alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1836

AN ACT

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction

of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1836 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND REINSTATE2 MENT OF LICENSE.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

4 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16

5 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En6 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 7115, the

7 Commission shall, at the request of the licensee for the

8 project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence,

9 and public interest requirements of that section and the

10 Commission’s procedures under that section, extend for 3

11 consecutive 2-year periods, the time period during which

12 the licensee is required to commence construction of the

13 project.

14 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect

15 on the expiration of the period required for commencement

16 of construction of the project described in subsection (a).

17 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the

18 license for the project described in subsection (a) has ex19 pired prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Com20 mission shall reinstate the license effective as of the date

21 of its expiration and extend the time required for com22 mencement of construction of the projects for not more
3

S 1836 ES

1 than 3 consecutive 2-year periods, the first of which shall

2 commence on the date of expiration of the license.

Passed the Senate April 13, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1836

AN ACT

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State

of Alabama.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0364 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHANE MEDORE MAGGI,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 2, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 27 2022

12/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0364
#### THE NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. MIDWAY CITY CREAMERY COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent.

(205 N. W. 624.)

Jury — on specification of error in returning verdict Iby less than twelve jurors, there must he a new trial.

Where a verdict is returned by less than twelve jurors pursuant to chapter 333, Sess. Laws, 1923, and error is specified on that ground, there must be a new trial, following Power v. Williams, ante, 54, holding said chapter unconstitutional, and void.

Note. — As to number and agreement of jurors necessary to constitute a valid verdict, see annotation in 43 L.R.A. 3; 16 R. O. L. 224; 3 E. 0. L. Supp. 551; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 1048.

Opinion filed October 22, 1925.

Appeal and Error, 3 O. J. § 802 p. 899 n. 65; 4 C. J. § 3184 p. 1165 n. 57 New. Juries, 35 C. J. § 162 p. 234 n. 55, 58. New Trial, 29 Cyc. p. 813 n. 93 New.

*257Judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.

Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, *Coffey,*J.

Reversed.

*Manly &*Manly, for appellant.

*N. J. Bollme,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The tenth, eleventh and twelfth specifications allege error upon the ground that the court instructed the jury that, having deliberated over twelve hours, ten or more jurors were competent to return a verdict. The instruction and the verdict are deemed excepted to §§ 7621 and 7653, Comp. Laws, 1913. These specifications raise the objection that chapter 333, Sess. Laws, 1923, purporting to dispense with the requirements of uniformity in civil cases, is unconstitutional and void. This court has recently held in the case of Power v. Williams, ante, 54, 205 N. W. 9, that the act authorizing less than twelve jurors to return a valid verdict is unconstitutional, contravening section seven of the Bill of Rights of the state Constitution. The decision in that case is necessarily controlling and requires a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

Other errors are assigned, but we need not consider them, as they may not arise upon another trial.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and a new trial ordered.

CitristiaNson, Ch. J., and Johnson, Buree, Birdzell, and Nuessle, JJ., concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 215

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase the allotments

for territories under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase

the allotments for territories under the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES

4 UNDER THE STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH IN5 SURANCE PROGRAM.

6 Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42

7 U.S.C. 1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by the Omnibus Con8 solidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

9 Act, 1999 (Public Law 105–277), is amended by inserting

10 ‘‘, $34,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
2

•S 215 IS

1 $25,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004,

2 $32,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and

3 $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007’’ before the period.

Æ
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1056 

CAF 11-00898 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTY BRAZIE, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FLORENCE ZENISEK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

PAUL M. DEEP, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

EDWARD G. KAMINSKI, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

JOHN T. NASCI, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROME, FOR CARI B., JERREMY

B. AND MCKENNA B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Brian M.

Miga, J.H.O.), entered February 10, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 8. The order, among other things, directed

respondent to stay away from petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is

dismissed.

Memorandum: Respondent, the fiancé of petitioner’s estranged

husband, appeals from an order of protection entered in favor of

petitioner and her children. Petitioner concedes that she failed to

meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence

that respondent committed the family offense of reckless endangerment,

and we agree with respondent that petitioner also failed to meet her

burden of proof with respect to the remaining offenses, i.e.,

disorderly conduct, harassment in the second degree and aggravated

harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal

Law §§ 240.20, 240.26, 240.30; see also Matter of Marquardt v

Marquardt, 97 AD3d 1112, 1113-1114). 

The offense of disorderly conduct was not established because

there was no evidence that respondent intended “to cause public

inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creat[ed] a risk

thereof” (Penal Law § 240.20 [emphasis added]). The offenses of

harassment in the second degree and aggravated harassment in the

second degree were not established because the evidence failed to show

that respondent — by arguing with her fiancé and making threats

against him and petitioner — intended to harass, annoy, threaten or

alarm petitioner, who was not present when the argument occurred. 
-2- 1056 

CAF 11-00898 

Although petitioner later listened to a recording of the argument that

had been left as a message on her telephone, there is no evidence that

respondent knew that her fiancé had called petitioner during the

argument and that her threats were being recorded on petitioner’s

telephone. We thus conclude that Family Court erred in failing to

dismiss the petition (see Marquardt, 97 AD3d at 1113; see generally

Matter of Woodruff v Rogers, 50 AD3d 1571, 1571-1572, lv denied 10

NY3d 717). Because we conclude that petitioner failed to establish

that respondent committed a family offense, we need not reach

respondent’s remaining contention. 

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27846-27847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11745]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12155 and <greek-i>12156]


Alabama Disaster Number AL-00029

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1908-DR), dated 05/03/
2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and 
Flooding.
    Incident Period: 04/24/2010 through 04/25/2010.

[[Page 27847]]

    Effective Date: 05/07/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/02/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/03/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 05/03/2010 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:
Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Walker.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Alabama: Fayette, Jefferson, Marion, Tuscaloosa, Winston.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-11745 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7674** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CEDRIC DEON WASHINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00800

- PMD

- 4; 2:13

- cv - 00248

- PMD )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Cedric Deon Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cedric Deon Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) ( 2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demons trating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district cou rt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have inde pendently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Franklin Corporation;
 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(s) 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(s) 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: November 16, 2009
    /s/ Daniel T. VoelpelDaniel T. VoelpelVice President and Chief Financial Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2172

To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride.

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

3 SECTION 1. THIONYL CHLORIDE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.28.01 Thionyl chloride

(CAS No.

007719–09–7)

(provided for in

subheading

2812.10.50) ....... Free Free No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or
2

•S 2172 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXTENSION OF LEASE

     HANNON'S, a partnership, as Landlord and ROOM PLUS OF EAST HANOVER, INC., a
corporation of New Jersey, as Tenant, entered into a lease for a portion of a
building located at #319 Route 10, East Hanover, NJ consisting of approximately
4,000 square feet, which commenced on August 1, 1983. The original term of five
years under that lease has passed and the single five year option period will
terminate on July 31, 1998.

     The parties wish to extend the lease under all the same terms and
conditions for a period of five years beginning on August 1, 1998 and
terminating on July 31, 2003 except that the fixed annual rental shall be
$82,000.00 per year payable $6,833.33 per month.

     If the tenant shall not then be in default in performing any of its
obligations under this lease, then the tenant shall have the option of extending
the term of this lease for an additional five (5) year period from August 1,
2003 through July 31, 2008 at a rental of $90,000.00 per year for each of the
five years, under all the same conditions except for the amount of the rent.

     Notice of tenant's exercise of the renewal option shall be given to the
Landlord, in writing, by certified mail, at least 6 months prior to the
expiration of the original term of this extension, i.e., by January 31, 2003.

                                HANNON'S a partnership

                                By: /s/ Harold J. Hannon  
                                    --------------------- 
                                    HAROLD J. HANNON,     
                                    a partner Landlord    
                                    

                                ROOM PLUS OF EAST HANOVER, INC.

                                By: /s/ Allan J. Socher 
                                    ------------------- 
                                    ALLAN J. SOCHER     
                                    President, Tenant   
                                    
ATTEST:

/s/ Marc Zucker
---------------

Secretary
ROOM PLUS OF EAST HANOVER, INC.
PART 11
 ITEM 1
       Legal Proceedings
The Company is not presently a party to any litigation of any kind or
nature whatsoever, nor to the company's best knowledge and belief is any
litigation threatened or contemplated.

ITEM 2
        Change in Securities.
There has not been any material changes of the rights of holders of
registered securities, and working capital restrictions and other
limitations on the payment of dividends.

ITEM 3
        Defaults Upon Senior Securities.
There has not been any defaults on any senior Securities.

ITEM 4
        Submission of Matters to a vote of Security Holders.
 On December 30th, 1997 the annual meeting of the Company was held at the
 Company's principal office, at 1051-5th Avenue North in Naples Florida.
 Of the 4,655,310 shares outstanding, 3,631,802 were represented in person
 and by proxy. The sole purpose of the meeting was to re-elect the Officers
 and Directors.
 The following officers and Directors were unanimously elected.
        Garfield Ricketts     Director/ Chairman/CEO
        Una M. Ricketts       Director/Secretary/Treasurer
        Karen Ricketts        Director
        
  There were no setlements or matters or solicitations under Rule 14a-11

  ITEM 5
         Other Matters

         None
  ITEM 6
        Exhibits and reports on Form 8-K

         NONE
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . A copy of the                           ( print page 3467)                        agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (                    *http://www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     012048-001.                

*Title:*                     The Container Trades Statistics Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd.; COSCO Container Lines Company Ltd.; CMA CGM S.A.; Compania Sudamericana de Vapores S.A.; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hamburg Sud KG; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Independent Container Line Ltd.; Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.; Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.; Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd.; United Arab Shipping Co. (SAG); Yangming Marine Transport Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.                

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement deletes Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., and Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line as parties to the agreement.                

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: January 15, 2010.

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-1073 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Stock Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”) is entered into as of May 29, 2009, by and between Praise International North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Buyer”), and Diedrich Coffee, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Seller”), with reference to the following: 
 WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller are parties to that certain Stock Purchase
Agreement dated as of March 27, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 11.11 of the
Agreement, Buyer and Seller desire to amend the Agreement as described below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1.
Amendment. Section 10.1(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended such that the date “May 31, 2009” contained therein shall be stricken and replaced with the date “June 12, 2009.” 
 2. No Further Amendments. Except as expressly amended pursuant to Section 1 hereof, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, notwithstanding the execution and delivery of this Amendment. 
 3.
Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by means of facsimile or portable document format), each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute one and
the same instrument. 
 5. Governing Law. This Amendment and its validity, construction, interpretation, and legal effect shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the domestic laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the
application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of California. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

  

			
	 BUYER:
  
 Praise International North America, Inc.

		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert McCullough
		 	 Name: Robert McCullough
 Title:   Director/Secretary

	
	 SELLER: 
  
 Diedrich Coffee, Inc.

		
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Phillips
		 	 Name: James R. Phillips
 Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



  
 SIGNATURE PAGE 
 TO 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT