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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2075 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2075

 To provide for expedited review of executive privilege claims and to 
       improve efficiency of independent counsel investigations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 1998

 Mr. Ashcroft (for himself and Mr. McConnell) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for expedited review of executive privilege claims and to 
       improve efficiency of independent counsel investigations.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    Section 594 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(m) Judicial Review of Executive Privilege Claims.--
            ``(1) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of a 
        district court of the United States and the Supreme Court of 
        the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
        the maximum extent practicable the disposition of any claim 
        asserting executive privilege in any investigation authorized 
        pursuant to this chapter.
            ``(2) Appeal to supreme court.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, any order of a district court of the United 
        States disposing of a claim asserting executive privilege in 
        any investigation authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be 
        reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the 
        United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of 
        appeal filed within 10 calendar days after such order is 
        entered and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 
        30 calendar days after such order is entered. No stay of an 
        order described in this subsection shall be issued by a single 
        Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 594(m) of title 28, United States Code (as added by section 
1 of this Act), applies to any claim of executive privilege asserted on 
or after January 1, 1998, except that, for purposes of an order 
described in section 594(m)(1) of title 28, United States Code (as 
added by section 1 of this Act), entered before the date of enactment 
of this Act, the time periods for appeal provided in section 594(m)(2) 
of that title 28, United States Code (as added by section 1 of this 
Act), shall begin running on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NPS Archaeological Monitorin

NPS Archaeological Monitorin

FY2002

Lisa M. Leap Lisa M. Leap

Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon National Park

11/8/02 TWG Presentation, Phoenix 11/8/02 TWG Presentation, Phoenix
3⁄4 5 River Trips

• 3 Cooperative River Trips (funded through

NPS and outfitters).

• 1 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Cen

(funded through GCMRC).

• 1 NPS Archaeology Monitoring Trip (funded th

Reclamation)

Remedial Actions in FY02 Remedial Actions in FY02

Collection pile Collection pile
3⁄4 42 Sites Monitored in FY2002

• Sites with structures

(pueblo, smallstructure, historicstructure, orstructure withthermal feature)comprise 60% ofthe sample.

• Roasting/thermal

features orcomplexes comprise33% of the sample
• Physical impacts

observed at 92% ofthe sampled sites.

• Visitor impacts

observed at 55% ofthe sampled sites.

• Physical impact

frequency exceedsvisitor impactfrequency in reaches4, 5, 10, and 11.

3⁄4 Summary of Impacts to Cultural Sites
0

1020304050607080

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY0

0

50

100150200250

RiverBased Terrace- Based Side CanyonBased

3⁄4 Checkdam Updates

• 254 checkdams --

construction versesmaintenance.

• Since initial

construction 119(47%) haverequired nomaintenance.

• Maintenance is

mainly on on riverbased drainages.
3⁄4 New Site Discovered via Monitoring

Shafeatu
November 2001 November 2001 

December 2000 December 2000

3⁄4 Exposed Burial

• Vessels indicate

Puebloan ancestrydating circa AD1175.
3⁄4 Photographs to Determine Geomorphologic

Processes -- NAU

3⁄4 CDROM Project -- NAU

3⁄4 Database Improvements -- NAU

1911

Other Activities Other Activities
Work Proposed for FY2003 Work Proposed for FY2003

3⁄4 92 sites are scheduled for

monitoring.

3⁄4 105 remedial actions are

recommended with some siteshaving multiple recommendations.

• Preservation Treatment (74 sitesFor checkdams, planting vegetation,trailwork, and other preservationwork)• Recovery Treatment (31 sites fordata recovery)

Check
3⁄4 River Trip Participation (5 trips)

• 2 CRF trips sponsored by NPS and commercial ou• 1 trip sponsored bythe Arizona WaterProtection agency,GRCA, and the GrandCanyon WildlandsCouncil• 1 GCMRCsponsored trip• 1 NPS trip fundedthrough BOR• There are other trips that we may accompany but a

formally (i.e., tribal trips and other research trips).
3⁄4 Laboratory Work

• Application testing, datamigration/cleaning, datadocumentation, and designmodification.

• Two excavation r

NAU.

• Digital site map im• Plot archaeologica

orthophotos.
3⁄4 Educational Outreach

• Cultural resource orientations

for researchers• Checkdam research with the

Arizona Department of WaterResources and the ArizonaWater Protection

• Guides 

Semina

• Grand C

Institut

• Colorad

Manage

Hual

GTS Trip 1996
#### EADES, Appellant, v. GOIT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by Alvah Eades against Henry Goit and Lucinda Goit.

No opinion. Judgment of the county court reversed, with costs, and the justice’s judgment affirmed, with costs.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

December 4-5, 2007, Meeting 

List of Attachments

No. Attachments Presenter / Author 

1 Action Items Kurt Dongoske 

2a DFC AHC Draft Agenda 

2b DFCAHG Memorandum to the TWG dated Nov. 20, 2007 Mary Orton 

3a 

3b 

Abundance Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population 

of Humpback Chub: An Update Considering 1989-2006 Data 

Above corresponding PPT presentation 

Lew Coggins 

4a Targets for Future Conditions prepared by WAPA Shane Capron 

4b Targets for Future Conditions prepared by NPS with PPT Norm Henderson 

4c Science Behind NPS targets with PPT Melissa Tramell 

5 Transmittal of DFCAHG Report to BOR and AMWG sent Jan. 7, 2008 Kurt Dongoske 

6 Summary of Sediment Synthesis PPT Ted Melis 

7 Science Plan for a Potential 2008 Experimental Beach/HabitatBuilding Flow John Hamill 

8a Concerns/Recommendations by the CRAHG for the GCMRC FY08 

Cultural Resources Budge 

Mary Barger 

8b Responses to CRAHG Concerns Helen Fairley 

9 TWG Calendar for 2007-2009 Program Schedule Kurt Dongoske 

10 Prospectus for the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource 

Management Symposium on Dec 3, 2007 

John Hamill 

11 Final Report of the Cultural Monitoring Legacy Data Review Panel 

and the accompanying PPT presentation 

Dr. Keith Kintigh 

12 Report of “Review of Statement of Work and Relating to Preservation 

and Protection of Cultural Resources in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem” and accompanying PPT presentation 

Dr. Dave Garrett
Mr. Jorge Enrique MARTINEZ TDCJ-ID# 01592217-Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054 (R-l-17) Tennessee Colony, TX 75884-5000 

## RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS
AUG 122015

HONORABLE ABEL ACOSTA/ CLERK Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308-Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 436-1551/ Website: www.cca.court.state.tx.us (C.C.) STATE.LAW, LIBRARY^ , 

## p.o. £j£tes@9tafClerl Austin, TX 78711-2367

RE: Request to purchase certain portions of Trial Records that I lost in transit: l).Petition-For-Discretionary-Review (Or, "P.D.R.") denied 08/04/2010. 2). Direct Appeal (# 1161113) Martinez V. State, Opinion/ Affirmed 03/04/2010. 3). Cause No. 01-09-00724-CR/ 248th Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tx.
Monday/ August 3rd, 2015

HONORABLE ABEL ACOSTA: LIBRARIAN, State Law Library:

Dear Mr. Acosta, et alI am a foreign national, and my English language abilities are limited. 

### Tothe point, Iwas convicted in Harris County, Texas in 2008-2009, and I appealed to the Court ofAppeals-First District of Texas atHouston, Texas. (Appeal Case 

### Number #1151113). Myconviction for analleged Aggravated Robberywas affirmed on 03/04/10, and I filed a "P.D.R." which was denied onAugust 8th, 2010.
Somehow I have lost a portion of my Trial Transcripts, which I need to replace. I have most of my Trial Records (e.g., Transcripts and the Statementof-Facts); but, I have somehow lost or misplaced VOLUMES 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 5, and Vol. 6 of the Statement-Of-Facts. Also, DO I HAVE AN §11.07 HABEAS CORPUS on FILE? My attorney may have filed one I have beenadvised that is cheaper to purchase my appeal records from your Office and/or from the State LawLibrary? Such iswhat I wish to do. Can you (or the State LawLibrary) send my "TABLE OF CONTENTS" of the appellate records, so that I can better identifywhat I actually need? Ifnot, then please 

### quote aprice for VOLUMES 1,2,5 and 6 of the Statement-Of-Facts. Additionally, please note that I must submit an 1-2.5 WITHDRAWAL SLIP Per TDCJ's Inmate Trust

### fund (ITF) Department, and this transaction takes 4-6 weeks to issue amoney order. Thus, I must have an accurate amount for photocopying services for the 1-25 form.
Thank you very much for your professional public services, time, and kind 

### assistance in the above matter. I am researching a State Writ ofHabeas Corpus 

### (pursuant to TX. C.C.P. Art. 11.07 et seq) and Idesperatelyneed all myrecords. By copy of this instant letter, I am contacting theLibrarian for theTexas State 

### Law Library, also. Thank you once again. Sincerely, JEM/lg (cc: file/ State LawLib.) £. 'vTWr 

# Sq§

MR. JORGE ENRIQUE MARTINEZ TDCJ# 01592217-Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054. Tenn. colony, TX 75884-5000
Monitoring and Research Trips a

Possible Experimental Actions to Implemented in 2018

Technical Work Group Meeting

June 25-26, 2018

Scott VanderKooiSouthwest Biological Science CenterGrand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Monitoring and Research Trips for 

Launch Take out Project Number, Agency, and Project Description 

14‐Jun 29‐Jun Project F, GCMRC, Aquatic food base monitoring and Grand Canyon Youth "Partners in  Science" 

15‐Jun 6‐Jul Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile humpback chub monitoring 

18‐Jun 26‐Jun NPS, Humpback chub monitoring, Shinumo Creek 29‐Jun 10‐Jul Project G, GCMRC, Humpback chub monitoring in the LCR 

9‐Jul 13‐Jul Project H, AZGFD, Lees Ferry trout monitoring 

9‐Jul 18‐Jul NPS, Larval razorback sucker and small‐bodied fish monitoring 

12‐Jul 27‐Jul GCMRC, Grand Canyon Youth "Partners in Science" 

6‐Aug 15‐Aug NPS, Larval Razorback sucker and small‐bodied fish monitoring 

8‐Aug 10‐Aug Project C, GCMRC, Riparian vegetation monitoring 

15‐Aug 31‐Aug Project A, GCMRC, Quality of water and fine sediment monitoring 

18‐Aug 4‐Sep Project C, GCMRC, Terrestrial vegetation monitoring 

22‐Aug 7‐Sep Project G, USFWS/GCMRC, Humpback chub aggregation monitoring 

25‐Aug 4‐Sep Hopi Tribe, Cultural monitoring 

3‐Sep 13‐Sep NPS, Humpback chub monitoring 4‐Sep 13‐Sep NPS, Larval razorback sucker and small‐bodied fish monitoring 7‐Sep 17‐Sep Navajo Nation, Cultural monitoring 8‐Sep 14‐Sep Project H, GCMRC, Trout reproductive and growth demographics, Lees Ferry 

15‐Sep 28‐Sep Project I, GCMRC, Mainstem fish monitoring (seining) 18‐Sep 21‐Sep Project H, AZGFD, Lees Ferry trout monitoring 26‐Sep 12‐Oct Project B/C, GCMRC, Sandbar and vegetation monitoring 

28‐Sep 1‐Oct Project I, AZGFD, Mainstem fish monitoring downstream of Diamond Creek 

2‐Oct 6‐Oct NPS, Humpback chub monitoring, Havasu Creek 6‐Oct 26‐Oct Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile humpback chub monitoring 
Possible Fall HFEs for 2018

 Fall HFEs

 Sediment-triggered HFE – up to 96 ho Extended-duration HFE – up to 192 ho

 HFE window beginning October 1

 Accounting period: July 1 to Novemb Track sand input from Paria River to M

Canyon

 Need adequate sediment mass balanc

Marble Canyon at beginning of HFE w
cool_ex432.htm

EXHIBIT 4.32
  
 AMENDMENT
 TO THE $165,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED May 19, 2019
  
 The parties agree that $165,000 Promissory Note by and between Cool Technologies, Inc. (“Company”) and Lucas Hoppel (“Holder”) is hereby amended as follows:
  
 Maturity Date: The Maturity Date shall be extended to May 1st, 2020.
  
 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE $165,000 PROMISSORY NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
  
 Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated December 13th, 2019 by signing below:
  
 		 	 	 	 
	/s/ Timothy Hassett	 	 	 /s/ Lucas Hoppel
	 
	 Tim Hassett 
	 	 	 Lucas Hoppel 
	 
	 Cool Technologies, Inc. 
 Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CONSUMER CELLULAR, INCORPORATED, 3:15-CV-01908-PK

an Oregon corporation, 

ORDER

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM, INC., 

a Nevada corporation; 

CONSUMERS UNIFIED, LLC, a 

Nevada limited liability 

company; and DAVID ZACHARY CARMAN,

 Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

On September 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued an

Opinion and Order (#65) granting Defendants’ Motion (#52) to Stay

Proceedings Pending Appeal as to trial of Plaintiff’s RICO claim

and denying Defendants’ Motion (#52) to Stay Proceedings Pending

Appeal as to pretrial proceedings in connection with Plaintiff’s

1 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 74 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 3
RICO claim. On October 13, 2016, Defendants filed Objections to

the portion of the Opinion and Order in which the Magistrate

Judge denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay as to pretrial

proceedings. On November 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Reply to

their Objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen a pretrial matter not

dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a

magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must

promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate,

issue a written order stating the decision." The standard of

review for an order with objections is "clearly erroneous" or

"contrary to law." See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)(applying

the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for

nondispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not

determinative of "a party's claim or defense," it is not

dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to the de novo review

that is required for proposed findings and recommendations that

address dispositive motions. See Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

 This Court has carefully considered Defendants’ Objections

and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the

Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Order. This Court also has

reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does

not find any error.

2 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 74 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION

The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Papak's Opinion and Order

(#65) granting Defendants’ Motion (#52) to Stay Proceedings

Pending Appeal as to trial of Plaintiff’s RICO claim and denying

Defendants’ Motion (#52) to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal as to

pretrial proceedings in connection with Plaintiff’s RICO claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 74 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3
LAKE CREEK BELOW TWIN LAKES RESERVOIRLatitude: 39.076Longitude: -106.31Elevation: None

LAKE CREEK BELOW TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake
Overview of Reclamatio

FY 15-17 Budget

Katrina Grantz Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Technical Work Group April 20, 2016 
GCDAMP Triennial Budget Proc

Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Sec. Designee Anne Castle May 7, 2014 memo

– Develop a three year budget and work plan for the 

for fiscal years 2015-2017 

– Revise and update the biennial budget developme

timeline and process to a triennial process 

– Organize the FY2015-17 TWP around: 

• The four DFCs: Colorado River Ecosystem, Cultura

Resources, Recreation, and Hydropower 

• TWG recommendations • A need to be responsive to the outcomes of the GC

EIS 

2 
Where are we in the TWP Proce

FY 14 • Heavy lifting, the 

FY15-17 TWP - good news, its done! 

FY 15 • Easy times, revie

and approve FY year of the TWP 

FY 16 • Some work to do, do 

we need to changeanything? 

FY 17 • Heavy lifting, dev

the FY 18-20 TW

3 
GCDAMP Budget FY 15-17 

GCDAMP Budget Power Revenues 

FY 15 = $10,755,000 (1.7% CPI) (budgeted 

Reclamation = $2,083,000 (-$27,000GCMRC = $8,672,000 (-$110,00

FY 16 = $10,755,000 (0% CPI) (budgeted 

Reclamation = $2,083,000 (-$48,000GCMRC = $8,672,000 (-$416,00

FY 17 = $10,755,000 (w/ 0% CPI - ??)

Reclamation = $2,083,000GCMRC = $8,672,000 

4 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program FY15‐17 Updated Budget Table for the B

Reclamation using 1.7% FY15 CPI and 0% CPI for FY 15&16

Description FY15

w/ 1.7% CPI

FY16

w/ 0% C

AMWG

Personnel Costs ‐ Labor & Burden 194,049 194,0

AMWG Member Travel Reimb 15,491 15,4

AMWG Reclamation Travel Reimb 15,894 15,8

Facilitation Contract 79,556 79,5

POAHG Expenses ‐ Labor, Burden, & Travel 62,258 62,2

Other 8,933 8,9

Subtotal $376,180 $376,1

TWG Personnel Costs ‐ Labor 96,628 96,6

TWG Member Travel Reimb. 22,760 22,7

Reclamation Travel 15,703 15,7TWG Chair 31,646 31,6

Facilitation 79,556 79,5

Other 2,552 2,5

Subtotal $248,845 $248,8

5 
Other FY15 FY16 

Admin Support NPS Permitting 137,319 137

Contract Administration ‐ Labor, Burden, Travel 44,789 44Science Advisor Contract 75,000 75

Experimental Carryover Funds 286,815 286Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in GlenCanyon Dam Jet Tubes

245,764 

Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 824,079 824

Subtotal $1,613,766 $1,613

CULTURAL PROGRAM

Reclamation Administration and Travel 133,542 133

Cultural Program Implementation 500,000 500

Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 160,180 160

Reclamation Power Revenue Costs

w/o Carryover

$2,872,333

TRIBAL CONTRACTS (Appropriated Funds)

Hopi Tribe 95,000 95

Hualapai Tribe 95,000 95

Navajo Nation 95,000 95Pueblo of Zuni 95,000 95

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians 95,000 95

DOI Agency Appropriated Funds Total $475,000 $475

Carryover $56,687
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Annual Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Edward Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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.








/s/
      Edward Dickinson


Edward
      Dickinson


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      13,
      2007
#### Peck, Respondent, *v.*Baldwin, Appellant.

(Supreme *Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See *Billington*v. *Billington,*4 N. *Y.*Supp. 504; *Finck*v. *Mannering,*46 Hun, 823; Code Civil Proc. § 2433.
Exhibit 11
            Statement Regarding the Computation of Earnings Per Share



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                    For the six month period          For the quarter ending
                                                          ending June 30,                      June 30,
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                      1998            1997(1)          1998            1997(1)
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
     Total average shares outstanding              33,909,685       33,117,594       33,942,194       33,124,944
     Average allocated ESOP shares                      7,438           37,125           11,137           55,689
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------

Basic average shares                               33,917,123       33,154,719       33,953,331       33,180,633
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------

     Common Stock Equivalents (1)
            Option plans Mgt/Directors                275,826          233,622          279,244          233,343
            RRP Management                             27,877           22,140           27,877           21,354
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------

    Total average allocated award shares              303,703          255,762          307,121          254,697
                                                   ---------------------------      ----------------------------

    Fully diluted average shares outstanding       34,220,826       33,410,481       34,260,452       33,435,330
                                                  ============================      ============================

Net income for the period                         $10,224,000      $ 9,774,000      $ 4,475,000      $ 5,065,000
Basic Earnings per share                          $      0.30      $      0.29      $      0.13      $      0.15
                                                  ============================      ============================

Diluted earnings per share                        $      0.30      $      0.29      $      0.13      $      0.15
                                                  ============================      ============================
</TABLE>



(1)  The 1997 earnings per share calculations reflect the retroactive effect of
     a 3 for 1 stock split effected in the form of a dividend that was approved
     by the Board of Directors on October 22, 1997. The dividend was declared to
     stockholders of record as of November 4, 1997 and was paid on November 18,
     1997.

                                       40
#### Ellen J. Gallagher, Respondent-Appellant, v Edward R. Gallagher, Appellant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[945 NYS2d 587]

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.