alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Opinion to the House of Representatives.

APRIL 13, 1951.

Present : Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

Request for Opinion by house of representatives in accordance with sec. 2, art. XII of state constitution.

April 13, 1951

To the Honorable, the House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

We have received from the honorable house of representatives a resolution requesting, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article XII of amendments to the constitution of this state, our written opinion upon a question of law. That question is stated as follows:

> *163“Does the state of Rhode Island, and/or any city or town thereof have the right to sign a contract providing for wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with a labor union?”

Upon examination it is clear that the above question is general and lacking in definiteness in several important respects. In attempting to perform our duty we have given the question careful consideration, but for the reason indicated we find it impossible to render an opinion thereon without indulging in unlimited speculation as to its scope and exact meaning.

In our judgment a proper answer to the question propounded cannot be given without having available more definite information regarding the nature and terms of any particular contract therein referred to and the specific law or laws that might be applicable to the facts and circumstances that the members of the house of representatives may have had in mind. It is a matter of importance to know, among other things, which employees of the state or of any of its subdivisions are to be affected by the making of any such contemplated contract. Furthermore before such a question as here presented could be answered properly it would be necessary to know the nature of the employment, the duties of such state or municipal employees, and the existence of any provision of law, constitutional, statutory, or otherwise, which might .control or bear materially upon such duties or the contract of employment and the performance thereof.

Therefore we respectfully reply to your honorable body that because of the generality and indefiniteness of the question submitted to us we are unable, in the performance of our duty, to give an opinion thereon that would be of assistance.

Edmund W. Flynn

Antonio A. Capotosto

Hugh B. Baker

Francis B. Condon

Jeremiah E. O’Connell
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. RAMON DE GUZMAN

Criminal No. 106-72

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

October 23, 1973

Before GRAY, BROWN, and PEREZ, *Judges*

BROWN, *Designated Judge*

OPINION

Under a twelve count Information, the defendant was charged with the late payment of wages to each of twelve employees, each count alleging that the defendant was in violation of Section 46030 of the Government Code of Guam. The case was tried to a jury which returned its verdict in the following form:

> “We, the Jury, find the defendant Guilty.”

In considering the form of the verdict returned by the jury, we find that it was fatally defective. It must be remembered that each count of an Information constitutes a separate accusation, and the defendant is entitled ,to the jury’s careful consideration of each offense charged. In the case before us, each count alleged a late payment of wages to each of twelve separate employees. From this fact alone, *220it might appear at first glance that the verdict was a proper one. However, the record reveals that different situations obtained as to the various employees and it is entirely conceivable that, had the jury considered each of the charged offenses separately, it could have found defendant not guilty as to one or more of those counts; and perhaps it meant to do so. If reasonable minds would not question the meaning of a verdict as returned, then its form will not affect .the result of a case. Such is not the case here, however, for reasonable minds could well differ as to precisely what was meant by the trial jury in its verdict. Did it mean that the defendant was guilty of each and every count? Did it mean that .the defendant was guilty of some, but no.t all, of the counts? Did it mean that the jury had found defendant guilty as to one or more of the counts and had made no determination as to the remainder? If the information contains more than one Count, the verdict must clearly indicate to which count it refers. *People v. Powers,*272 Mich. 303, 261 N.W. 543 (1935); *State v. Highley,*102 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. 1937). Accordingly, we find that the form of the verdict was fatally defective so as to require us to reverse the judgment entered upon it. For guidance, we believe that in cases that may arise in the future and which contain multiple counts, it would be well to follow the suggestion set forth in *People v. Cassella,*58 Cal.App. 547, 209 P. 40 (1922), that the jury be furnished with a form of verdict substantially as follows:

> *“We,*the Jury, find the defendant.................................as charged in the first Count of the Information; we find him............................ as charged in the second Count...................................................., etc.”

The utilization of such a form of verdict should go far to eliminate the type of confusion with which the trial court was faced in this case.

We have considered the other purported grounds for appeal, and we find the same to be without merit.

*221For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the trial court in this case is reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13203-13204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1952-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]


California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California (FEMA-1952-DR), dated January 26, 2011, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 3, 2011.

[[Page 13204]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of January 26, 2011.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-5420 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
### §507. Appointment of judges

The Secretary may appoint civilian employees of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating as appellate military judges, available for assignment to the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals as provided for in section 866(a) of title 10.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §201(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2909, §153; renumbered §507, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §105(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4200.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 507 was renumbered section 2710 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 153 of this title as this section.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dana S. Philbrook, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Service Bancorp, Inc.;

(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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DANA S. PHILBROOK  
|Dana S. Philbrook      
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 14, 2007
# C_2013336EN.01001801.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-258/10) (1)

1

(State Aid - Compensation for public service costs in connection with a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Altmark judgment - Service of general economic interest - Market failure - Overcompensation)

2013/C 336/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented: initially by M van der Woude and D. Gillet, and subsequently by D. Gillet and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents); the Hauts-de-Seine department (France) (represented by: J.-D. Bloch and G. O’Mahony, lawyers); and Sequalum SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: L. Feldman, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 concerning the compensation for public service costs for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State Aid N 331/2008 — France).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, Sequalum SAS and the French Republic to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hauts-de-Seine department, Sequalum SAS and the French Republic to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph M. Paiva, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Orthovita, Inc.;

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;

Date: April 20, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Joseph M. Paiva    
|Joseph M. Paiva        
|Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Application of Carmelo Navarro, Doing Business as “ Hijo De Juan J. Navarro,” Respondent. Philip Kachurin, Doing Business as *“*Kachurin Drug Company,” Appellant.

First Department,

May 21, 1943.

*182
      *Albert T. ScJiarps*of counsel *(Louis Barnett,*attorney), for appellant.

*James B. Burke*of counsel *(Frank X. O’Donnell, Jr.,*with him on the brief; *Burke & Burke,*attorneys), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We think the arbitrators should have adjourned the hearings in order to afford the appellant an opportunity to secure evidence concerning the alleged excessive charges for freight. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 3.)

The judgment and orders should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings.

Untermyer, Bore and Cohn, ' JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Callahan, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment and orders reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with opinion. Settle order on notice.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59846-59847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Brunswick Executive Airport in Brunswick, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority in Brunswick ME to waive the 
surplus property requirements for approximately 12.07 acres of airport 
property located at Brunswick Executive Airport in Brunswick, ME. The 
subject parcel is currently undeveloped and has been identified for 
commercial development on the current Airport Layout Plan. The airport 
will retain the land to generate long term lease revenue for the 
airport and thus, is requesting a release to change the property from 
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. It has been determined 
through study and master planning that the subject parcel will not be 
needed for aeronautical purposes is not contiguous to the airport 
proper. Full and permanent relief of the surplus property requirements 
on this parcel

[[Page 59847]]

will allow the airport to generate long term revenue through lease of 
the land. All lease revenue will continue to be subject to the FAAs 
revenue-use policy and dedicated to the maintenance and operation of 
the Brunswick Executive Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents 
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and 
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region 
Airports Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-7618.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on September 23, 2015.
Mary T. Walsh,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-25092 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           WEST ESSEX BANCORP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                       ---------------------------------

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                                      March 31,
                                                                        ---------------------------------------
                                                                              1999                 1998
                                                                        ------------------   ------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                  <C> 
Net income                                                                  $   751,579            $ 511,141         
                                                                                                                     
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                          4,066,089              N/A                
                                                                                                                     
Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect                                                                      
 of stock options                                                                    --              N/A                
                                                                                                                     
Total weighted average number of common shares                                                                       
 and common share equivalents outstanding                                     4,066,089              N/A                
                                                                                                                     
Basic earnings per common share                                             $      0.18              N/A                
                                                                                                                     
Diluted earnings per common share                                           $      0.18              N/A                 
</TABLE>
FIND NEW WAYS TO TALK AS SHE GETS OLDER.

Use everyday moments to have a conversation about alcohol and 

other drugs.

Explain why underage drinking and substance use are dangerous—not just because you say so, but 

because they can significantly impact your child’s happiness, health, and safety. For tips on how—

and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-046
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Publishes Final Rule to Eliminate a Requirement for an Annual “Notice of Funding” for 

the Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program

Applications will be Accepted on a Continuous Basis

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2019 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Donald “DJ” LaVoy today announced that USDA published a final rule to eliminate the 

requirement to publish an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Guaranteed Rural Rental 

Housing Program, commonly known in the housing industry as Section 538.

The rule enables USDA to accept and process applications on a continuous basis, and under circumstances 

such as when the Federal government operates under a continuing resolution. 

The rule also benefits developers who use tax credits to finance properties for low-income residents. 

Eliminating the publication of an annual NOFA will prevent scenarios in which a NOFA is published after the 

deadline to apply for low-income housing tax credits. 

For additional information, see page 55034 of the Oct. 15, 2019, Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB). Applicants are 

encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural communities build robust and 

sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Key 

strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technical Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

#