alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antonetta Yanarella et al., Individually and on Behalf of the Yonkers Teachers Association, Appellants, v. Curtis F. McClane et al., Respondents.

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for an injunction, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 1, 1961, as: (a) denied in part their motion, pursuant to rules 112 and 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment; (b) granted in part defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment; and directed the entry of judgment declaring that defendant Curtis F. MoClane is executive secretary and legal counsel of the Yonkers Teachers Association and that he has a valid contract until the end of 1963, which is enforcible against the association and against *983the personal property held jointly or in common by all the members of the association. Plaintiffs also appeal from so much of the judgment of said court, entered February 20, 1961 pursuant to said order, as is adverse to them and as failed to grant all the relief sought on their motion. Defendants previously had moved to dismiss the appeals as moot; the motion was denied with leave to renew on the argument of the appeals. The motion has now been renewed by defendants. Motion to dismiss the appeals granted; appeals dismissed, without costs. Defendants’ affidavits in support of their motion to dismiss the appeals show that plaintiffs are no longer members of the unincorporated association as to whose internal affairs plaintiffs originally sought a declaratory judgment. It also appears from defendants’ affidavits that since the order and judgment appealed from were made, the contract between the association and defendant Curtis F. McClane, of which plaintiffs complained, has been superseded. Plaintiffs have failed to submit any affidavit in opposition to the motion. They take the position that the facts presented on defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeals may not be considered by this court in order to determine whether the action presents justiciable issues. It is well settled that, after the initial decision by the lower court, if new facts should come into existence which render the appeal moot, the appellate court may properly consider them *(People ex rel. Geer*v. *Common Council of City of Troy,*82 N. Y. 575 ; *Lo Vallo*v. Bellanca, 11 A D 2d 901). In the *Geer*case *(supra)*the Court of Appeals said (p. 576) : “The new election has presumably occurred, and nothing remains but the abstract question who was right. We do not decide mere abstract questions from the determination of which no practical result can follow”. From the defendants’ affidavits it is clear that nothing here remains but the abstract question of who was right. The court will not determine questions which have become academic. Nor does it appear from a reading of the record submitted on the appeals that, even though the questions have become moot as between the parties, this case presents questions of such importance as to require their resolution by this court in the public interest. Beldock, P.. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### § 912.761 Areas designated unsuitable for surface coal mining by act of Congress.

Part 761 of this chapter, *Areas Designated by Act of Congress,* shall apply to surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
#### In the Matter of Nels Wennersten, Petitioner, v New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 4, 1978, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dismissing petitioner’s complaint after an investigation and upon a finding of no probable cause to believe that the respondent union had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices because of age. Order confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us, there is nothing to suggest that the respondent union engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the State Division of Human Rights to have dismissed the complaint because of no probable cause without having first held a confrontation conference or a hearing (see *State Div. of Human Rights v Bond Schoeneck & King,*52 AD2d 1045; *Talarico v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp.,*55 AD2d 949). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 942.819 Special performance standards—Auger mining.

Part 819 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Auger Mining,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations which include auger mining.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. P. Kimble,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial and Accounting 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.

Date: March 16, 2007



| |  |  |  |                                       
| |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/    A. P. Kimble                   
| |  |  |  | A. P. Kimble                          
| |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and             
| |  |  |  | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh
Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### PERGOLI, Respondent, v. LYMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Eduardo Pergoli against John G. Lyman. H. M. Maass, for -appellant. J. T. Fenlon, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 946.20 Abandoned mine land reclamation plan approval. Virginia Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan as submitted on September 22, 1980, is approved effective December 15, 1981. Copies of the approved plan are available for review at the following locations: ( a ) Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap Field Office, P.O. Drawer 1216, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center, room 220, Route 23, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
[51 FR 42555, Nov. 25, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 17930, Apr. 15, 1994]
- 000100fc
- 000200fi
- 000300tp
- 00040000
- 00050000
- 00060000
- 00070001
- 00080002
- 00090003
- 00100004
- 00110005
- 00120006
- 00130007
- 00140008
- 00150009
- 00160010
- 00170011
- 00180012
- 00190013
- 00200014
- 00210015
- 00220016
- 002300bi
- 002400bc
#### Martin Kraemer *vs.*Rudolph Deustermann.

May 13, 1889.

Trial — Errors not Affecting Verdict. — Where it is manifest that a general verdict was rendered upon a particular theory of the facts, rulings and exceptions which could not in any way affect that theory will not be considered.

After the decision on a former appeal, sustaining the complaint as against a demurrer, (see 37 Minn. 469, where the substance of the complaint is stated,) the defendant answered, alleging (among other things) claims in his favor against plaintiff to the amount of $470, and a settlement and accounting between the parties prior to the bringing of the action, at which a sum was found due from plaintiff, which he afterwards paid. At the trial in the' district court for McLeod county, before *Edson,*J., defendant had a verdict. The plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

*B. H. McClelland,*for appellant.

*Chas. C. Kolars,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

This case appears to have been tried in a very scrambling way, but there is no reason to think the result was not what it ought to have been. The jury manifestly decided the case on the theory that, at the time defendant conveyed to plaintiff the 80-aere tract, the parties settled the differences between them in respect to the subject of the action and the counterclaims set up in the answer. The defendant testified to it positively, and he is not contradicted on the point, by plaintiff in such a manner as to seriously impair the effect of his testimony. It would have been difficult to sustain a finding against the settlement, and there was nothing to impeach it. None of the assignments of error, even if otherwise well founded, relate to anything that could in any way affect the case, so far as the settlement was concerned, and it is unnecessary to consider them.

Order affirmed.
#### § 887.11 Eligibility for grants.

You are eligible for grants under this part if you are a State or Indian tribe with a reclamation plan approved under part 884 of this chapter. If you are uncertified, you must have State share funds available under § 872.14 of this chapter or Tribal share funds available under § 872.17 of this chapter. If you have certified completion of coal reclamation under section 411(a) of SMCRA, you must have certified in lieu funds available under § 872.32 of this chapter, or prior balance replacement funds available under § 872.29 of this chapter if the State legislature or Tribal council has established this purpose.

[73 FR 67647, Nov. 14, 2008]
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

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Withdrawn from Mineral Entry

Proposed Withdrawal from Mineral Entry

Considered

BLM and USFS Surface Lands

Sage-grouse Priority/Core Habitat Areas

Sage-grouse Connectivity Habitat Areas

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 2-23: Alternative E

Areas Withdrawn 

from Mineral Entry
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.





Date: December 1, 2015








/s/Tony C. McKim


Tony C. McKim


President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 1801.42 Right of appeal and appeal procedures. ( a ) *Right of Appeal.* A right of administrative appeal exists whenever access to any requested record or any portion thereof is denied, no records are located in response to a request, or a request for amendment is denied. NACIC will apprise all requesters in writing of their right to appeal such decisions to the Director, NACIC through the Coordinator.
( b ) *Requirements as to time and form.* Appeals of decisions must be received by the Coordinator within forty-five (45) days of the date of NACIC's initial decision. NACIC may, for good cause and as a matter of administrative discretion, permit an additional thirty (30) days for the submission of an appeal. All appeals to the Director, NACIC shall be in writing and addressed as specified in § 1801.3. All appeals must identify the documents or portions of documents at issue with specificity, provide the desired amending language (if applicable), and may present such information, data, and argument in support as the requester may desire.
( c ) *Exceptions.* No appeal shall be accepted if the requester has outstanding fees for information services at this or another federal agency. In addition, no appeal shall be accepted if the information in question has been the subject of an administrative review within the previous two (2) years or is the subject of pending litigation in the federal courts.
( d ) *Receipt, recording, and tasking.* NACIC shall promptly record each administrative appeal, acknowledge receipt to the requester in writing, and thereafter effect the necessary taskings to the office chief in charge of the office(s) which originated or has an interest in the record(s) subject to the appeal.
#### Mary McKeever, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

(Argued February 6, 1882;

decided April 11, 1882.)

This was an action to recover damages for alleged negligence causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate, who was killed at a highway crossing. The alleged negligence was the omission to ring a bell or sound a whistle on the engine which struck the deceased. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the authority of *Galha/ne*v. *W. T. G. da U. R. R. R. Go.*(60 N. Y. 133). The court here agreed as to the rule laid down in that case, *i. e.,*that as against positive affirmative evidence by credible witnesses, to the ringing of a- bell or sounding of a whistle, there must be something more than tíie testimony of one or more witnesses that they did not hear it, to authorize the submission of that question to the jury. The disagreement was as to the facts, the majority holding that the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses simply amounted to statements that they did not hear, without having their attention called, at the time, to the fact; while on the other side were four witnesses who swore positively to the ringing of the bell.

The judges dissenting held that the evidence of some of plaintiff’s witnesses showed that their (attention was called, at *668the time, to the fact of the non-ringing of the bell; and that the witnesses for defendant, all being its employes, two of whom were guilty of the negligence, if it existed, could not be pronounced, as a matter of law, credible, but it was a question for the jury.

*Francis C. Devlin*for appellant.

*Frank Loomis*for respondent.

Finch, J.,

reads for affirmance; Sapallo, Miller and Earl, JJ., concur; Danforts, J., reads for reversal, Andrews, Oh. J., and Traoy, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed.
[PEMEX LOGO]                          SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             BULLETIN NO. 299/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                DATE: 11/17/2003

         According with the quotations of the oil products commercialized in the
international market, beginning as of tomorrow, the average weighted price for
the jet fuel will change from 2,738.94 to 2,622.73 per cubic meter (one thousand
liters).

         As may be remembered, from November 22, 1990, the jet fuel price in our
country is fluctuating according to the international market quotations, with
the purpose of preserving its competitiveness.

                                 **************
#### Eugene Weiss, Appellant, v. Lloyd M. Bauman et al., Defendants, and Maurice M. Clairmont et al., Respondents.

Order entered on June 3, 1960, granting defendants-respondents’ motion, pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50820

Summary Calendar

CAMILLA A. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOUIS CALDERA,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-01-CV-1130 )

________________________________________________________________ December 30, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This pro se appeal is fro m a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Plaintiff alleged: her employer (United States Army) subjected her

to retaliation because she had earlier complained of

discrimination; and the retaliation took the form of a hostile and

abusive work environment. T he district court granted the motion to

dismiss.2

Subsequent to that dismissal, however, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was decided. It held a plaintiff need

not plead specific facts required to establish the elements of a

prima facie Title VII claim under McDonell Douglas Corp. v. Green

,

4 11 U.S. 792 (1973). 534 U.S. at 508. The Court noted that the

prima facie case under McDonell Douglas is an evidentiary, rather

than a pleading, standard. The complaint need only contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief”, see F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8 (a), thereby placing

defendant on notice of “what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests”. 534 U.S. at 512 (internal citations

omitted). Moreover, S wierkiewicz held that even the elements of a

prima facie case can “vary depending on the context”. Id.

In the light of Swierkiewicz

, the district c ourt issued an

Order and Advisory, stating: the dismissal was improvidently

granted; and it would be receptive to a motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff, however, had already filed her notice of appeal.

Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the district court for

it to examine plaintiff’s complaint under the sta ndard stated in

Swierkiewicz

.

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### Elaine B. Seltzer, Appellant, v. Leo Seltzer, Respondent.

Motion by respondent for reargument, denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          89,840
<SECURITIES>                                    51,324
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     58,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,748
<PP&E>                                         188,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 761,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,081
<BONDS>                                        782,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (102,459)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   761,494
<SALES>                                        287,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,175
<CGS>                                          162,020
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,612
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,576
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,576
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>