alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 19, 2015 518407 

________________________________

BERNABE ENCARNACION,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 15, 2015

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Bernabe Encarnacion, Attica, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M.

Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.),

entered January 29, 2014, which denied claimant's application

pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for permission to file a

late claim.

Claimant, an inmate, filed a claim seeking reimbursement

for the value of certain personal property missing from his cell

following a cell search. He served the claim on defendant by

regular mail on July 29, 2013, and the 120-day period for filing

a valid claim expired on August 7, 2013 (see Court of Claims Act

§ 10 [9]). Defendant served an answer raising as an affirmative

defense the lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction

based upon claimant's failure to serve the claim by certified

mail, return receipt requested as required by Court of Claims Act

§ 11 (a) (i). Thereafter, claimant made a pro se application
-2- 518407 

for permission to file a late claim. The Court of Claims denied

claimant's application and he now appeals.

We affirm. The provisions of Court of Claims Act § 10 (6)

that vest the Court of Claims with discretionary authority to

permit the filing of a late claim do not apply to inmate property

claims (see Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001

[2004]). Given that the claim here involves the loss of

claimant's property following a cell search, his application for

permission to file a late claim was properly denied. 

Significantly, claimant's failure to comply with the provisions

of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requiring that the claim be

served upon the Attorney General either personally or by

certified mail, return receipt requested, is jurisdictional in

nature (see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632, 632 [2014];

Zoeckler v State of New York, 109 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2013]). In

view of this, and given that defendant raised it as an

affirmative defense, the claim must be dismissed (see Zoeckler v

State of New York, 109 AD3d at 1133). We have considered

petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in

merit. 

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs, and

claim dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### Walata, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*March 10*

June 5, *1923.*

*Intoxicating liquors: Unlawful sale: Evidence: Competency and sufficiency.*

1. In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law, the evidence is *held*competent and sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty.

2. A motion for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence is addressed largely to the discretion of the court.

Error to review a judgment of the municipal court of Racine county: E. R. Burgess, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*647The defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 or to serve six months in the Racine county jail. He sued out a writ of error, and claims that the court erred in excluding testimony; in permitting improper remarks of counsel; in asking certain questions; and in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence.

*Leonard P. Baumblatt*of Racine, for the plaintiff in error.

For the defendant in error there was a brief, by *Thorwald M. Beck,*district attorney of Racine county, and *J. A. Simpson*and *G. E. Smalley,*assistant district attorneys, and oral argument by *Mr. Beck*and by *Mr. J. E. Messer schmidt,*assistant attorney general.

The following opinion was filed April 3, 1923:

Crownhart, J.

The defendant had a large dance hall in the city of Racine, and in the basement he ran a soft-drink parlor with a bar. On Christmas eve he had a public dance in his hall at which there were great numbers of people present. Among these people were a large number who were intoxicated. As an officer testified, there were so many liquor bottles that “you couldn’t put them in a wagon.” There was evidence to the effect that the defendant sold some of this liquor to parties who were attending the.dance, and the evidence to that effect seems to be competent and sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. There does not appear to be any reversible error in the admission of testimony or otherwise in the trial.

A motion for a new trial' on newly-discovered evidence is addressed largely to the discretion of the court. We find no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial. The judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on June S, 1923.
# Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) (9/2020) Standard Document(75.32 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) Overview(563.77 KB)

Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) CPPE(24.97 KB)

Irrigation Reservoir (Ac-Ft) (436) Network Diagram(75.02 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Irrigation Reservoir

This video explores how Robert and Cathy Seidenstricker of DeValls Bluff, AR, built this to support their row crops.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.88

                               AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                 BY AND BETWEEN
                           I.C. ISAACS & COMPANY L.P.
                                       AND
                                 ROBERT J. ARNOT


         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4, dated as of March 31, 2001, is made a part of
that certain EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May 15, 1997, by and
between I. C. Isaacs & Company L.P. (the "Company") and Robert J. Arnot (the
"Executive"), as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of August 27, 1998,
Amendment No. 2 dated as of February 11, 1999, and Amendment No. 3 dated as of
January 3, 2000, (collectively, the "Agreement"). It is intended by the parties
that the terms of this Amendment No. 4, to the extent that they are more
specific than the terms contained in the Agreement, or to the extent that they
should conflict with the terms contained in the Agreement, shall supersede the
terms of the Agreement. Section numbers utilized in this Amendment No. 4
correspond, where applicable, to section numbers used in the Agreement.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              - - - - - - - - - -

         Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
representations contained herein and the mutual benefits derived herefrom, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.       Paragraph 2 is hereby restated in its entirety as follows:

                           2. TERM. This Agreement shall begin May 15, 1997 and
                  shall continue until May 15, 2003 (the "Employment Period").
                  Thereafter, this Agreement shall renew automatically from
                  Employment Year to Employment Year, subject to the right of
                  either party to terminate this Agreement as of the end of any
                  Employment Year upon sixty (60) days' prior written notice to
                  the other party. An "Employment Year" begins each May 15 and
                  ends on the following May 15.

         2. The reference to May 15, 2002 in the first sentence of Paragraph 3
  is hereby replaced with a reference to May 15, 2003.



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this
  Amendment No. 4 on the date first above written.

                                     I.C. ISAACS & COMPANY L.P.

                                     By:    I.C. ISAACS & COMPANY, INC.
                                            its general partner



                                     By: /s/ EUGENE C. WIELEPSKI
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                          Eugene C. Wielepski, Vice President



                                          EXECUTIVE



                                          /s/ ROBERT J. ARNOT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Robert J. Arnot




                                       2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 10, 2021

Order 

Clerk

February 10, 2021

160551(70)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 160551

v COA: 343255

Saginaw CC: 16-042719-FC

ROBERT LANCE PROPP, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for 

filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before March 1, 2021.
Conservation Practice Standard Overview

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

September 2016

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Filter Strip (Code 393)

A filter strip is an area of vegetation established for 

removing sediment, organic material, and other pollutants 

from runoff and wastewater.

