of South Carolina, Inc.
    
    South Carolina
    
    10/24/2003AMERIGROUP Tennessee, Inc.
    
    Tennessee
    
    4/23/2006AMERIGROUP Texas, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    6/19/1995AMERIGROUP Virginia, Inc.
    
    Virginia
    
    8/30/2004AMERIGROUP Wisconsin, Inc.
    
    Wisconsin*
    
    4/2/2002Intelli-dent IPA, Inc.
    
    New York
    
    3/26/1999PHP Holdings, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    3/30/1995AMERIVANTAGE, Inc.
    
    Delaware*
    
    1/16/2004AMERIBRIDGE, Inc.
    
    Florida*
    
    8/8/2007
 
 *
    
    non-active
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          81,765                  85,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  339,083                  32,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,000                   1,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               489,692                 116,009
<PP&E>                                         405,135                 305,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,401                 143,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 697,026                 278,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          683,313                 364,735
<BONDS>                                         57,997                  37,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        101                      81
<COMMON>                                           517                     437
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,902)               (124,085)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   697,026                 278,282
<SALES>                                      2,410,966                 886,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,410,966                 886,735
<CGS>                                        1,139,589                 253,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,920,816               1,169,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000                   1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,842                  64,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (512,150)               (342,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (512,150)               (342,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (512,150)               (342,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)                   (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>