alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Alfred Marino, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, William J. Marino, Petitioner, against City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

January 6, 1956.

*Lester G. Knopping*for petitioner.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel,*for respondent.

Francis X. Conlon, J.

On this application claimant, an infant, seeks an order pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, directing the City of New York to accept service of a late notice of claim for personal injuries.

On the date of the alleged accident the infant was over 14 years of age.

The infant’s rights in the instant matter are referrable to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, which provides that the court in its discretion may grant leave to serve a notice of claim within a reasonable time after a 90-day period has expired, where, by reason of the disability of infancy, no claim has been timely served.

‘ ‘ There are three periods of infancy to be considered in this connection. As matter of law the strict requirements of the statute are not enforced against an immature infant of approximately ten years or less. They are enforced against an infant of riper years, of ordinary physical and mental capacity. Between these two periods lies a middle period where the infant may or may not be held to the provisions of the statute under the facts of the case as the jury may determine. No exact limitation of these periods by age can safely be made and the classification may depend to some extent on the facts in a given case, but it is the age and capacity of the infant rather than the conduct of its parents and guardians which control.” *(Russo*v. *City of New York,*258 N. Y. 344, 348.)

The infant herein falls into the middle period of age classification referred to in the *Russo*case *(supra).*

In *Biancoviso*v. *City of New York*(285 App. Div. 320) the Appellate Division, Second Department, allowed an infant 13 years of age to file a late notice of claim. The court there stated that the statutory intent is that where the delay in filing *211is reasonably attributable in any substantial degree to the fact of infancy, the courts might grant relief; and that any other construction “ ‘ is repugnant to the view that an infant is a ward of the court, and to the principle that the rights of an inmaturo infant shall not be forfeited because of the failure of some other party to act.’ ” (P.325.)

In *Matter of Hogan*v. *City of Cohoes*(279 App. Div. 282, 285) the court held that an infant 13 years of age has not the mental capacity to protect his or her rights, and allowed the filing of a late notice of claim.

This court is in accord with the views held in the cases cited, and holds that such views apply to the situation presented in the instant matter, in which the claim of a 14-year-old infant is involved.

Accordingly this application is granted. Settle order.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5972 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide temporary housing for military 

families on housing waitlists. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 2023 

Mr. NEGUSE introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide temporary 

housing for military families on housing waitlists. 

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 ‘‘Military Housing Wait 

5 Times Accountability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MILITARY FAMI7 LIES ON HOUSING WAITLISTS. 

8 (a) WAITLIST ACCOMMODATIONS.—The Secretary of 

9 Defense shall provide to members of the Armed Forces 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5972 IH

1 and their dependents who, when undergoing a permanent 

2 change of station, are placed on a waitlist for on-base 

3 housing for a period of more than 10 days following the 

4 date of arrival at the new location, temporary accommoda5 tions for the entire duration of such period appropriate 

6 for the total size and composition of the family of the 

7 member and at a rate not to exceed the basic allowance 

8 for housing calculated for such member under section 403 

9 of title 37, United States Code. 

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

12 shall submit to the congressional defense committees a re13 port containing— 

14 (1) installation-specific data on the number of 

15 members of the Armed Forces and their dependents 

16 on military housing waitlists; 

17 (2) an identification of the time spent by each 

18 such member and their dependents awaiting appro19 priate housing accommodations; 

20 (3) an analysis of the factors that are creating 

21 the need for such waitlists; and 

22 (4) an assessment of the causes of waitlist du23 rations that exceed 10 days. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### James GREER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68298.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 9, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

*366Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Joanne E. Joiner, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
f10q0310ex10iii_covenant.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO SHARE CANCELLATION AND LOAN AGREEMENT


 


            This second amendment to the Share Cancellation and Loan Agreement (the latter dated as of December 24, 2009), by and between Covenant Group Holdings Inc. ("CGH") and Gary Sidhu ("Sidhu") (the “Agreement”), as amended by the first amendment to the Agreement dated as of March 24, 2010 (“First Amendment”), is now further amended by this second amendment to the Agreement (“Second Amendment”).


 


            The parties acknowledge that pursuant to the Agreement, CGH was the maker of a note (the “Note”) payable to Sidhu in the principal amount of $190,000 of which $90,000 of the principal amount was paid down to Sidhu by CGH following the Note’s execution.  Accordingly, $100,000 in principal amount of the Note had remained due and outstanding.  The Agreement also permitted Sidhu to keep a share certificate in Sidhu’s record name reflecting 500,000 shares of Covenant Group of China Inc. (formerly known as Everest Resources Corp.) common stock as collateral for the Note.  The Note was due and payable on March 24, 2010.


 


Pursuant to the First Amendment, in consideration for Sidhu’s cancellation of the Note, particularly the remaining $100,000 due and outstanding, Sidhu agreed to return the collateral or the above referenced share certificate, and CGH and Covenant Group of China Inc. agreed to cancel such share certificate and have re-issued a new share certificate representing 300,000 shares of unregistered common stock of Covenant Group of China Inc. in the record name of Sidhu or his designee.  Pursuant to this Second Amendment, the parties agree that for the benefit of CGH and for no additional consideration to Sidhu, the aforementioned 300,000 share consideration shall be revised and reduced to 70,000 shares.  Accordingly, the parties shall take all prompt and necessary steps for the return and cancellation of 230,000 shares held by Sidhu so that Sidhu shall be shown as record owner of 70,000 shares as opposed to 300,000 shares as a result of this Second Amendment.


 


            This Amendment shall be governed under Pennsylvania law without regard to its choice of law rules and may be executed in counterparts.


 


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


 


 



	 	 	COVENANT GROUP HOLDINGS INC.
	 	 	
 


 


	 	By:	/s/ Kenneth Wong
	 	 	 
	 	 	
Kenneth Wong, its President


	 	 	
 


 


	 	 	COVENANT GROUP OF CHINA INC.
	 	 	
 


 


	 	By:	/s/ Kenneth Wong
	 	 	 
	 	 	Kenneth Wong, its President
	 	 	
 


 


	 	 	GARY SIDHU
	 	 	
 


 


	 	By: 	/s/ Gary Sidhu
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-41337 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE MARIA VILLATORO-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-291-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Maria VillatoroAvila has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villatoro-Avila has filed a response. We have r e vi e wed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Villatoro-Avila’s response. We concur with counsel’s a s s e s s m ent that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 3, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-41337 Document: 00511746865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2012No. 10-41337

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, c o u nsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 10-41337 Document: 00511746865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2012
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20819-20820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11440]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Renewal Application Designated for Hearing

    1. The Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division, has before him the 
following application for renewal of broadcast license:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Licensee                     City/state                 File No.                 MM docket No.     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Broadcasting           Brownfield, Texas....  BRH-900315UC                 96-104                  
 Corporation.                                                                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Seeking renewal of the license for KLZK(FM)).
    2. Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, the above application has been designated for hearing in a 
proceeding upon the following issues:
    (a) To determine whether Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation has 
the capability and intent to expeditiously resume the broadcast 
operations of KLZK(FM), consistent with the Commission's Rules.
    (b) To determine whether Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation has 
violated Sections 73.1740 and/or 73.1750 of the Commission's Rules.
    (c) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the 
foregoing issues, whether grant of the

[[Page 20820]]

subject renewal of license application would service the public 
interest, convenience and necessity.
    A copy of the complete HDO in this proceeding is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the dockets 
section of the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. The complete text may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, International Transcription 
Service, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037 
(telephone 202-857-3800).

Federal Communications Commission.
Stuart B. Bedell,
Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11440 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
**EXHIBIT INDEX 10.4**

** **

**EXECUTIVECOMPENSATION PLAN**

Plan Year 2006

**DaveLatzke**

 

**I.**              **Annual Base Salary $275,000**

 

**II.**            **Performance Incentive Bonus (IB):  $125,000 annually**.  Your2006 Incentive Bonus will be paid based on the following criteria:

 

•      50% ($62,500) of the performance incentive bonus is based on theachievement of the annual operating profit targets for SoftBrands, Inc.

 
| ** **                 | ** ** | **EBITDA**          | ** ** | **Payment Eligibility** | ** ** |
|----------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------|------------|
| YTD Q1 (Oct – Dec 05) |       | 1st Quarter  Budget |       | 25                      | %          |
| YTD Q2 (Jan – Mar 06) |       | 2nd Quarter  Budget |       | 50                      | %          |
| YTD Q3 (Apr – Jun 06) |       | 3rd Quarter  Budget |       | 75                      | %          |
| YTD Q4 (Jul – Sep 06) |       | Annual Budget       |       | 100                     | %          |

 

**PerformanceIncentive Payments –**12.5% of your annual bonus for thisportion of your incentive will be paid quarterly based on the attainment of theannual operating profit metric.   Theremaining balance of earned bonus will be paid upon completion of the annualaudit.

 

**Threshold for Operating Profit Goal –**SoftBrands must achieve 90% of the targeted operatingprofit goal to be eligible for the bonus payments.  If SoftBrands achieves 90% of the targetedgoal, you will be eligible for 50% of your targeted incentive bonus.   For achievement of each percentage above90%, you will receive an additional 5% of your target to a maximum of 100%.  For each percentage achieved in excess of100% of the annual target, you will receive an additional 1% of your targetedincentive.