Practice Information

Filter strips are generally located at the lower edge(s) of a 

field and are designed to serve as a buffer between a field 

and environmentally sensitive areas such as streams, 

lakes, wetlands, and other areas susceptible to damage by sediment and waterborne pollutants. 

In addition to serving as a buffer, with proper plant selection and management, filter strips can 

provide additional benefits such as:

• improved fish and wildlife habitat

• improved field access

• increased livestock forage

Operate and maintain filter strips by mowing, fertilizing, controlling weeds, and reseeding (as needed) 

to promote dense vegetative growth. After storm events, inspect filter strips and if needed, fill in 

gullies and remove accumulated sediment to keep filter strips functioning effectively. 

Exclude livestock and vehicular traffic from filter strips during wet periods of the year to reduce 

compaction that will limit infiltration. 

Common Associated Practices

Filter Strips (Code 393) are commonly applied with conservation practices such as Nutrient 

Management (Code 590), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), Waste Recycling (Code 633),

and Residue and Tillage Management (Codes 329 and 345).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
AFS-10-407-E Oct 18 2010

Exemption No. 7980E Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13274

Mr. William Lamar Elder

Counsel China Airlines, Ltd. 555 Thirteenth Street, NW. Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Elder:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 7980, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 21, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL) for an extension of Exemption No. 7980, as amended. That exemption from §§ 61.77(a) and (b) and 63.23(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows CAL’s airmen who opera te certain U.S.-registered aircraft that are leased to a non-U.S. citizen, for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, to be eligible for a special purpose pilot authorization and a special purpose flight engineer certificate, without holding a current foreign license or certificate issued by a foreign contracting State to the Convention on Inte rnational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to CAL.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7980, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition subject to the conditions and

limitations below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. CAL’s airmen who operate under this exemption must hold appropriate licenses or certificates issued by the Taiwan Civil Aeronautics Administration.

2. CAL may operate its Boeing 747-400 aircraft (registration No. N168CL) under this exemption.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7980, as amended, to February 28, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
<PAGE>

                             CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

This Contribution Agreement, is made and entered into as of May 2, 2001 (this
"Agreement"), between Atrium Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company")
and Atrium Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Atrium").


                              W I T N E S S E T H:



                   WHEREAS, GE Private Placement Partners II, a Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and The Ellison Company, Inc., a
North Carolina corporation each subscribed for and purchased shares of common
stock of the Company in exchange for a payment of $1,500,000, for an aggregate
amount of $3,000,000 (the "Cash Amount");

                   WHEREAS, Atrium is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
and the Company wishes to contribute the Cash Amount to the Atrium (the
"Contribution")

                   NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and
benefits to accrue to the Company and Atrium and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows

          1. CONTRIBUTION. Effective as of the date hereof, the Company hereby
contributes, transfers and assigns to Atrium all of its right title and interest
to the Cash Amount.

          2. FURTHER ASSURANCES. The parties hereto, will, upon reasonable
request of any other party hereto, execute and deliver any additional
certificates, instruments and documents necessary or desirable to complete the
transactions described herein.

          3. MISCELLANEOUS.

                   (i) GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by, and
          enforceable in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York,
          without reference to principles of conflict of laws.

                   (ii) COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in two or
          more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all
          of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by or on behalf
of each of the parties hereto as of the date first above written.

                                   ATRIUM CORPORATION


                                   By_________________________________
                                      Name:
                                      Title:


                                   ATRIUM COMPANIES, INC.


                                   By_________________________________
                                      Name:
                                      Title:
Order entered January 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01712-CR

LARRY DUNN, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1259904-M

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s January 9, 2015 motion to permit current appointed appellate 

counsel to withdraw. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to remove Lori L. Ordiway as 

counsel of record for appellant. We ORDER the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel for 

appellant and transmit a record including the order appointing new counsel to this Court within 

TEN DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply 

with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated ten days from the date of this order or when the 

record is received, whichever is earlier. This case is set for submission on oral argument on 

February 10, 2015, and will remain set for submission on that date.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1








Chief Executive Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the annual report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, R. Eugene Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








/s/R. Eugene TaylorDate:  March 31, 2011
R. Eugene Taylor

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer











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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained by TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RICHARD BROADUS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 451 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
# C_2004228EN.01002401.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court) (Germany) by order of that court of 16 June 2004 in the case of ED & F Man Sugar Ltd against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-274/04)

(2004/C 228/47)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), of 16 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ED & F Man Sugar Ltd against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.

The Finanzgericht Hamburg asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

| 1. | In an appeal against a penalty imposed on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1)are national authorities and courts permitted to examine whether an exporter requested a refund in excess of that applicable if the repayment decision under the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 became final before the penalty decision was issued? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In an appeal against a penalty imposed on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1)are national authorities and courts permitted to examine whether an exporter requested a refund in excess of that applicable if the repayment decision under the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 became final before the penalty decision was issued?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative: in an action to challenge a decision imposing a penalty pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 in the circumstances set out in this order may it be examined whether an exporter requested an export refund in excess of that applicable in order to give effect to an interpretation of Community law adopted in the meanwhile? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: in an action to challenge a decision imposing a penalty pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 in the circumstances set out in this order may it be examined whether an exporter requested an export refund in excess of that applicable in order to give effect to an interpretation of Community law adopted in the meanwhile?

---

(1)  OJ L 351, p. 1.

1

---