alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAEBLER et al. v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Carriers of Freight—Sale of Unclaimed Perishable Goods—Trover— Defense—Pleading.

Though, where the conversion of freight by a carrier consists simply of a detention after demand, the carrier may defend by proof of a lien for storage charges, yet, where the conversion consists of a wrongful sale as unclaimed perishable freight, under Laws 1899, p. 1294, c. 582, the amount of any such lien, if it is to be considered at all, must be pleaded in mitigation of damages.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Theodore Haebler and others against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Charles C. Paulding (Robert A. Kutschbock, of counsel), for appellant.

Nathan, Leventritt & Perham (Frederick E. Perham and Charles W. U. Sneed, of counsel), for respondents.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The freight charges for the goods for which conversion was brought having been paid in advance, the defendant upon the trial contended that the goods were “unclaimed perishable” freight, and as such it had the right to sell them without notice, under the statutory provisions authorizing such a sale under certain circumstances, and especially under chapter 582, p. 1294, Laws 1899. Although the proof clearly showed that the owners of the goods and their claim to them were known to the defendant, and that the owners’ address was also known to it, the court left it to the jury to say, first, whether the goods were unclaimed; and, second, whether they were perishable. To this disposition of the case the defendant made no ob*510jection, except by motion to dismiss the complaint. The evidence would not have justified a ruling that, as matter of law, the goods were unclaimed perishable freight; and, the verdict of the jury having established that they were not in fact, the defendant is not protected by any of the statutory provisions invoked. No claim was pleaded for storage charges as a counterclaim. True, if the conversion complained of consisted simply of a detention of the goods after demand of them by plaintiffs, the defendant could prove and defend -upon the ground that it had a right to detain the goods under a lien for storage charges, and that the plaintiffs had not offered to pay them." The defendant in such a case has the right to detain the goods until his lien is discharged, and he is not bound to relinquish his. security. But where, as in the present case, the conversion consists of a wrongful taking and appropriation, the amount of the lien, if to be considered at all, must be pleaded in mitigation of damages.

Upon the whole case, no reversible error appears, and the judgment .and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The financial data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the balance sheet as of March 31, 1997 and the income statement for the
three months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,900
<PP&E>                                       1,044,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 660,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 475,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   475,100
<SALES>                                         84,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,800
<CGS>                                           56,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        


</TABLE>
#### Abe Ostrovsky, appellee, v. Asher Rosenberg, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,519.

Forcible detainer of premises held on lease. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Peter H. Sehwaba, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 10, 1923.

G. E. Sankstone, for appellant; George F. Ort, of counsel. David Silbert, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3172

To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the security screening 

opt-out program for airport operators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2005

Mrs. MALONEY (for herself and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the security 

screening opt-out program for airport operators.

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 ‘‘Passenger Security Act 

5 of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SECURITY SCREENING OPT-OUT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REPEAL.—Section 44920 of title 49, United 

8 States Code, and the item relating to such section in the 

9 analysis for chapter 449 of such title, are repealed. 
2

•HR 3172 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 449 of 

2 such title is amended—

3 (1) in section 44901(a) by striking ‘‘or 44920’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) by striking section 44919(i).

Æ
Exhibit 31.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Joseph W. Baty, certify that:





1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Schiff Nutrition International, 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 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 Act Rules 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 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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, based on 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 or operation 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.








Date: October 8, 2009
By:
/s/ Joseph W. BatyJoseph W. BatyChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137677) pertaining to the Bare Escentuals, Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan, of our reports dated February 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Bare Escentuals, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Bare Escentuals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 25, 2009
#### §§ 402.8-402.9 [Reserved]
#### § 906.43 Where a PHA is to submit a homeownership program for HUD approval.

A PHA must submit its proposed homeownership program together with supporting documentation, in a format prescribed by HUD, to the Special Applications Center with a copy to the appropriate HUD field office.
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.145 What records must I keep in order to support my calculations of royalty under this subpart? If you value your gas under this subpart, you must retain all data relevant to the determination of the royalty that you paid. You can find recordkeeping requirements in parts 1207 and 1212 of this chapter. ( a ) You must show: ( 1 ) How you calculated the royalty value, including all allowable deductions; and
( 2 ) How you complied with this subpart.
( b ) Upon request, you must submit all data to ONRR. You must comply with any such requirement within the time that ONRR specifies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
 
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains summary financial information extracted  from  the 
Balance Sheet at March 31, 1999 and Income Statement for the quarter  ended 
March  31,  1999  and is qualified in its entirety  by  reference  to  such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                 2,949
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          11,250
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            22,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       523,479
<PP&E>                                 1,668
<DEPRECIATION>                         224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         525,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  522,568
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               11,148
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           525,147
<SALES>                                4,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,828
<CGS>                                  3,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          107,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     9,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (116,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                          (116,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### Leslie Stricker et al., Appellants, v Richard E. Burns et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of New Castle, Respondents. Leslie Stricker et al., Appellants, v R. Worthington Tucker et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Castle, Respondents.

(1) an action to declare a certain provision of the zoning ordinance of the Town of New Castle to be void and unconstitutional and (2) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Castle which, after a public hearing, denied the application of petitioners for a variance to permit the construction of a chicken coop, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 17, 1976, which, *inter alia,*declared the ordinance in question to be valid, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also dated August 17, 1976, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the article 78 proceeding. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Rubenfeld at Special Term. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 1241.72 When must I pay the penalty? ( a ) If you do not request a hearing on a FCCP or ILCP under this part, you must pay the penalty amount by the due date specified in the bill accompanying the FCCP or ILCP.
( b ) If you request a hearing on a FCCP or ILCP under this part, the ALJ affirms the civil penalty; and ( 1 ) You do not appeal the ALJ's decision to the IBLA under § 1241.9, you must pay the civil penalty amount determined by the ALJ within 30 days of the ALJ's decision; or
( 2 ) You appeal the ALJ's decision to the IBLA under § 1241.9, and IBLA affirms a civil penalty; and ( i ) You do not seek judicial review of the IBLA's decision under 30 U.S.C. 1719(j), you must pay the civil penalty amount that IBLA determines within 120 days of the IBLA decision; or
( ii ) You seek judicial review of the IBLA decision, and a court of competent jurisdiction affirms the penalty, you must pay the penalty assessed within 30 days after the court enters a final non-appealable judgment.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1912 What criteria for management of change must my SEMS program meet? ( a ) You must develop and implement written management of change procedures for modifications associated with the following: ( 1 ) Equipment,
( 2 ) Operating procedures,
( 3 ) Personnel changes (including contractors),
( 4 ) Materials, and
( 5 ) Operating conditions.
( b ) Management of change procedures do not apply to situations involving replacement in kind (such as, replacement of one component by another component with the same performance capabilities).
( c ) You must review all changes prior to their implementation.
( d ) The following items must be included in your management of change procedures: ( 1 ) The technical basis for the change;
( 2 ) Impact of the change on safety, health, and the coastal and marine environments;
( 3 ) Necessary time period to implement the change; and
( 4 ) Management approval procedures for the change.
( e ) Employees, including contractors whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the operation, must be informed of, and trained in, the change prior to startup of the process or affected part of the operation; and
( f ) If a management of change results in a change in the operating procedures of your SEMS program, such changes must be documented and dated.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Lesser, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Permission to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. Appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion in all other respects denied.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OccuLogix, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Elias Vamvakas,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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





By:
            /s/
                Elias VamvakasElias
                VamvakasChief
                Executive Officer





Dated:
            March
                16, 2006
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3413 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase 

in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mr. BOEHLERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Minimum Wage Com5 petitiveness Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

8 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended 

9 to read as follows: 
2 

•HR 3413 IH 

1 ‘‘(1) except as otherwise provided in this sec2 tion, not less than— 

3 ‘‘(A) $6.00 an hour, beginning on the 60th 

4 day after the date of enactment of the Fair 

5 Minimum Wage Act of 2005; 

6 ‘‘(B) $6.75 an hour, beginning on January 

7 1, 2006; and 

8 ‘‘(C) $7.15 an hour, beginning on January 

9 1, 2007;’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of 

12 enactment of this Act. 

13 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COM14 MONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 

15 ISLANDS. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6 of the Fair Labor 

17 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the 

18 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

19 (b) TRANSITION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), 

20 the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the 

21 Northern Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the 

22 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) 

23 shall be— 

24 (1) $3.55 an hour, beginning on the 60th day 

25 after the date of enactment of this Act; and 
3 

•HR 3413 IH 

1 (2) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser 

2 amount as may be necessary to equal the minimum 

3 wage under section 6(a)(1) of such Act), beginning 

4 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act 

5 and every 6 months thereafter until the minimum 

6 wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the North7 ern Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal 

8 to the minimum wage set forth in such section. 

Æ
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL
Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-J6;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the master
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee, BankUnited, FSB, and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA).


Date: March 28, 2005


                                       /s/ Steve Bailey
                                       ----------------
                                       Steve Bailey
                                       Senior Managing Director