alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Satwant Singh Garcha, Appellant, v City of Beacon et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 275]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated September 29, 2005, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*588The instant action arises out of the 1998 seizure of the plaintiffs personal handgun by officers of the City of Beacon Police Department when they arrested the plaintiff while responding to a 911 call related to a domestic dispute at his residence. Subsequently, after a hearing at which the plaintiff appeared, the City Court of the City of Beacon ordered the destruction of the weapon. The plaintiff commenced an action against the City of Beacon, City of Beacon Police Chief R. Stassi, and City of Beacon Police Detective Donald F. Williams, Jr., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging, inter alia, the violation of certain constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, and seeking damages. After that action was dismissed on the merits by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see *Garcha v City of Beacon,*351 F Supp 2d 213 [2005]), the plaintiff commenced this action alleging the same causes of action against the same defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), contending that the action was barred by res judicata and, inter alia, failed to state a cause of action in any event.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). We affirm, but on a different ground.

The complaint should have been dismissed on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata. The parties in the instant action are the same parties that appeared in the previously-dismissed federal action, the allegations and relief sought, as well as the issues involved, are all the same as in that action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical claims in that action *(see Buechel v Bain,*97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1096 [2002]; *Matter of Hodes v Axelrod,*70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987]; *Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,*62 NY2d 494, 499 [1984]; *O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
### §40904. Microgravity research

The Administrator shall—

(1) ensure the capacity to support ground-based research leading to space-based basic and applied scientific research in a variety of disciplines with potential direct national benefits and applications that can be advanced significantly from the uniqueness of microgravity and the space environment; and

(2) carry out, to the maximum extent practicable, basic, applied, and commercial International Space Station research in fields such as molecular crystal growth, animal research, basic fluid physics, combustion research, cellular biotechnology, low-temperature physics, and cellular research at a level that will sustain the existing United States scientific expertise and research capability in microgravity research.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3393.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40904(1) | 42 U.S.C. 16655(2). | Pub. L. 109–155, title III, §305(2), (3), Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2918. |
| 40904(2) | 42 U.S.C. 16655(3). | |

Section
**Exhibit No. 32.2**

**Certification of CFOPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Schneider,Chief Financial Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1)              The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of DRS Technologies, Inc.
| November 9, 2006 | /s/ RICHARD A.  SCHNEIDER |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  | Richard A. Schneider      |
| * *              | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIREDBY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

----
### §856. Continuing offense

Failure to file a registration statement as required by this subchapter is a continuing offense for as long as such failure exists, notwithstanding any statute of limitation or other statute to the contrary.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 849, §7, 70 Stat. 900.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Internal Security Act of 1950 which comprises subchapters I to III of this chapter.
#### Pepita Sciales et al. v. Julius Hockheiser.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted on consent, without costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Tison *vs.*Myrick, *et al.*

[Waener, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court oi impeachment, did not sit in this case.]

Where the judge presiding certifies that he declined to pass upon the merits of a motion for new trial in a case tried before another judge, because the brief of evidence was not approved by said j udge at the time agreed upon by counsel,and no *rule nisi*was granted by said judge, and Where the facts are verified by the record, and the presiding judge *444refused the new trial for the above reasons, this court has no option but to affirm the judgment, there being no motion for a rule *nisi*or to perfect the brief of evidence. The plaintiff in error must show error, and to that end he must have the brief of evidence and motion for new trial duly verified, so that the court below may pass intelligently upon his case and this court intelligently review it.

Jackson, Justice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000029322
<NAME> ETHIKA CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,375,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,919,692
<PP&E>                                       1,445,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                 884,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,686,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          569,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,825,385
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,241,223)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,686,289
<SALES>                                        202,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               341,591
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,942,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,103,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,103,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,103,144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.088)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.088)
        

</TABLE>
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 result of operations of the Company. |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |
| Date:  March 2, 2017 | /s/ Ronald A. Duncan |
|                      | Ronald A. DuncanChief Executive OfficerGeneral Communication, Inc. |
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Encore Computer Corporation on Forms S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 33-10225,
33-33907, 33-34171, 33-72458 and 33-72741) and on Forms S-3 (Registration
Statement Nos. 33-121, 33-33907 and 33-34171) of our report dated October 13,
2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Encore Computer
Corporation as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended December
31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP

Miami, Florida
October 13, 2000
Editorial Note on Part 800
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54972, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 800 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93381, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 800.30 Replacement of bonds. ( a ) The regulatory authority may allow a permittee to replace existing bonds with other bonds that provide equivalent coverage.
( b ) The regulatory authority shall not release existing performance bonds until the permittee has submitted, and the regulatory authority has approved, acceptable replacement performance bonds. Replacement of a performance bond pursuant to this section shall not constitute a release of bond under § 800.40.
[48 FR 32959, July 19, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93381, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54972, Nov. 17, 2017]
Exhibit 32.1

﻿

Certification of Periodic Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

﻿

Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report of First United Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First United Corporation.