 

•      50% ($62,500)of the Performance Incentive bonus is based on the achievement of the followingperformance objectives:

 

•      40%($25,000) for delivering the full year Finance + Executive + IT budgets at orbelow plan.

•      12.5%of the annual bonus for this portion is advanced quarterly if the actualexpense is at or below plan year to date, the remainder to be paid once theyear end audit is complete.

•      20%($12,500) payable at year end if 2007 Finance + IT approved budget is 90% orless than the 2006 approved budget.

•      40%($25,000) paid at completion of 404 audit if no material weaknesses arereported (if SoftBrands is not required to complete a 404 audit for fiscal year2006, the 40% bonus will be earned if the 2007 Finance + IT approved budget is90% or less than the 2006 approved budget goal is met.)

 

----

 

**Note:**      SoftBrandsmust be in compliance with all debt covenants for any period in which a bonusis paid.

 

**III.****           Shouldyou leave the company for any reason; any bonus “not yet received” will be paidper your employment agreement.**

 

----
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 quarterly report of Frontier Beverage Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16,  2010 (the “Report”), I, Anthony Peppers, Principal 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:





(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/ Anthony Peppers


Anthony Peppers


Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


August 16,  2010





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5909 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to limit cost sharing 

for prenatal services in certain circumstances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2023 

Ms. SPANBERGER (for herself and Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS) introduced the 

following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to limit cost sharing for prenatal services in certain 

circumstances. 

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 ‘‘Caring for Grieving 

5 Families Act of 2023’’. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5909 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITING COST SHARING FOR PRENATAL SERVICES 

2 IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart II of part A of title 

4 XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 300gg–11 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 2730. LIMITATION ON COST SHARING FOR PRENATAL 

8 SERVICES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 

9 ‘‘In the case of a group health plan or group or indi10 vidual health insurance coverage that pays for items and 

11 services furnished to an individual relating to the birth 

12 of a child as part of a bundled payment and that includes 

13 payment for prenatal services (such as imaging tests and 

14 office visits) as part of such bundled payment, if such indi15 vidual experiences a miscarriage or stillbirth and such 

16 bundled payment is not made, such plan or coverage may 

17 not impose any cost sharing requirement (including 

18 deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) on such pre19 natal services furnished prior to such miscarriage or still20 birth in an amount that exceeds the cost sharing require21 ment that would have been applicable to such bundled pay22 ment had such miscarriage or stillbirth not occurred.’’. 

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

24 this section shall apply with respect to plan years begin25 ning on or after January 1, 2025. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 STATEMENT
        REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of BlueSky Systems, Corp.
        (the
        "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Duane
        Bennett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        certify that:
 
 *   the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  Duane
        Bennett
 President,
        Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief
        Financial Officer, Controller
 
 May
        15,
        2008
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section
        18 of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 *
                    We
                    plan to evaluate properties not listed for sale because of the
                    potential
                    benefit of acquiring a property in a particular location at a
                    lower cost
                    by not having to pay realtor commissions or other costs and fees
                    associated with purchasing properties only listed for sale with
                    realtors.
Exhibit
10.1


Special Director
Fees for Service on Special Committees


On October 9,
2006, the Board of Directors of Cablevision Systems Corporation (“Cablevision”)
formed a Special Transaction Committee of the Board to consider and act upon a
proposal from the Dolan Family Group to acquire all of the outstanding common
stock of Cablevision not owned by the Dolan Family Group.  The members of this committee are Thomas V.
Reifenheiser and Vice Admiral John R. Ryan USN (Ret.).


On October 27,
2006, the Board of Directors of Cablevision formed a Special Litigation
Committee of the Board to review and analyze the facts and circumstances
surrounding claims that have been raised in certain litigations in which the
Company has been named as a nominal defendant and to determine what actions the
Company should take with respect to the cases. The members of this committee
are Grover C. Brown and Zachary W. Carter.


Directors serving
on the Special Transaction Committee and the Special Litigation Committee
receive a fee of $30,000 per month (pro rated for any partial month).  This fee is in addition to meeting fees for
the Board of Directors meetings and committee membership fees for other committees
on which they may serve.


 



 1
#### Clinton Eugene WOODROME, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42103.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 27, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 24, 1990.

David S. Durbin, Appellate Defender, Terri L. Backhus, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of a 29.15 motion. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**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 Annual Report of Reflect Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), we, Kim Boyce, our Chief Executive Officer and director and Keith L. Merrell, our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 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 Annual 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 our Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and result of operations.

Dated: 3/31/2010                              /s/Kim Boyce

                                                           Kim Boyce

                                                           Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dated: 3/31/2010                             /s/Keith L. Merrell

                                                          Keith L. Merrell

                                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer