alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MILLER et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF LANCASTER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 13, 1903.)

Action by Charles Miller & Son against the village of Lancaster, appellant, and Ray B. Lewis.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,040,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,915,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,144,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   314,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,797,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,422,000
<PP&E>                                      30,448,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,226,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,287,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,448,000
<BONDS>                                      7,529,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,187,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,287,000
<SALES>                                     11,472,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,472,000
<CGS>                                        5,365,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,037,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,078,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,078,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,078,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1292.2 Policy. ( a ) Military Heads of DLA field activities are authorized to issue or approve necessary security regulations and orders for the protection of property and places under their jurisdiction/administration. Regulations and orders for the protection of property and personnel of subordinate activities headed by civilians shall be promulgated by the military commander in the chain of command immediately above such subordinate activity.
( b ) Regulations and orders for the protection of property and personnel of primary level field activities (PLFAs) headed by civilians, and subordinate activities of such PLFAs which likewise are headed by civilians, shall be promulgated by the Director, DLA/Deputy Director/Deputy Director, CAS.
( c ) Heads of DLA field activities that are tenants on a military reservation, post, camp, station, installation, base, or Government-owned or leased facility administered by another command or agency are responsible for protection of property and places under their command and may issue security regulations and orders in fulfillment of their responsibility to protect property and places under their jurisdiction and administration. However, separate security regulations and orders should not be issued when the host has issued security regulations and orders that afford protection to the DLA activity.
( d ) Detailed physical security and emergency plans developed in conjunction with these security regulations and orders will be as prescribed by DLAM 5710.1, Physical Security Manual, and DLA War and Emergency Support Plan (WESP), part II, Annex A.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4778

BOOKER TELFAIR NEWSOME,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-185)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: April 6, 1999

Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bravitt Cola Manley, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Rachel Harmon, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Booker Telfair Newsome appeals from his conviction following a

jury trial, of being a prisoner in possession of a shank, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 13 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), assimilating Va. Code

Ann. § 53.1-203(4) (Michie 1998). We affirm.

The Government's evidence showed that Newsome was involved

in an altercation with another inmate, James Erik Gartrell. Both Newsome and Gartrell possessed shanks, and each attempted to stab the

other. Though the correctional officials acted swiftly and effectively

to stop the fight, Newsome stabbed Gartrell multiple times in the

torso and head. The defense attempted to show during crossexamination of government witnesses that Gartrell was the aggressor

and that Newsome's possession of the shank was justified in selfdefense. The court denied Newsome's motion for acquittal under Fed.

R. Crim. P. 29(a). Newsome timely appealed.

Even if Newsome may assert self-defense as a defense to the

charge of possession of a shank and met his burden of production as

to the defense, the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient

to allow a rational jury to find the non-existence of self-defense

beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Childress, 26 F.3d

498, 501 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842

n.12 (11th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm Newsome's conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
### §305304. Preservation grants

(a) In General.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Board, shall provide preservation technology and training grants to eligible applicants with a demonstrated institutional capability and commitment to the purposes of the Center, in order to ensure an effective and efficient system of research, information distribution, and skills training in all the related historic preservation fields.

(b) Grant Requirements.—

(1) Allocation.—Grants provided under this section shall be allocated in such a fashion as to reflect the diversity of the historic preservation fields and shall be geographically distributed.

(2) Limit on amount a recipient may receive.—No grant recipient may receive more than 10 percent of the grants allocated under this section within any year.

(3) Limit on administrative costs.—The total administrative costs, direct and indirect, charged for carrying out grants under this section may not exceed 25 percent of the aggregate costs.

(c) Eligible Applicants.—Eligible applicants may include—

(1) Federal and non-Federal laboratories;

(2) accredited museums;

(3) universities;

(4) nonprofit organizations;

(5) System units and offices and Cooperative Park Study Units of the System;

(6) State Historic Preservation Offices;

(7) tribal preservation offices; and

(8) Native Hawaiian organizations.

(d) Standards and Methods.—Grants shall be awarded in accordance with accepted professional standards and methods, including peer review of projects.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3222.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 305304 | 16 U.S.C. 470x–4. | Pub. L. 89–665, title IV, §405, as added Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4022, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4767. |

Section

The text of 16 U.S.C. 470x–4(e) is omitted as unnecessary.
Map 3-20:Transportation System

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundaries

Interstate Highways

State/US Highways

County Roads

BLM Roads

Forest Service Roads

Railroads

BLM & USFS Surface Management

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments
### §851. Registration of certain persons; filing statement; regulations

Except as provided in section 852 of this title, every person who has knowledge of, or has received instruction or assignment in, the espionage, counter-espionage, or sabotage service or tactics of a government of a foreign country or of a foreign political party, shall register with the Attorney General by filing with the Attorney General a registration statement in duplicate, under oath, prepared and filed in such manner and form, and containing such statements, information, or documents pertinent to the purposes and objectives of this subchapter as the Attorney General, having due regard for the national security and the public interest, by regulations prescribes.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 849, §2, 70 Stat. 899.)

#### **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.

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

#### Separability

Act Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 849, §9, 70 Stat. 900, provided: "If any provision of this Act [enacting this subchapter] or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances, is not affected thereby."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,995
<SECURITIES>                                       696
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                      3,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,997
<PP&E>                                          24,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,714
<SALES>                                         50,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,514
<CGS>                                           36,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                       330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,070
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,830)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Sbarro, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended  January 1, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Anthony J. Puglisi,
Vice President-Principal  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  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:  April 3, 2006


/s/  Anthony J. Puglisi
-----------------------
Anthony J. Puglisi,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer

NOTE: A signed original of this  certification  has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### §3998. Land rights of servicemembers

#### (a) No age limitations

Any servicemember under the age of 21 in military service shall be entitled to the same rights under the laws relating to lands owned or controlled by the United States, including mining and mineral leasing laws, as those servicemembers who are 21 years of age.

#### (b) Residency requirement

Any requirement related to the establishment of a residence within a limited time shall be suspended as to entry by a servicemember in military service or the spouse of such servicemember until 180 days after termination of or release from military service.

#### (c) Entry applications

Applications for entry may be verified before a person authorized to administer oaths under section 1044a of title 10 or under the laws of the State where the land is situated.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title V, §508, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2857; amended Pub. L. 111–97, §4(a), Nov. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 3008.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 568 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 508 of act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, art. V, 54 Stat. 1189, related to irrigation rights and suspension of residence requirements, prior to the general amendment of this Act by Pub. L. 108–189.

#### Amendments

2009—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–97 inserted "or the spouse of such servicemember" after "a servicemember in military service".

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

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–97, §4(b), Nov. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 3008, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply with respect to servicemembers in military service (as defined in section 101 of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 511) [now 50 U.S.C. 3911]) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 11, 2009]."

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.
# C_2009006EN.01001901.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Shaker v OHIM — Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker)

(Case T-7/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker - Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Appeal - Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)

(2009/C 6/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (Vietri sul Mare, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Limiñana y Botella, SL (Monforte del Cid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

1

---
#### Panasia Estates, Inc., Respondent, v Hudson Insurance Company, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 49]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 24, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An insured may recover foreseeable damages, beyond the limits of its policy, for breach of a duty to investigate, bargain for and settle claims in good faith *(Acquista v New York Life Ins. Co.,*285 AD2d 73 [2001]). The court’s denial of defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiffs claims for consequential damages from the alleged breach of such a duty was proper. Defendant has not shown that the proffered exclusion for “consequential loss” was an applicable provision under this policy. “Consequential loss” and “consequential damages” are not synonymous, as suggested by defendant.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
### §2758. Improvements to cost estimates informing analyses of alternatives

#### (a) Requirement for analyses of alternatives

The Administrator shall ensure that any cost estimate used in an analysis of alternatives for a project carried out using funds authorized by a DOE national security authorization is designed to fully satisfy the requirements outlined in the mission needs statement approved at critical decision 0 in the acquisition process, as set forth in Department of Energy Order 413.3B (relating to program management and project management for the acquisition of capital assets) or a successor order.

#### (b) Use of project engineering and design funds

In the case of a project the total estimated cost of which exceeds $500,000,000 and that has not reached critical decision 1 in the acquisition process, the Administrator may use funds authorized by a DOE national security authorization for project engineering and design to begin the development of a conceptual design to facilitate the development of a cost estimate for the project during the analysis of alternatives for the project if—

(1) the Administrator—

(A) determines that such use of funds would improve the quality of the cost estimate for the project; and

(B) notifies the congressional defense committees of that determination; and

(2) a period of 15 days has elapsed after the date on which such committees receive the notification.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVII, §4718, as added Pub. L. 117–81, div. C, title XXXI, §3112(a), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2220.)
#### George Neber, Respondent, *v.*Albert G. Hatch, Executor, etc., Appellant.

(Submitted March 8, 1882;

decided March 21, 1882.)

*Henry W. Box*for appellant.

*JMJarti/n Gla/rk*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur, except Andrews, Oh. J., who did not vote. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       193,710 
<SECURITIES>                                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,147 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0 
<INVENTORY>                                        0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             618,639 
<PP&E>                                             0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,531,557 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         38,279 
<BONDS>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0 
<PREFERRED>                                        0 
<COMMON>                                  87,477,847 
<OTHER-SE>                                         0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,531,557 
<SALES>                                            0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             124,045 
<CGS>                                              0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                276,963 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              99,717 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (252,635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (252,635)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0 
<CHANGES>                                          0 
<NET-INCOME>                                (252,635)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        


</TABLE>