alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Amos Katz, Appellant, v Hazel Dotan, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 404]—

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Kent, J.), dated March 11, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated *1329January 11, 2011, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated March 11, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties’ stipulation of settlement required the father to pay the sum of $300 per week in child support for the couple’s two children, Brooke and Caroline, “until the emancipation of Brooke and Caroline.” Shortly after the older child reached 21 years of age, the father filed a petition seeking to terminate his support obligation as to that child, and for a credit of 50% for all child support “charged” after that child’s college graduation, on the ground that the older child was emancipated.

At a hearing, the Support Magistrate interpreted the stipulation as terminating the father’s support obligation only upon both children becoming emancipated, which had not occurred. After the hearing, the Support Magistrate issued an order, in effect, denying the father’s petition. In an order dated March 11, 2011, the Family Court denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father appeals, and we affirm.

“A separation agreement or stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract, the terms of which are binding on the parties” *(Matter of Moss v Moss,*91 AD3d 783, 783 [2012]; *see Matter of Cricenti v Cricenti,*60 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2009]). “When interpreting a contract, such as a separation agreement, the court should arrive at a construction that will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized” *(Matter of Duggan v Duggan,*83 AD3d 703, 704 [2011], quoting *Matter of Schiano v Hirsch,*22 AD3d 502, 502 [2005]; *see Matter of Moss v Moss,*91 AD3d at 784; *Matter of Brink v Brink,*55 AD3d 601, 602 [2008]; *Winski v Kane,*33 AD3d 697, 698 [2006]).

“Stipulations and separation agreements that provide for an unallocated child support payment may only be reduced or terminated on conditions that are expressly provided for in the stipulation or agreement” *(Matter of Winokur v Winokur,*31 AD3d 653, 654 [2006]). Noticeably absent from the stipulation in this case is any express provision allowing the father to reduce his support payments as each child becomes emancipated. Thus, “it must be concluded that the emancipation of an individual child has no bearing on the petitioner’s support obligation” *(id.).*

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s *1330objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. Rivera, J.E, Belen, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
# C_2019357EN.01001201.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/12

---

Appeal brought on 28 June 2019 by Victor Lupu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Case T-558/18: Lupu v EUIPO - Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)

(Case C-499/19 P)

(2019/C 357/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Victor Lupu (represented by: P.A. Acsinte, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam

By order of 5 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 26, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Nos. 09-8046 and 09-8047

SANDRA BERGQUIST, 

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MANN BRACKEN, LLP, and FIACARD SERVICES, N.A.,

Defendants-Petitioners.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 5056

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.

Order

The slip opinion of this court issued on January 26, 2010, is amended as follows: 

Page 2, line 6, change “whether” to “how”.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 883 

To authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on 

Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor free persons and 

slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and justice for all during 

the American Revolution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2011 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish 

a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia 

to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American 

Revolution. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that the contributions of free persons 

5 and slaves who fought during the American Revolution 

6 were of preeminent historical and lasting significance to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 883 IS

1 the United States, as required by section 8908(b)(1) of 

2 title 40, United States Code. 

3 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

4 In this Act: 

5 (1) FEDERAL LAND.— 

6 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘Federal 

7 land’’ means the parcel of land— 

8 (i) identified as ‘‘Area I’’; and 

9 (ii) depicted on the map numbered 

10 869/86501B and dated June 24, 2003. 

11 (B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘Federal 

12 land’’ does not include the Reserve (as defined 

13 in section 8902(a) of title 40, United States 

14 Code). 

15 (2) MEMORIAL.—The term ‘‘memorial’’ means 

16 the memorial authorized to be established under sec17 tion 3(a). 

18 SEC. 3. MEMORIAL AUTHORIZATION. 

19 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—In accordance with sub20 sections (b) and (c), National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. 

21 may establish a memorial on Federal land in the District 

22 of Columbia to honor the more than 5,000 courageous 

23 slaves and free Black persons who served as soldiers and 

24 sailors or provided civilian assistance during the American 

25 Revolution. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 883 IS

1 (b) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.— 

2 National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. may not use Federal 

3 funds to establish the memorial. 

4 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—National Mall Liberty Fund 

5 D.C. shall establish the memorial in accordance with chap6 ter 89 of title 40, United States Code. 

7 SEC. 4. REPEAL OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

8 Public Law 99–558 (110 Stat. 3144) and Public Law 

9 100–265 (102 Stat. 39) are repealed. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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:*                         July 14, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean 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 July 9, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 198 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-110, CP2021-112.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-15002 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Distribution
Agreement - Entranet Limited & Entranet Inc.


 





This Agreement is effective this 30th
day of June, 2014 (“Effective Date”), by and between Entranet Limited, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Greece (“Manufacturer”), and Entranet Incorporated, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the United States (“Distributor”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS Manufacturer wishes to appoint Distributor
to sell the Product in the United States and Europe, and Distributor is willing and able to import, promote, distribute, and sell
Product under the Trademarks in the United States and Europe.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, under ARTICLE
XIX of the Distribution Agreement, intending to be legally bound agree to AMEND
the following:


 


The sole purpose of this addendum is to include
the distribution of Entranet Limited products and services, a company formed under the laws of Greece, in Europe by Entranet, Inc.,
a corporation formed under the laws of the United States. The following provision have been modified to include the territorial
area Europe.


 


1.1 Product or Products means any and all
Entranet Limited products and services available to the U.S. and European markets under this agreement and the laws of the
U.S.


 


4.1 Distributor shall register the Product
with the regulatory authorities of the United States and applicable European nations, if necessary.


 


5.1 Distributor agrees that Manufacturer
shall be Distributor’s sole supplier of Products and agrees that it will distribute only Products in the United States
and Europe purchased from Manufacturer.


 


8.1 Distributor undertakes at its own expense
to actively promote the Products in the United States by the best legal and appropriate means and to retain appropriate sales staff
and representatives to assure an effective promotion of the Products. Distributor shall further place, at its own expense, promotional
advertisement and marketing materials for on the Products.


 


10.3 Distributor agrees to use its best efforts
to successfully market and distribute Products


from Manufacturer in the United States and
Europe on a continuing basis during the term of this Agreement and to comply with good business practices and all laws and
regulations relevant to this Agreement or the subject matter hereof.


 


Any and all other provisions made not listed
above to this Agreement shall only be valid if they are dually recognized as to include the territorial distribution of Europe
by Entranet, Inc.









    	Page 1 of 2



    	Distribution Agreement Addendum - Entranet Limited & Entranet Inc.



    







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents
to be executed in triplicate by their duly authorized officers.


 





	For Manufacturer: Entranet Limited	 	For Distributor: Entranet
Incorporated
	
        /s/ Eleftherios Papageorgiou
	
        
	

        /s/ Eleftherios Papageorgiou

	By: Eleftherios Papageorgiou	 	By: Eleftherios Papageorgiou
	Date: 6/30/2014	 	Date: 6/30/2014
	 	 	 



 


 


 


 






    	Page 2 of 2
#### Patricia Kennelly, Also Known as Cleopatra Kennelly, as Administratrix of the Estate of John J. Kennelly, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v Highland Hospital, Appellant-Respondent, and Benjamin S. Rhee et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— Two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 17, 1984 and June 11, 1984, respectively, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated in the decisions of Justice Stolarik at Special Term. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<Page>


ITEM 6.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Exhibit 99.1


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 Med-Emerg International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
Ramesh Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: __________________
                                            Name: Dr. Ramesh Zacharias
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
  Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
  Jersey Mining Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and                               
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                           
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH 
  Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer & Director

---
#### James Brown, Respondent, *v.*The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued April 18, 1890 ;

decided May 6, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made Hay 3, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*WilUam B. Pornilower*for appellant.

*Daniel Magone*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Outreach Diversity and EOheadline bar Aboutus
               Anti-Harassment Policy
               College Student Intern Program
               Colleges and Universities
               EEO Policy
               Research Apprenticeship Program
               Student Posters 2008
               Student Posters 2009
               EEO Policy - Beltsville Area
               Volunteering at BARC
               scienceFairs
               Student Posters 2010


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# C_2019432EN.01001901.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2019 by Rietze GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-43/18, Rietze GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-599/19 P)

(2019/C 432/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Nikolas Antonopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  March 7, 2007 By:  /s/  *Nikolas Antonopoulos*    Nikolas Antonopoulos    President and Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.
118
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 927 

To require congressional approval before implementation of certain agency 

actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require congressional approval before implementation of 

certain agency actions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agency Overreach 

5 Moratorium Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE WITHDRAWAL OF 

7 CERTAIN PERMITS. 

8 Unless approved by an Act of Congress, the head of 

9 a Federal agency shall not— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 927 IS

1 (1) retroactively withdraw any permit issued for 

2 Federal land or any area of the outer Continental 

3 Shelf that would have been used— 

4 (A) to produce or harvest a domestic nat5 ural resource; or 

6 (B) to create 1 or more jobs; or 

7 (2) issue a designation under any law that 

8 would restrict or prohibit access to domestic natural 

9 resources on Federal land or any area of the outer 

10 Continental Shelf. 

11 SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF DESIGNATION OF 

12 NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

13 Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly 

14 known as the ‘‘Antiquities Act of 1906’’) (16 U.S.C. 431) 

15 is amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 2. That the President’’ 

17 and inserting the following: 

18 ‘‘SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

19 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the requirements of 

20 this section, the President’’; 

21 (2) by striking ‘‘Provided, That when such ob22 jects are situated upon’’ and inserting the following: 

23 ‘‘(b) RELINQUISHMENT OF PRIVATE CLAIMS.—In 

24 cases in which an object described in subsection (a) is lo25 cated on’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 927 IS

1 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(c) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROCLAMA3 TION.—A proclamation issued under subsection (a) shall 

4 not be implemented until the proclamation is approved by 

5 an Act of Congress.’’. 

6 SEC. 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY SECRETARY OF COM7 MERCE REQUIRED. 

8 The head of a Federal agency shall not take any ac9 tion that modifies the authority of the Federal agency with 

10 respect to issuing permits for natural resource develop11 ment on Federal land or making designations of Federal 

12 land under any law until the date on which the Secretary 

13 of Commerce completes, and submits to Congress, an eco14 nomic analysis to determine— 

15 (1) whether the proposed agency action has the 

16 potential to reduce revenue to the Treasury; and 

17 (2) the potential impact of the proposed agency 

18 action on property rights and existing contracts. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS