alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank C. Wachsmith, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald F. Wachsmith, Deceased, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. John V. Myers et al., Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; Valente, J., dissents in the following memorandum. I dissent and would reverse the judgment and grant a new trial. Section 58-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides that “No motor vehicle shall be parked and left standing on the paved portion of any state highway, 6 ***outside of cities and incorporated villages, except in an emergency The trial court correctly charged the jury that if they found that plaintiff’s intestate had so parked his car “ deliberately and wilfully ” and “ in the absence of any emergency ”, that would be a violation of the statute which would bar a recovery of the plaintiff. The evidence in this case was clear that the motor vehicle operated by plaintiff’s intestate was parked at the time of the accident on the paved portion of the Hutchinson River Parkway in Westchester County. However, the record is barren of any testimony as to any emergency that would have excused such parking. (See *Miller*v. *Hine,*281 App. Div. 387, 393.) The jury was neither instructed as to the party on whom the burden rested to establish the existence or absence of an emergency nor what they could properly consider to be an emergency. An unexcused omission to comply with a statute is negligence in itself *(Martin*v. *Herzog,*228 N. Y. 164), and would bar recovery by plaintiff for contributing to the cause of the accident. The eases in our State that touch on this question indicate that the burden of establishing an emergency is on the person charged with the negligence. In this case that would be the *1002deceased. *(Miller*v. *Mine,*supra; *Martin*v. *Herzog, supra.)*In any event, it would appear to be the logical rule and is the rule in other States. (See *Satterlee*v. *Orange Glenn School Dist., 29*Cal. 2d 581; *McDonald*v. *Appleyard,*94 N. H. 362; Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law & Practice [Perm, ed.], § 6113, p. 82, n. 40; 131 A. L. R. 562, 603.) Under the circumstances, the verdict in this .ease is contrary to the weight of evidence in its implicit finding that the plaintiff’s intestate was not guilty of contributory negligence in the unlawful parking •of his car which was one of the proximate causes of the accident.
### §3793c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3793c was editorially reclassified as section 10263 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §§7274h, 7274i. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 7274h, Pub. L. 102–484, div. C, title XXXI, §3161, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2644; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title X, §1070(c)(2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2857; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §405(d)(7)(A), (f)(6)(A)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–419, 2681–430; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, §1048(h)(1), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1229, which related to the Department of Energy's workforce restructuring plan for defense nuclear facilities, was renumbered section 4604 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(5)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1777, and is classified to section 2704 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7274i, Pub. L. 102–484, div. C, title XXXI, §3162, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2646, which related to a program to monitor Department of Energy workers exposed to hazardous and radioactive substances, was renumbered section 4643 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(14)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1779, 1780, and is classified to section 2733 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

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

#### Semiannual Report to Congress of Local Impact Assistance

Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3153(f), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2044, which was formerly set out as a note under section 7274h of this title, was renumbered section 4851 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(k)(15)(A)–(C)(ii), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1786, and was classified to section 2821 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 112–239, div. C, title XXXI, §3131(q)(2), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2183.
#### EPISCOPO, Respondent, v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Henry A. Episcopo against the mayor and council of the city of New York. T. Connoly, for appellant. G: R. Hawes, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with . costs. See 7-2 N. Y. Supp. 140.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lydia Guzman, Respondent, v Victor Machinery Exchange et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeals from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 9, 1976 and February 11, 1977, respectively, which found that claimant’s accidental injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and awarded her benefits. Claimant, a bookkeeper, after eating her lunch on the premises, came out of the building, made a right-hand turn, walked approximately five feet and met with an accident. She sustained serious internal injuries. The record further reveals that as claimant walked parallel to the building on the sidewalk she came to a concrete freight loading platform where her way was blocked by a truck backed up on the sidewalk with its tailgate down on the platform. After the tailgate was raised she mounted the step of the loading platform endeavoring to cross over when the tailgate fell, pinning her on the platform step. The platform was used in common by claimant’s employer and other tenants of the building for deliveries. The board found that claimant was within the precincts of her employment and the truck dock was a hazard of her employment and the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. As a general rule, an inside employee would not be within the course of his employment when off the premises during his lunch hour. There are, however, exceptions. On the instant record, we are of the view that the board could properly find that claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment *(Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv.,*41 NY2d 140; *Matter of Starace v International Term. Operating Co.,*39 AD2d 613). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §5195b. Administration of subchapter

This subchapter shall be carried out by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title VI, §603, as added Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXIV, §3411(a)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3102; amended Pub. L. 111–351, §3(c)(2), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3864.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 111–351 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,051
<SECURITIES>                                     9,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                       765
<INVENTORY>                                        300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,934
<PP&E>                                           6,055
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,308
<CGS>                                            1,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,734)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (358)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,092)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)


</TABLE>
Second Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.7

 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT, dated November 4, 2010, is by and between CIRCOR Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc., a New York corporation (the “Company”), and Wayne F. Robbins (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an executive change in control agreement made as of March 21, 2006, as amended
on December 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to increase the benefits to which the
Executive may become entitled to upon a Change in Control (as defined in the Agreement). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the
Executive, each intending to be legally bound hereby, do mutually covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a)(i) of
the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one (1) times” with the following: 
 “two
(2) times” 
 2. Section 3(a)(iv) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one
(1) year” with the following: 
 “two (2) years” 

3. The Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect as to all other provisions under said Agreement. 

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

 

			
	CIRCOR INSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ A. William Higgins

	Name:	 	A. William Higgins
	Title:	 	Chairman, President & CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Wayne F. Robbins

	Wayne F. Robbins
### §7274k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–160, div. C, title XXXI, §3153, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1950; Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXI, §3160(b)–(d), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3094; Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3152, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2839; Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3160, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2048, which related to baseline environmental management reports, was renumbered section 4404 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(5), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1765, and was classified to former section 2584 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(e)(5), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1076.

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

#### Requirement To Develop Future Use Plans for Environmental Management Programs

Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3153, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2839, which was formerly set out as a note under this section, was renumbered section 4402 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(3)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1764, and is classified to section 2582 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

#### Accelerated Schedule for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Activities

Pub. L. 104–106, div. C, title XXXI, §3156, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 625, which was formerly set out as a note under this section, was renumbered section 4405 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(6)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1765, and is classified to section 2585 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION



The undersigned, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the Trustee) of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 (the Trust) hereby makes the following certifications for inclusion as an exhibit to the Trusts annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Annual Report):



1.         The Trustee is the trustee under the Trusts trust agreement.



2.Based on my knowledge, forthe period covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under the Trusts trust agreement.







/s/ Jon C. Warn

Name:   Jon C. Warn

Title:     Vice President

Date:     March 9, 2011










---
#### Jack A. Sunseri et al., Respondents, v Macro Cellular Partners, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 8, 2005, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Cahn, J., with costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order filed. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANYA LEE JACKSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-00902-TLW-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anya Lee Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anya Lee Jackson appeals the district court’s order 

denying Jackson’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Jackson, No. 4:07-cr00902-TLW-1 (D.S.C. filed June 30, 2009; entered July 1, 2009). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §628a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §429, as added Pub. L. 103–432, title II, §205(a), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4456, which related to child welfare traineeships, was redesignated section 426(c) of act Aug. 14, 1935, by Pub. L. 109–288, §6(f)(2), Sept. 28, 2006, 120 Stat. 1247, and is classified to section 626(c) of this title.
#### PERGOLI v. LYMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

1. - Depositions—Obdeb fob Examination—Failure to Give Notice.

An order appointing a referee to take the deposition of a witness should be vacated where no notice of the application therefor was given to the adverse party’s attorney.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 16, Cent. Dig. Depositions, § 45.]

2. Same—Sufficiency of Affidavit.

An affidavit for an order for the examination of a witness is insufficient where it fails to state any facts, but merely the attorney’s conclusions, as to the necessity of the examination.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 16, Cent. Dig. Depositions, § 50.]

*789Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Eduardo Pergoli against John Grant Lyman. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for his examination, Dan Magrino, a witness, appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Sheridan S. Norton, for appellant.

Morris J. Hirsch, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

The order appointing a referee to take the deposition of the appellant should have been vacated, if for no other reason because notice of the application therefor was not given to the plaintiff’s attorney. Furthermore, the affidavit upon which the order was granted was insufficient, in that it failed to state any facts upon which the court could find that the examination was necessary. It contains merely the attorney’s conclusions.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

          In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company, (ii) to
each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the purpose of
compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

(1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

          The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is made
severally and not jointly.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
August 11, 2004.



                                   By: /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                       ------------------
                                       Bruce J. Haber
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
NOV
                FEB
                **NOV**23**2005**
                2006
                **2008**27 
            captures            
            24 Nov 01 - 
            1 Jan 13
    CloseHelp


|home
          about 
            us
          fish 
            & 
                       wildlife
          energy
          news
          reports 
                        & 
                       papers
          contact 
            us | home                   | about 
            us                                 | fish 
            & 
                       wildlife | energy | news                                                                | reports 
                        & 
                       papers | contact 
            us | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|home                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | about 
            us | fish 
            & 
                       wildlife | energy                                                 | news   | reports 
                        & 
                       papers | contact 
            us                                           

|Reports 
      & papers       2000-8 cover letter
|--------------------------------------------------
|
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2722 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Security, located in Springettsbury, York 

County, Pennsylvania, as a unit of the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. PLATTS (for himself, Mr. HOLDEN, and Mr. SHERWOOD) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Security, located in Springettsbury, York County, Pennsylvania, as 

a unit of the National Park System. 

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 ‘‘Camp Security Na5 tional Historic Site Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 
2 

•HR 2722 IH 

1 (1) Camp Security is believed to be the only un2 disturbed prisoner-of-war camp from the Revolu3 tionary War remaining in the United States. 

4 (2) Built at the direction of the Continental 

5 Congress, Camp Security housed over 1,000 British 

6 prisoners of war between 1781 and 1783. 

7 (3) The vast majority of British soldiers impris8 oned at Camp Security were captured as a result of 

9 the Continental Army’s pivotal victories at the Bat10 tles of Saratoga and Yorktown. 

11 (4) Large portions of Camp Security were built 

12 along a steep hill using terraces, a unique architec13 tural and earthwork feature. 

14 (5) Upon the 1783 adoption of the Treaty of 

15 Paris, Camp Security was closed and those prisoners 

16 who did not marry local women and settle in the 

17 area returned to their families in Great Britain. 

18 (6) Recent excavations and surveys of the site 

19 identified intact archeological deposits and recovered 

20 numerous domestic and military artifacts. 

21 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

23 submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of 

24 Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Nat25 ural Resources of the Senate a study of the suitability and 
3 

•HR 2722 IH 

1 feasibility of designating Camp Security, located in 

2 Springettsbury Township, York County, Pennsylvania, as 

3 a unit of the National Park System. 

4 (b) PROCESS.—Section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the conduct of the 

6 study required by this section, except that the study shall 

7 be submitted pursuant to subsection (a) not later than 18 

8 months after the date on which funds are first made avail9 able for the study. 

Æ