alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sheikara G., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Myron J., Appellant.

Final order of disposition of the Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory D. Fields, J.), entered on or about July 2, 1987, which discharged the subject child to her mother under supervision for 18 months and barred the father from seeing the. child without a prior court order, upon a finding, after a hearing, that the father had sexually abused the child and had allowed her to be sexually abused by others, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of nurse Leah Harrison offered adequate corroboration of the child’s unsworn out-of-court statements that she had been sexually abused. (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] *70[vi].) Ms. Harrison, a certified nurse practitioner specializing in abused and neglected children, with a Masters of Science degree in pediatrics, had extensive experience in examining children alleged to be sexually abused and had taught on the subject of child abuse at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. She testified as both a validating witness, based on two interviews with the four-year-old child, and as a medical expert, offering very strong evidence corroborating the allegations of sexual abuse, including scarring of the hymenal ring. *(See, Matter of Kimberly K.,*123 AD2d 865.) The admission into evidence of a report of a doctor, who did not find medical evidence of abuse upon his examination (though he did find strong behavioral indications of abuse), did not undermine Harrison’s findings. Since the doctor did not testify, it was impossible to ascertain the extent of his physical examination.

Moreover, unlike the fact of abuse, a child’s identification of her abuser does not require specific corroboration, as long as the circumstances as a whole confirm the child’s credibility. *(Matter of Nicole V.,*123 AD2d 97, 105, *affd*71 NY2d 112.) The child’s out-of-court statement that "daddy” participated in some of the acts committed against her was sufficient evidence that her father was a participant. There was no evidence that she ever called her mother’s boyfriend "daddy”, rather than "Daddy Chris”. Moreover, all of her statements concerning the abuse indicated that they occurred when she was visiting her father’s home. Furthermore, as the court noted, its finding could be founded on either the father’s direct abuse or his knowing failure to protect the child from the abuse of his family members *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]), and the court clearly found that both had occurred. Its finding that the father knew of the abuse committed by his brother was based not only on the court’s documented observation of the father’s hesitancy in answering questions concerning this area, but on the fact that the father’s denial that he knew that five other children had been removed from his home on a finding of sexual abuse by his brother was clearly incredible.

Finally, given the facts of this case, the court’s final order of protection, which barred the father from visitation without a court order, was not overly harsh. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
<PAGE>                                
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20549


                            FORM 10-Q/A

                       Amendment No. 1 to
     Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                 Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the Quarterly Period Ended                 Commission File
June 30, 1996                                  No. 1-1569


               AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS, INC.




Incorporated under                            IRS Employer I.D.
the Laws of Pennsylvania                      No. 23-6000765


         One East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
                         (513) 579-6600









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

                 This Form 10-Q/A is being filed 
               to renumber Exhibit 7 as Exhibit 27.

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












                          
<PAGE>


The Financial Data Schedule was filed on 8/14/96 as Exhibit 7 and
is being refiled to correctly number the exhibit as Exhibit 27. 


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, American Premier Underwriters, Inc. has duly caused this
Amendment to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly
authorized.

                           American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

October 4, 1996            BY: s/Fred J. Runk
                               Fred J. Runk
                               Senior Vice President and Treasurer

                               
<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health 
Statistics

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 
announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.

    Times and Dates: 11 a.m.-5:30 p.m., September 18, 2008. 8:30 
a.m.-2 p.m., September 19, 2008.
    Place: NCHS Headquarters, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, 
Maryland 20782.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: This committee is charged with providing advice and 
making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and 
Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding 
the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, 
strategies, and priorities of NCHS.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda will include welcome remarks 
by the Director, NCHS; introduction of members and key NCHS staff; 
scientific presentations and discussions; the review of the National 
Health Interview Survey; presentation of the long term care program 
in the initial stage of review; and an open session for comments 
from the public.
    Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in 
writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must 
contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational 
affiliation of the presenter.
    Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed 
pages in length and must be received by September 12, 2008.
    The agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D., 
Director of Extramural Research, NCHS/CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 
7211, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4500, fax 
(301) 458-4020.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E8-19947 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Agreement between US Airways and its Executive Vice President-Corporate Affairs



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 October 20, 2004 
  
 Ms. Elizabeth K. Lanier 
 3668 Grandin Road 
 Cincinnati, OH 45226 
  
 Dear Liz: 
  
 As you know, US
Airways, Inc. (“the Company”) is in the process of implementing its Transformation Plan, which will enable it to compete effectively against the competition, including the increasing number of Low-Cost Carriers (“LCCs”). A major
portion of the Transformation Plan involves reductions in the Company’s employee costs, which means changes in the compensation benefits of all employees, including officers. Specifically, pursuant to the management cost reductions announced on
October 4, 2004: 
  

	 	1.	 	effective October 11, 2004, your salary will be reduced by 10%; 

  

	 	2.	 	effective October 11, 2004, the amount contributed to your retirement plan will be reduced by 25%; 

  

	 	3.	 	effective January 1, 2005, the current system for sick and vacation days will be replaced by a Paid Time Off (PTO) system, under which you will be entitled to twenty-five (25) PTO
days and eight (8) holidays; 

  

	 	4.	 	under the new PTO system, the eight holidays will be New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and two floating holidays; and


  

	 	5.	 	Section 6 of the Agreement will be applied according to your salary of record prior to reduction. 

  
 By your signature below, you agree that (a) the changes identified in items 1-5 above will not, either separately or in the
aggregate, constitute “Good Reason,” as that term is defined in the Employment Agreement entered into as of March 1, 2003 between you and the Company (“the Agreement”); (b) the changes identified in items 1-5 do not constitute a
breach of the Agreement; and (c) as of the date of this letter, “Good Reason” does not presently exist with respect to you either due to the changes identified in items 1-4 above or due to any other events. 
  
 This letter will be deemed to constitute a written amendment to your
Agreement. 







 Ms. Elizabeth K. Lanier 
 Page 2 
 October 2, 2004 
  
 Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing and dating this letter in the spaces provided below and returning it to me. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 Jerrold A. Glass



  

	
	 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS

	              DATE OF OCTOBER, 2004

	
	  


	              Elizabeth K. Lanier
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000118 14-MAY-2019 09:31 AM
179 La. 895

#### MERCADEL v. MERCADEL.

No. 32502.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 21, 1934.

Daniel A. McGovern, Jr., of New Orleans (M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.

Loys Charbonnet and E. B. Charbonnet, Jr., both of New. Orleans, for appellee.

BRTJNOT, Justice.

This is a suit for a divorce. It is based upon acts of adultery alleged to have been committed by the defendant with a man named Prank Stephens on or about April 24, 1932, and between that date and May 6, 1932. The suit was filed on the last-named date, but, for some unexplained reason, no. effort was made to prosecute it until February 14, 1933, when the minutes show that a preliminary default was entered.

Before the default was confirmed the defendant filed an answer to the suit and a re-conventional demand, and prayed for judgment in reconvention, in her favor -and against her husband, decreeing a separation a mensa et thoro between them, and for the custody and control of their minor child pending the final determination of the suit.

About two months after issue was thus joined, the plaintiff, with leave of the court, filed a supplemental and amended petition in which acts, indicative of moral turpitude on the part of the defendant, are alleged to have *392been committed by ber some time subsequent to tbe filing of ber answer. The defendant excepted to the filing of tbe supplemental and amended petition. This exception was beard and maintained, tbe order authorizing the filing of the supplemental petition was rescinded, and tbe supplemental and amended petition was dismissed. This appeal is from that ruling.

It is apparent that the appeal is from an interlocutory order that cannot cause the appellant irreparable injury, and, as this is an ordinary suit, there is no appeal from such an order. Mechanics’ & Traders’ Insurance Co. v. Nathan Gerson et al., 38 La. Ann. 349; Penrice v. Crothwaite et al., 11 Mart. (O. S.) 537; Geordano v. Thomas et al., 13 La. 315.

The appellee has not moved to dismiss the appeal, but we consider it to be the duty of the court, ex proprio motu, to do so. The appeal is therefore dismissed at appellant’s cost.
#### Kenneth Silverman et al., Appellants, v Debra Lobel et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered July 24, 1989, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the petition as against respondents Marie L. Rosso, George Nicholas and Anastasia Nicholas (sellers) and stayed this CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking a judgment directing respondent Debra Lobel, Esq. to release and return a $60,000 down payment to petitioners held by her as escrow agent, pending the outcome of two related actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners entered into a written real estate contract in which they agreed to purchase a marina owned by respondent sellers. Petitioners deposited $60,000 (10% of the purchase price) with the sellers’ attorney.

Petitioners allegedly canceled the real estate contract by letter, due to their purported inability to obtain a mortgage. However, the sellers assert that the letter and the petitioners’ subsequent actions did not terminate the contract but, instead, extended the time frame and altered the terms of the contract. In this light, the sellers maintain that when the petitioners failed to close on the new closing date, they forfeited their down payment.

Petitioners commenced this article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondent Lobel, as an officer of the court, to pay to them the $60,000, which she had been holding in escrow. Petitioners also commenced a declaratory judgment action in Suffolk County and an action in New York County, alleging fraudulent inducement to enter into the real estate contract.

The IAS court dismissed the article 78 petition as to respondent sellers and stayed the proceeding as to respondent Lobel pending the resolution of the two related plenary actions commenced by petitioners.

The remedy of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts where there is a clear right to the relief sought. *(Spring Realty Co. v New York City Loft Bd.,*69 NY2d 657, *63
      *appeal dismissed*482 US 911.) Accordingly, since the instant record reveals an obvious dispute as to whether the real estate contract was effectively canceled or was', instead, modified and as to whether petitioners’ failure to close on the new date constituted a default under the contract, there is no clear right to the relief sought by petitioners. The release of the money in escrow by respondent Lobel is certainly not a ministerial act at this point.

Moreover, as there are other available adequate remedies (as is clearly demonstrated by petitioners’ commencement of the two plenary actions), this article 78 proceeding against the respondent sellers was inappropriate. *(See, Matter of Corbeau Constr. Corp. v Board of Educ.,*32 AD2d 958.) Concur—Kupferman, J. R, Sullivan, Carro and Smith, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0641 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GILBERT CAMPA,

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 June 12 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

May 3 2023

05/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0641
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6905 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6905

To provide for the withdrawal of normal trade relations treatment with 
            the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2022

  Mr. Rice of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the withdrawal of normal trade relations treatment with 
            the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund Putin Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT WITH THE RUSSIAN 
              FEDERATION.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of title I of the Russia and Moldova 
Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability 
Act of 2012 (Public Law 112- 208; 19 U.S.C. 2434 note) or any other 
provision of law, effective on the date of the enactment of this Act 
normal trade relations treatment shall not apply pursuant to section 
102 of that Act to the products of the Russian Federation.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, 
              PETROCHEMICALS, AND COAL FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND 
              THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
President shall take such actions as may be necessary to prohibit the 
importation of petroleum, natural gas, petrochemicals, and coal from 
the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus.
    (b) Regulations.--The President shall promulgate such regulations 
as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
VYHEA-RNEY GENERAL 

OF~EXAS 
Eon. George W. S:heppsrd, pugs 2 

were turno& over to the Renkrupt~g Court at Shreveport, as 

being subjeot to the jurladlotlon 05 that Court, in &min.isterins the eaaets of the Hurrloane Petroleum Corporation, Ru&ruptt 

The properties, rsal and personal, remaining with the State 

Dlstriot Court, were dlrcloted to be scld to astirrip the Stateta 

prlar motor fuel tax lien, all other known lien olalmant8, 

exoept the taxing units lnvdlred here, hark been sajudged 

inrsrior to eeld lien. The prooeede rwllaed frau the ML@ 

af such gropertlw 8x0 In the hands of the du 

%I 

appd.nted 

and acting Reoslver in said osuse, the Hononb 

of Rusk, Tsxas. 

J. W. Qmmers, 

If the tuxe8 involved hsre are asttesaed &Iplfn#t 

properties admlnletered by tb hnkruptoy Court at Bhre~sport, 

then the remedy of the taxlag units olalalng suoh Mxs8 will 

be to duly flls their olalms I+ said oourt, If, ah the abhor 

hsud, the r&l and pmrse@al pmpertles’adld by the Rwelrer 

In ths state District Court, wera sswnsed for the tares mention& abovs, then the remedy of the various taxing unfta 

will be to rile with thsReoeloer end in the ebove~ styled 

oause their tax olaims, end themba en4 therein assert what 

priority 0S paymnt ar llsn exists sgainst the prommds in 

the bands of said Reeelrer. The letter of the Ter iaef~~usarCollector does not wfflolen8ly dewrlbe the property ~essesseb 

to enable us to giri a more defiults s~rsnver regarding the iexum 

In whloh these tax alaims pily be edJ&tdlOotid, 

It is not the peUog ot ~this ~JYM 

wh! 

artstent to render 

eplnlons regfm¶Ug questl,ens or lssu8s oh are imolved la 

Renoe. 8lnoe the sbexe dewribed oouee I8 still 

Courtwlll,pxobPblp bs oslled upsn to detsrn&w 

pr&mltiea of the vanrims 8ar olafmcl and U4tm, 

we do not twl that it would bs proper fsr us to write sa 

oplhlfan upon this legs1 que&loa, 

However, we aan emwer, In part the qusstlau submitted by edrising that, rs@mdless cd p&ritles la 8nB ta 

the prwwds, the Tax Aesesac&&ollsotor of Rusk Cuuntp would 

have 110 authority to levy oh the perssnml prepsrty to oolleot 

taxes awowed against scari beoause such property, along with 

the real property, bns been wld by the Raoelrm Mder oxder 

of the Court, ires and alsar OS 8l.l liens, in&&g tax &MU 

of ell kinds, ii any exist here, such liens bdngtran6fi#med 

to the prwwdr, 

It 1s further our opfnlon that unlew the Countr 

Attorhef of Rusk County, or o$her proper offlolal, 4~4 

lntenums in the above aeuse to assert suoh liens as arr 

ulat egalhst the funds In the hands oi the Reaeiver, to 

sane the lmxos olalmed, suoh Sunde will be paid, under 

order of the Court, after dlrorrrisg proper expense8, on 

dellnqusht motor fuel taxes, baoause the lien se~ur 

taxes have been deoreed to be a preferred and prior %*:?h 
Hon. George E. Sheppard, gag0 3 

mustlag the foregoing ruiiy exp&ins the atatua 

or this imt8.t-. ~0 8r(~
EXHIBIT 10(b)(b)

June 22, 2004


[Name of Executive Officer]
EMCOR Group, Inc.
301 Merritt Seven
Norwalk, CT  06851


Dear ___________:

     As of June 9, 2004, you held the following unvested options:

        Date of Grant              Number of Options          Exercise Price
       ---------------             -----------------          --------------
       January 2, 2003                   ______                   $54.73
       January 2, 2004                   ______                   $43.83

     Please be advised  that on June 10,  2004,  the Board of  Directors  of the
Company agreed that the aforementioned  options shall be vested as of that date.
Accordingly, those options may be exercised at any time or from time to time, in
whole or in part,  from and after June 10, 2004  subject to any other terms with
respect to the  expiration  or  cancellation  of such  options  contained in the
Option  Agreements  between  you and the Company  evidencing  the grants of such
options.


                                             Very truly yours,

                                             EMCOR Group, Inc.


                                             by /s/ FRANK T. MACINNIS
                                                ---------------------
                                                Frank T. MacInnis