alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document

    







Christa Davies
Aon Corporation
United States


July 8, 2021




International Assignment: Chicago, Illinois to London, England




Dear Christa,


This letter serves to amend your international assignment letter effective July 1, 2016 governing the terms of your international assignment from Chicago, Illinois to London, England (your “International Assignment Letter”).  


Pursuant to this letter, the term of your international assignment shall be extended an additional one year, through June 30, 2022.  


Except as otherwise expressly modified herein, the terms of the International Assignment Letter, and your acknowledgment and acceptance thereof, shall continue in full force and effect.  


Please confirm acceptance of the terms and conditions of this letter by signing below and returning a copy of the signed letter to me.


Sincerely,






/s/ Lisa Stevens 


Lisa Stevens
Chief People Officer




Acknowledged and Agreed:




/s/ Christa Davies
Christa Davies
#### McKNIGHT, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by James McKnight, an infant, against the city of New York. T. Connoly, for appellant. J. B. Ker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce verdict to $1,500 and costs, in which event judgment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, without costs of appeal. Settle order on notice.

CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ., dissent, and vote for reversal.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0668

_____________________________

ANTHONY K. GIBSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

March 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4512-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4512-DR), dated April 2, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, MaryAnn Tierney, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Janice P. Barlow as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-15625 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-76,324-02

EX PARTE STEVEN LYNN LONG, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN

CAUSE NO. W05-52918-R(B) IN THE 265 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TH

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

In October 2006, a jury found Applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder.

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a). Based on the jury’s answers to the statutory

punishment questions set out in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, the

trial court sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and

1

sentence on direct appeal. Long v. State, No. AP-75,539 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 8, 2009)

(not designated for publication). We denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction

 Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this order to Articles refer to the Texas 1

Code of Criminal Procedure.
Long - 2

application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Long, No. WR-76,324-01 (Tex. Crim.

App. Mar. 7, 2012) (not designated for publication).

On August 3, 2017, Applicant filed in the trial court his first subsequent

application for a writ of habeas corpus. After reviewing the application, this Court

determined that the claim raised met the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5, and we remanded

the application to the trial court for a review on the merits. Ex parte Long, No. WR76,324-02 (Tex. Crim. App. June 27, 2018) (not designated for publication).

It has been two and a half years since we remanded the application to the trial

court. Accordingly, we order the trial court to resolve any remaining issues in the case

within 90 days from the date of this order. The clerk shall then immediately transmit the

complete writ record to this Court. Any extensions of time shall be requested by the trial

judge, or on his or her behalf, and obtained from this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

TH

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul E. Ross, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meade Instruments Corp.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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



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



Date:
October 20, 2008

|    |  |                                                                                       |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/PAUL E. ROSSPaul E. Ross Senior Vice PresidentFinance and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00290-CV

IN RE CHARLOTTE COSTLEY

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator seeks mandamus relief relating to an 

administrative law judge’s apparently adverse decision on her claim for Social Security 

disability benefits. A state court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus against a federal administrative law judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 

22.221 (West 2004). We lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding and dismiss it.1

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

 

1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. It does not include the 

certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). It lacks an 

appendix and a certified or sworn record, as required by Rules 52.3(k) and 52.7(a)(1). See id. 52.3(k), 

52.7(a)(1). And, it lacks proof of service. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served 

on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. 9.5; 52.2. Because of our disposition 

and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding. Id. 2.
In re Costley Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 23, 2012

[OT06]
#### AULTMAN & TAYLOR CO. v. SYME.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 30, 1895.)

Execution—Issuance—Computation op Time.

The five years, “after the entry of judgment,” within which execution may issue thereon, commences on the day judgment is entered.

On reargument. For decision on appeal, see 34 N. Y. Supp. 379.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN, J.

E. F. Brown, for appellant.

W. H. Blymyer, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is claimed upon the part of the appellant that the motion to set aside the orders for examination in this case should have been granted, because the judgment in the action was entered on the 14th of November, 1889, and the execution, which formed the foundation of those orders, was issued on the 14th of November, 1894, and therefore not issued within five years after the entry of judgment; and the question to be determined is whether, in the calculation of time, as prescribed by law, the first day is to be included in the computation or not. It seems to us, upon an examination of the statutes in respect to the computation of time, that a different rule prevails in computing any specified number of days, weeks, or months from a specified event, from that which obtains in the computation of any specified number of years from a specified event. By the provisions of the statutes, the day from which any specified number of days, weeks, or months of time is reckoned shall be excluded in making the reckoning. Laws 1894, c. 447, § 27. But the section relating to computation of time by the year contains no such provision. Laws 1892, c. 677, § 25. In order that the day upon which happens the event from which the computation is to take place should be excluded, it seems to have been thought necessary to so provide by legislation, which would not have been the case had this been the general rule in respect thereto. The computation of time, in order to determine whether an execution has been issued within five years after the entry of judgment, must, therefore, necessarily commence with the day on which the judgment is entered, as there is no provision of law, where the computation is made by years,- giving the party the benefit of the exclusion of the day upon which the act is done which sets the limitation running; 1 and as the court, in considering the question of time, takes no notice of the fraction of a day, that portion of the day which remains after the act is done must be treated as the first day.

It follows, therefore, that the order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.'
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1142 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1142

To repeal the provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 relating to 
  the termination of certain exceptions from rules relating to exempt 
         organizations which provide commercial-type insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 3, 1997

Mr. Moynihan (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Graham) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 relating to 
  the termination of certain exceptions from rules relating to exempt 
         organizations which provide commercial-type insurance.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROVISION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN 
              EXCEPTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1042 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-34) is repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997 (Public Law 105-34).
                                 <all>
```
#### Weber Chester, Respondent, v Alsol Enterprises, Ltd., Respondent, and City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[943 NYS2d 761]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated January 26, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

During the early afternoon of April 12, 2010, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell over a raised sidewalk abutting a commercial property in Brooklyn. The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged defect and that it had no duty to maintain the subject sidewalk which abutted a commercial property *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210; *see also Yarborough v City of New*York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]). In opposition, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although determination of a summary judgment motion may be delayed to allow for further discovery where evidence necessary to oppose the motion is unavailable to *923the opponent *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]), the mere hope that further discovery will reveal the existence of a triable issue of fact is insufficient to delay determination of the motion *(see Williams v D & J School Bus, Inc.,*69 AD3d 617, 619 [2010]; *Rodgers v City of Neto York,*34 AD3d 555, 556 [2006]; *Wyllie v District Attorney of County of Kings,*2 AD3d 714, 717 [2003]; *Greenberg v McLaughlin,*242 AD2d 603 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley Owens, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered September 22,1981, convicting him of attempted manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Four out of the five doctors who examined defendant in order to determine his fitness to stand trial agreed that he understood the charges and was able to assist his lawyer (CPL 730.10 [1]). A hearing was held and the court properly found that defendant’s fitness had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence presented *(People v Santos,*43 AD2d 73). Defendant was therefore competent to enter a plea of guilty *(People v Francabandera,*33 NY2d 429).

The plea allocution, although sparse, satisfied the requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9). Defendant was represented by counsel, acknowledged his guilt, and specifically stated that he did not want a jury trial. The plea was knowing and voluntary and pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the court and the prosecutor. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                            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 American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl P.
Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial 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.


/s/ Carl P. Ranno
-----------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer
August 15, 2011
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Todd R. Taylor, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
|   | /s/ TODD R. TAYLOR      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Todd R. Taylor          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                    |
|   | April 30, 2018     |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Brooks, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), rendered on April 4, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Kassal, JJ.
#### In re BUNKER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

In the matter of the settlement of the accounts of Ten Eyck Bunker, as administrator, etc.

No opinion. Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, without costs.
# Official Journal C 190A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.190.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 190A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5314 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.190.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 190A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5314 July 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 190A/01 | Vacancy for a President of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (Grade AD 14) — COM/2010/10274 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2010/C 190A/01

Vacancy for a President of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (Grade AD 14) — COM/2010/10274

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |
| 116 | (ET) |
| 119 | |
| 129 | (EL) |
| 137 | (LT/LV/MT) |
| 138 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 143 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 147 | (FI) |
| 149 | (IT) |
| 150 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 151 | |
| 155 | |
| 156 | (PL) |
| 157 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 171 | (IT) |
| 178 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 184 | |
| 188 | (DA/DE/EN/FR/SL) |
| 190 | |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

116

(ET)

119

129

(EL)

137

(LT/LV/MT)

138

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

143

(DE/EN/FR)

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(DA/FI/MT)

147

(FI)

149

(IT)

150

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

151

155

156

(PL)

157

163

164

171

(IT)

178

(DE/EN/FR)

184

188

(DA/DE/EN/FR/SL)

190

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN