alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rebecca Kantor, Appellant, v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

In an action to recover on a life insurance policy, plaintiff, the beneficiary, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 21, 1961, upon a jury’s verdict after trial, in her favor for the amount of the premiums which had been paid, plus interest thereon and costs. Judgment affirmed, without costs. The defendant insurer’s defense was that material misrepresentations were made by the insured in the medical questionnaire which constituted a part of his application for the policy. The court instructed the jury that if they found that no false statements were made by the insured, or that such statements were made but either were not material or were not relied upon by defendant, their verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff for $23,042.60, the total amount concededly payable under the policy. The jury was also instructed that if they found that false statements were made, that such statements were material, and that defendant would not have issued the policy if it had knowledge of the true facts, then their verdict should be for plaintiff for the amount of the premiums paid by the insured. The jury’s verdict was for the amount of the premiums. In our opinion, the findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict under the charge of the court were supported by ample proof; defendant was properly relieved of liability under the policy (cf. *Keck*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*238 App. Div. 538, affd. 264 N. Y. 422; *Reznikoff*v. *Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,*267 App. Div. 785, affd. 294 N. Y. 935; *Ettman*v. *Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,*6 A D 2d 697, affd. 5 N Y 2d 1005). Defendant may not be charged with knowledge of the insured’s physical condition not disclosed in the application for insurance, even though such knowledge may have been acquired by its examining doctor in his capacity as the insured’s personal physician (cf. *Foot*v. *Aetna Life Ins. Co.,*61 N. Y. 571, 576; *Butler*v. *Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*184 N. Y. 337, 340; *Thomas*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*65 N. D. 625; *Caruthers*v. *Kansas Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*108 F. 487). In any event, even if it be assumed that such knowledge could be imputed to defendant, nevertheless defendant would not have known either: (a) that the insured was to enter a hospital for a biopsy on the day following his medical examination in connection with his application for insurance; or (b) that the biopsy disclosed that the insured was suffering from Hodgkin’s disease. We are also of the opinion that, on the record presented, defendant was under no duty to make further investigation or inquiry as to the insured’s physical condition but was entitled to rely on the representations made by him in his application for insurance (cf. *S. & E. Motor Hire Corp.*v. *New York Ind. Co.,*255 N. Y. 69; *Cherkes*v. *Postal Life Ins. Co.,*285 App. Div. 514, affd. 309 N. Y. 964). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Starnes *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J.

Under section 6138 of the Code of 1910, “No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to *342some material party thereto.” The mere passing of an order declaring a mistrial in a capital case in the absence of the defendant terminates the trial, but is not a final decision in the cause, which is still left pending for trial under the indictment. Neither is it a ruling upon any motion or question raised by the plaintiff in error which would have been a final disposition of the cause if it had been rendered as contended for by him. Hence a bill of exceptions complaining only of the granting of an order declaring a mistrial in the absence of the defendant is prematurely brought, and will be dismissed on motion. *Oliveros*v. *State,*118 *Ga.*776 (45 S. E. 596).

June 13, 1912.

From Floyd superior court. Motion tó dismiss.

*Max Meyerhardt*and *Benny & Wright,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas S. Felder, attorney-general, John W. Bale, solicitor-general,*and *M. U, Mooty,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### (A) Geographia Map Co., Inc., et al. v. American News Company, Inc. (B) In the Matter of Warren W. Ward, Deceased. J. Ellou Stinnett et al., Appellants; Benjamin Ratner, Respondent. (C) Marion Ekovich v. Great Eastern Home Departments, Karhan Corporation et al. (D) Ida Wilson v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this *778court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification ofCo-Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Guitar Center, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

This written statement is beingfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanyingthis Report and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934.

 

 
| Dated: August 3, 2004 | /s/ Marty Albertson        |   |
|-----------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                  | Marty Alberston            |
|                  | Co-Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §2633. Designation of national-forest areas within counties; disposition of revenues; approval by court

For the purpose of consolidating and thereby facilitating administration and accounting the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to designate in the several counties in which the lands described in section 2631 of this title are situated (such designation to be published in the Federal Register), an area of national-forest land of a value substantially equal to the value of the lands in such county from which all revenues shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874), and upon such designation the provisions of that Act shall be applicable to the lands so designated in lieu of the lands described in section 2631 of this title: Provided, however, That such designation shall not become effective until approved by the county court of the county in which the lands are located.

(June 24, 1954, ch. 357, §3, 68 Stat. 271.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of August 28, 1937, referred to in text, is act Aug. 28, 1937, ch. 876, 50 Stat. 874, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§2601 et seq.) of this chapter. Title II of the Act enacted section 2605 of this title, repealed section 1174 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 2601 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1181i of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,209
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,670,601
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    286,123,624
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             305,571,797
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,422,979
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,047
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 15,000,000
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                 284,999,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             305,571,797
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,701,251
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                45,337
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,746,588
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,746,588
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                366,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,381,396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,381,396
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,381,396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                14,907.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    748,206
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                39,999
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       334
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,333
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 248.241 Modification of existing regulatory agreements. ( a ) If a plan of action is not approved within 300 days after initial submission, the Commissioner may, upon request of the owner and upon making a determination that the project's current use does not represent its highest and best use, modify existing regulatory agreements to— ( 1 ) Prevent involuntary displacement of current tenants (except for good cause);
( 2 ) Ensure that adequate expenditures will be made for maintenance and operation of the housing;
( 3 ) Extend (subject to the availability of funds) any expiring project-based assistance on the housing for the term of the agreement;
( 4 ) Permit an increase in the allowable distribution that could be accommodated by an increase in the rents on occupied units to a level no higher than 30 percent of the adjusted income of the tenants, as determined by the Commissioner, except that rents shall not exceed the fair market rent, and any resulting increase in rents for current tenants shall be phased in equally over a period of no less than 3 years, unless such increase is less than 10 percent; and
( 5 ) Ensure that units becoming vacant during the term of the agreement are made available in accordance with § 248.233(d)(7) of this part.
( b ) *Expiration.* Agreements entered into under this section shall expire on February 5, 1992, unless earlier superseded by an agreement implementing a HUD-approved plan of action. Upon such expiration of the agreement on February 5, 1992, the housing covered by the agreement shall be subject to any law then affecting low income affordability restrictions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,053
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,189
<PP&E>                                           4,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,989
<BONDS>                                            694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,458
<CGS>                                            6,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
### §390h–39. City of Corona Water Utility, California, water recycling and reuse project

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the City of Corona Water Utility, California, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of, and land acquisition for, a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater, including degraded groundwaters, within and outside of the service area of the City of Corona Water Utility, California.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the cost of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1656, as added Pub. L. 111–11, title IX, §9114(a), Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1320.)
### **CHAPTER 34—TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE**

Sec.
1651.
Congressional findings and declaration.
1652.
Authorizations for construction.
1653.
Liability for damages.
1654.
Antitrust laws.
1655.
Roads and airports.
1656.
Civil penalties.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  a)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Famous Daves of America, Inc. for the
quarter ended April 3, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Famous Daves of America, Inc.
 Dated:  May 13, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Christopher ODonnellChristopher ODonnellPresident and Chief Executive Officer and
Director (Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  May 13, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis PurcelChief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 255.6 Method of payment of mortgage insurance premiums.

The provisions of 24 CFR 251.6 shall apply to this part.

[63 FR 1303, Jan. 8, 1998]
#### In the Matter of Otto W. Winter, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Motion to vacate March 29, 1962 order of dismissal, or to amend same denied.
#### Robert J. Erskine, appellee, v. James Morrow, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,235.

Suit for real estate commission. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Claire C. Edwards, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed September 7, 1923.

A. F. Beaubien and George W. Field, for appellant. Justin K. Orvis, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
**EXHIBIT 10.11**

 

**New York Community Bancorp, Inc.**

**615 Merrick Avenue**

**Westbury, New York 11590**

 

June 27, 2003 

 

Michael P. Puorro 

The Roslyn Savings Bank 

One Jericho Plaza 

Jericho, New York 11753-8905 

 

Dear Michael: 

 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certainadditional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and New York Community Bank (the “Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreementand Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between the Holding Company and Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 

 

At such time as you become an employee of the Holding Company and the Bankunder your new employment agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement, you will receive a retention bonus of $600,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employmentafter the Effective Time other than by reason of an “Event of Termination” (as defined in your new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-dayperiod, you will immediately return to the Holding Company a portion of the retention bonus equal to the product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period andthe denominator of which is 365. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the MergerAgreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 

 

Pleaseacknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 

 

Sincerely,

/s/ Joseph R. Ficalora

Joseph R. Ficalora

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Acknowledged and Agreed:

/s/ Michael P. Puorro

Michael P. Puorro

 

2
### Permit comments

Daiker, Dave

to:

Jack Faulk

01/25/2010 04:44 PM

Cc:

Allison Wiedeman, "Dwinell, Stev e", "Howard, Dennis", "Coram, Ph il", Linda Boornazian, William

Jordan, Jordan Page, "Schardt, Jeffrey"

Show Details

Jack,

As requested, attached are the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ comments to the

latest draft of the pesticide general permit.

Thank you again for a successful meeting.

Davis

Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state officials

regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e

‐ mail

communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. 

### Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5971.htm
#### § 242.24 Initial operating costs.

In the case of a new hospital or a hospital expansion, HUD shall establish, on a case-by-case basis, the amount of initial operating capital, if any, that must be deposited in cash or a letter of credit (or combination) to be available to the new hospital upon commencement of operations. Generally, the initial operating capital other than AMPO shall not be borrowed funds unless HUD determines that there are offsetting financial strengths to compensate for the risk associated with borrowing.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01142-CRB   Document 5   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T23:44:57-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2967 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2967

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### §315d. Grazing stock for domestic purposes; use of natural resources

The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock kept for domestic purposes; and provided that so far as authorized by existing law or laws hereinafter enacted, nothing contained in this subchapter shall prevent the use of timber, stone, gravel, clay, coal, and other deposits by miners, prospectors for mineral, bona fide settlers and residents, for firewood, fencing, buildings, mining, prospecting, and domestic purposes within areas subject to the provisions of this subchapter.

(June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §5, 48 Stat. 1271.)