alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,465.

#### Mystic Tailoring Company *v.*Jacobstein, Administratrix.

(30 P. [2d] 263)

Decided February 5, 1934.

Rehearing denied March 12, 1934.

*307Mr. Walter F. Scherer, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Nathan R. Kobey, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Chief Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

Bertha Jacobstein, Administratrix of the estate of Nathan H. Jacobstein, deceased, recovered judgment against Mystic Tailoring Company, a corporation, in the sum of $150, for services rendered the company by deceased during his lifetime. The company assigns error and aslcs for a supersedeas. The administratrix assigns cross-error and prays that the judgment be increased to the sum of $300.

It was proven and it is also now admitted, that the deceased was employed by the company at a salary of $100 per week, and that for a period of three weeks he was paid no salary. The only defense is that the deceased, who was an officer and stockholder in the company, voluntarily agreed to waive his entire salary for the time in question during a period of business depression. The administratrix denies the waiver and the evidence is in conflict on this point only.

Counsel for the company argues that the judgment cannot be reconciled with any theory of the evidence and that the judgment should have been either for $300 or for nothing at all. He cites *Rocky Mountain Fuel Co. v. Belk,*92 Colo. 404, 21 P. (2d) 186, and other cases to the effect that a verdict or judgment must be consistent with some legitimate theory of the testimony, and where it is not, it should be set aside. Counsel for the *308administratrix confesses the rule, but employs it as an argument in support of his cross-assignment for alleged error of the court in failing to render judgment for $300.

We must hold this rule, as stated in the above case to be applicable, and the only remaining question is the final disposition to be made of the cause. The judgment conclusively indicates that the trial court, after listening to conflicting testimony, did not believe the defense that the intestate agreed to work for nothing. All other material facts having been admitted, there is nothing further to try. The judgment will be accordingly increased to the sum of $300 to correspond with the undisputed fact, and as thus modified, it is affirmed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment accordingly.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

Mr. Justice Burke and Mr. Justice Holland concur.
§ 12.44 Disposition. ( a ) *Export and abandonment.* Merchandise detained pursuant to § 12.42(e) may be exported at any time prior to seizure pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, or before it is deemed to have been abandoned as provided in this section, whichever occurs first. Provided no finding has been issued by the Commissioner of CBP under § 12.42(f) and the merchandise has not been exported within 3 months after the date of importation, the port director will ascertain whether the proof specified in § 12.43 has been submitted within the time prescribed in that section. If the proof has not been timely submitted, or if the Commissioner of CBP advises the port director that the proof furnished does not establish the admissibility of the merchandise, the port director will promptly advise the importer in writing that the merchandise is excluded from entry. Upon the expiration of 60 days after the delivery or mailing of such advice by the port director, the merchandise will be deemed to have been abandoned and will be destroyed, unless it has been exported or a protest has been filed as provided for in section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
( b ) *Seizure and summary forfeiture.* In the case of merchandise covered by a finding under § 12.42(f), if the Commissioner of CBP advises the port director that the proof furnished under § 12.43 does not establish the admissibility of the merchandise, or if no proof has been timely furnished, the port director shall seize the merchandise for violation of 19 U.S.C. 1307 and commence forfeiture proceedings pursuant to part 162, subpart E, of this chapter.
( c ) *Prison-labor goods.* Nothing in this chapter precludes CBP from seizing for forfeiture merchandise imported in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1761 and 1762 concerning prison-labor goods.
[T.D. 00-52, 65 FR 45875, July 26, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 17-04, 82 FR 26584, June 8, 2017]
#### Thomas Teichner, Appellant, v. Town of Niskayuna et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County. Plaintiff’s theory of defendants’ liability for negligence is that defendant town’s snowplow, which had been moving along the left side of a traffic lane in the same direction in which plaintiff’s car was being driven “ swerved sharply to the right.” As a result of this turn, which was into the path that plaintiff was pursuing, it is contended plaintiff had to swing in turn to his right and in thus swerving his *“*car slewed ” on ice in the road and came in contact with the truck. Defendant’s proof is the truck came to a full stop; that its signal light for a right turn was working and on; that plaintiff ran into the truck while it was thus standing. We feel this record presents an open question of fact on which fairly disposed men might disagree. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.14.1

                            ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                           JOHN BLUDWORTH MARINE, INC.


         Pursuant to the terms and provisions of Article 4.04 of the Texas
Business Corporation Act, John Bludworth Marine, Inc., a Texas corporation,
adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation.


                                       I.

         The name of the corporation is John Bludworth Marine, Inc.


                                       II.

         The Articles of Incorporation are amended as follows:


         Article One of the Articles of Incorporation shall be amended in its
entirety by substituting the following therefor:


         "The name of the corporation is Newpark ShipbuildingCPasadena, Inc."


                                      III.

         Each amendment made by the Articles of Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation has been effected in conformity with the provisions of the Texas
Business Corporation Act. The Articles of Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation, including each amendment set forth above, were adopted by the
shareholders of the corporation on July 31, 1998.

                                      -1-

<PAGE>   2


                                       IV.

         The number of shares of the corporation outstanding at the time of the
adoption of, and entitled to vote on, these amendments was One Hundred (100).


                                       V.

         The number of shares that voted for these amendments was One Hundred
(100), and no shares were voted against the amendment.


                                       VI.

         The Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation do not
provide for an exchange, reclassification or cancellation of issued shares.


                                      VII.


         The Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation do not
effect a change in the amount of stated capital.


         Dated: July 31, 1998.


                                       JOHN BLUDWORTH MARINE, INC.


                                       BY: /s/ FRANK W. EAKIN                  
                                          --------------------------------------
                                           FRANK W. EAKIN
                                           PRESIDENT
### §1281b. Availability of Farmers Home Administration funds for non-Federal share

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal assistance made available by the Farmers Home Administration to any political subdivision of a State may be used to provide the non-Federal share of the cost of any construction project carried out under section 1281 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–4, title II, §202(f), Feb. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 16.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and not as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which comprises this chapter.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Mullen, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Newark Group, 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, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon 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): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 27, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1569 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1569

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
on Kinderkamack Road in Emerson, New Jersey, as the ``Gary Albero Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2003

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
on Kinderkamack Road in Emerson, New Jersey, as the ``Gary Albero Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GARY ALBERO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located on Kinderkamack Road in Emerson, New Jersey, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Gary Albero Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Gary Albero 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-98801 and No. 333-66741) pertaining to the Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-66747) pertaining to the Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. 1997
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-66739) pertaining to the Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. Savings Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66733) pertaining to the Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. 1998 Spinoff Option Plan, in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-32940, No. 333-65840 and Amendment No. 1 thereto, Form S-3 No.
333-108513 and Form S-3 No. 333-121332) of Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. and in
the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Penwest Pharmaceuticals
Co, Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.'s management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co, included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Stamford, Connecticut
March 14, 2005
1 

l 

I 

j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 

$ REGIONS 


1595 Wynkoop Street 


DENVER, CO 80202-1129 


Phone 800-227-8917 


1 	 http://www.epa.gov/region08 

I 

, 

I 

! 

AUG - 1 2012 


Ref: 8P-AR 
 I 

I 
 CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED & ELECTRONIC MAIL 


The Honorable Tex Hall, Chairman 

Three Affiliated Tribes ofthe 1 Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation I 	 404 Frontage Road 1 

I New Town, North Dakota 58763 

!

i 

I Dear Chairman Hall, ! 

I 

RE: Actual Notice for Approval and Promulgation of 

Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities 

I This is to notifY you that the EPA has issued a temporary interim final rule promulgating a reservationspecific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in order to regulate emissions from oil and natural gas 

production facilities located on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR). The FIP includes basic air l 

quality regulations for the protection of communities in and adjacent to the FBIR. The FIP requires 

owners and operators of oil and natural gas production facilities to reduce emissions ofvolatile organic 

compounds emanating from well completions, recompletions, and production and storage operations. 

The agency proposed a reservation-specific FIP concurrently with this interim final rule. I 

! 

I 	 The rule becomes effective with actual notice to the companies operating on the FBIR for purposes of 

I 	 enforcement beginning at 5 p.m. (eastern daylight time) on August 3, 2012. We will accept comments 

on the proposed rule for 45 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. The EPA 

Administrator, Lisa Jackson, signed the interim final rule on August 1, 2012, and the agency is 

1 submitting it for publication in the Federal Register. 

! 

i While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthe attached version of the rule, it is not the official 

version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming 

Federal Register pUblication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/searchlhome.action) and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in 

Docket No. EPA-R08-0AR-2012-0479. 
If you have any questions on the interim final rule, your staff can contact Deirdre Rothery, Air 


Permitting, Modeling and Monitoring Unit Chief at (303) 312-643l. You may also call me at 


(303) 312-6434. 

Sincerely, 

Lcarr:;'.· /?~~ Videtich 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator 

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance 

Enclosures 

cc: 	Joe Gillies, Jr., Environmental Director, Three Affiliated Tribes 

Fred Fox, Tribal Energy Department Administrator, Three Affiliated Tribes 

2
OEL Analysis in Region 5

# of Caps/Plugs Monitored Leaks Above 500 ppm % Leaking

Company A 78 8 10.26

Company B 119 7 5.88

Company C 116 9 7.76

Company D 35 5 14.29

Company E 30 3 10.00

Company F 30 2 6.67

9.14
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1580

LUSCIOUS GRAHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00026-FPS-MJA)

Submitted: February 20, 2018 Decided: March 8, 2018

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luscious Graham, Appellant Pro Se. W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Justin Aaron Rubenstein, 

Amy Marie Smith, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luscious Graham filed a civil action in West Virginia state court, which the 

Defendant removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The district 

court denied Graham’s subsequent motion to remand to state court and ultimately granted 

summary judgment to the Defendant. Graham’s sole challenge on appeal is to the district 

court’s order finding diversity jurisdiction and denying her motion to remand. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Graham v. Antero 

Res. Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00026-FPS-MJA (N.D.W. Va. July 26, 2016; Apr. 7, 2017). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1 

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Stephen P. Herbert, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of USA Technologies, Inc.; and

 

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: February 24, 2017 |   | /s/ Stephen P. Herbert  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Stephen P. Herbert      |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

			 		

----
### §1376. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, other than sections 1254, 1255, 1256(a), 1257, 1258, 1262, 1263, 1264,1 1265, 1286, 1287, 1288(f) and (h), 1289, 1314, 1321(c), (d), (i), (l), and (k),1 1324, 1325, and 1327 of this title, $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $350,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, $161,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $135,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title V, §517, as added Pub. L. 92–500, §2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 896; amended Pub. L. 95–217, §4(g), Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1567; Pub. L. 96–483, §1(g), Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2360; Pub. L. 100–4, title I, §101(h), Feb. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 9.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1264 of this title, referred to in text, was omitted from the Code.

Section 1321(k) of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–380, title II, §2002(b)(2), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 507.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–4 struck out "and" after "1981," and inserted ", such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $135,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990" after "1982".

1980—Pub. L. 96–483 inserted authorization of $150,000,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1981 and $161,000,000 for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1982.

1977—Pub. L. 95–217 substituted "$350,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980" for "and $350,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Authorization Approval for Funds Appropriated Before December 27, 1977, for Expenditures Through Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1977

Pub. L. 95–217, §3, Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1566, provided that funds appropriated before Dec. 27, 1977 for expenditure during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, the transition quarter ending September 30, 1976, and the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, under authority of this chapter were authorized for those purposes for which appropriated.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### Clara Zicarelli, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Zicarelli, Deceased, Appellant, v. Isidore Goldstein et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.