﻿

﻿

| ﻿                        |                                                       |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 16, 2020  | /s/ Carissa L. Rodeheaver                   |
| ﻿                        | Carissa L. Rodeheaver, CPA, CFP        |
| ﻿                        | Chairman of the Board, President  |
| ﻿                        | and Chief Executive Officer                 |
| ﻿                        | (Principal Executive Officer)                    |
| ﻿                        |                                                       |
| ﻿                        |                                                       |
| Date: March 16, 2020       | /s/ Tonya K. Sturm                          |
| ﻿                        | Tonya K. Sturm,                             |
| ﻿                        | Senior Vice President,                           |
| ﻿                        | Chief Financial Officer                          |
| ﻿                        | (Principal Financial Officer)                    |

﻿

﻿

﻿

----
Exhibit 99.2
  
 Re:
    
    Green Bankshares, Inc.
UST: 180
RSSD: 1133277
        (A)
    
    SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take
unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the value of the Company;(B)
    
    Employee compensation plans that unnecessarily expose the
Company to risks; and(C)
    
    Employee compensation plans that could encourage the
manipulation of reported earnings of the Company to enhance the compensation of
an employee;




---



##### 



/s/ James E. Adams

James E. AdamsExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 8, 2010
  2
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Bridger-Teton

Thunder 

Basin

Medicine-Bow

Medicine-Bow

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Yellowstone Newcastle

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Parturition Areas

Crucial Winter

Crucial Yearlong

Severe Winter Relief

Spring/Summer/Fall

Winter

Winter/Yearlong

Yearlong

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 3-27: Mule Deer 

Habitat Locations
#### Henry K. Ketcham, Appellant, v. Hall Syndicate Inc., Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent on the opinion of Mr. Justice Spectob at Special and Trial Term. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bergan, JJ. [37 Misc 2d 693.]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in Five Cities in the Pacific Region, 1934-36

              																	Jones, Alice Hanson, 1904-1985					 and 	Williams, Faith M. (Faith Moors), 1893-. 						*Money Disbursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in Five Cities in the Pacific Region, 1934-36 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 639*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										1939,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4152,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40142 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN JOSE GOMEZ

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 146

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Jose Gomez

- Lopez raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14

- 10355)

. In Marti nez
- Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 2 2 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40142 Document: 00513242007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 15

- 40142

2 offense required proof of remuneration or commerc ial activity. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40142 Document: 00513242007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
#### HAMILTON et al. v. POLK.

No. 11878.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 23, 1954.

Decided March 11, 1954.

Messrs. Warren E. Magee and Paul J. Sedgwick, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. R. Logan Hollowell and Vaden S. Pitts, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Joseph D. Bulman, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Sidney M. Goldstein and Curtis P. Mitchell, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek reversal of a judgment entered against them in a personal injury suit. We find no merit either in their main contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motions to set aside the jury’s verdict and to grant a new trial on the grounds of fraud and newly discovered evidence, or in the other contentions urged for reversal.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.
### **CHAPTER 105—SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS**

Sec.
10501.
Application of prohibition to other States; "test or device" defined.
10502.
Residence requirements for voting.
10503.
Bilingual election requirements.
10504.
Judicial relief; civil actions by the Attorney General; three-judge district court; appeal to Supreme Court.
10505.
Penalty.
10506.
Separability.
10507.
Survey to compile registration and voting statistics.
10508.
Voting assistance for blind, disabled or illiterate persons.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              169232
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1522947
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (948547)
<INVENTORY>                                         338836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    951896
<PP&E>                                              211405
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (184086)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1554765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1117887
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             99051
<OTHER-SE>                                           (2328)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1554765
<SALES>                                             799933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    799933
<CGS>                                                 3816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       623948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   93767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      80939
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         80939
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.02



</TABLE>
#### G. Wendell Ensign, Respondent, v. Gladys Klekosky, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Zeller (25 Misc 2d 536).
#### § 56.19036 Headframe height.

Headframes shall be high enough to provide clearance for overtravel and safe stopping of the conveyance.
### §2752. Funds available for all national security programs of the Department of Energy

Subject to the provisions of appropriation Acts and section 2742 of this title, amounts appropriated pursuant to a DOE national security authorization for management and support activities and for general plant projects are available for use, when necessary, in connection with all national security programs of the Department of Energy.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVII, §4712, formerly div. C, title XXXVI, §3631, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2762; renumbered div. D, title XLVII, §4712, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(j)(2)(A)–(C), (D)(vi), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1781.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 7386k of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.

#### Amendments

2003—Pub. L. 108–136, §3141(j)(2)(D)(vi), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 2742 of this title.