alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis Mainieri, Also Known as John Simone, Appellant, against J. Vernel Jackson, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County, which denied an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was defective in that it was not verified and in other respects did not completely comply with section 1234 of the Civil Practice Act, and accordingly the order must be affirmed. We do not, however, agree with the County Court’s conclusion that even if the petition were sufficient in form it would have to be dismissed because, in that court’s view, the transcript of proceedings attached to the petition refutes relator’s contention that upon his prior felony conviction in 1920 the sentencing court did not comply with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the transcript is correct, the question required by section 480 was propounded after rendition of a jury verdict finding relator guilty of two crimes. The transcript indicates that on the same day the verdict was set aside, that relator immediately pleaded guilty to one of the crimes, and that the question required by section 480 was not again asked before imposition of sentence. We do not, of course, pass upon the legal problem which a complete record might present, but we do consider that upon a new and proper application a hearing might well be warranted. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 1660.4 Policy. ( a ) It is the policy of the SSS to make official factual information, both testimonial and documentary, reasonably available for use in Federal courts, State courts, foreign courts, and other governmental proceedings unless that information is classified, privileged, or otherwise protected from public disclosure.
( b ) SSS personnel, as defined in § 1660.3, however, shall not provide such official information, testimony, or documents, submit to interview, or permit a view or visit, without the authorization required by this part.
( c ) SSS personnel shall not provide, with or without compensation, opinion or expert testimony concerning official SSS information, subjects, personnel, or activities, except on behalf of the United States or a party represented by the Department of Justice, or with the written special authorization required by this part.
( d ) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section constitute a regulatory general order, applicable to all SSS personnel individually, and need no further implementation. A violation of the provisions in paragraphs (b) and (c) is the basis for appropriate administrative procedures with respect to civilian employees. Moreover, violations of this paragraph (d) by SSS personnel may, under certain circumstances, be actionable under 18 U.S.C. 207.
( e ) Upon a showing by a requester of exceptional need or unique circumstances, and that the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to the interests of the SSS or the United States, the SSS GC may, in their sole discretion, and pursuant to the guidance contained in this part, grant such written special authorization for SSS personnel to appear and testify as expert or opinion witnesses at no expense to the United States.
#### Marshall O. Densby, plaintiff in error, v. Frederick H. Bartlett et al., defendants in error.

Gen. No. 29,508.

Case consolidated with Gen. No. 29,045, *supra.*Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lee W. Carrier, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

Vincent G. Gallagher, for plaintiff in error.

Vail, Vail & Plamondon, Bassler, Bippus, Rose & Reeve and Sinden & Hassell, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 32 

 

**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 Energroup Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Stephen R. Fry, President and Thomas J. Howells, Secretary 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 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:*** | *3/14/2006*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/ Stephen R. Fry***                                   |
|-----------|---------------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *      | * * | * * | *Stephen R. Fry, President and Director***               |
| * *  | * *      | * * | * * | * *                                                 |
| *Date:*** | *3/14/2006*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Thomas J. Howells***                                 |
| * *  | * *      | * * | * * | *Thomas J. Howells, Secretary, Treasurer and Director*** |
#### In the Matter of Barbara R. Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent; Dieann R., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, King County, dated October 25, 1978, which, after a hearing pursuant to section 1028 of the Family Court Act, *inter alia,*remanded appellant’s daughter to the Commissioner of Social Services. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new hearing to be held before a Judge of the Family Court other than the one who previously presided. Appellant was not permitted to present evidence on her own behalf at the hearing. Appellant was further denied the opportunity to cross-examine an official of one of the supportive services of the court who testified at the hearing. A hearing, in order to accord with due process principles, includes the right to testify and offer evidence *(Matter of Hecht v Monaghan,*307 NY 461; *Matter of Roy Anthony A.,*59 AD2d 662; *Matter of Kenneth S.,*52 AD2d 880). Clearly, appellant’s due process rights have been violated and a new hearing must be held in order to give her an opportunity to be heard. At the new hearing, full opportunity for cross-examination of *any*witness who testifies must be provided. Mollen, P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of CyberOptics Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Kathleen P. Iverson, Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey A.
Bertelsen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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.

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Kathleen P. Iverson 
| | Kathleen P. Iverson     
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| | March 4, 2009           
| |                         
| | /s/ Jeffrey A. Bertelsen
| | Jeffrey A. Bertelsen    
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| | March 4, 2009           

---
Exhibit 31.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, R. Eugene Taylor, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Green Bankshares, Inc., a Tennessee bank holding company
(the registrant); and

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.



|                     |  |  |  |                        |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2012 |  |  |  | GREEN BANKSHARES, INC.
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | By:                    |  | /s/ R. Eugene Taylor                 
|                     |  |  |  |                        |  | R. Eugene Taylor                     
|                     |  |  |  |                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  |  |                        |  | (principal executive officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    08-435-              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	JaArReEdD EdDmMoOnNdDsS	   APPELLANT	

	V.

CoOmMmMoOnNwWeEaAlLtThH FiInNaAnNcCiIaAlL SyYsStTeEmMsS, InNcC. OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COUTHE         PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered THE the parties’ appellant’s [s’]’ “Agreed Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(12), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:    MEIER, J. ; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.;

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  May 714, 2009
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ronald Wayne Sanders

, * From the 42 nd District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 24915A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00151

- CR * August 7, 2014

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
### Stratigraphic and geomorphic framework of uppermost Cenozoic deposits in the southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia and Maryland

By: Robert B. Mixon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1067G

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 1803.13 Fees.

Requests submitted via NARA or the various Presidential libraries shall be responsible for reproduction costs required by statute or regulation. Requests made directly to NACIC will be liable for costs in the same amount and under the same conditions as specified in part 1800 of this chapter.
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐280/05)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Incompatibility with the common market – Duty to recover – Non-fulfilment

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences (Art.
10 EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 19-20, 25)*

2.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 28)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment in firms in financial difficulty, in special administration, and having at least 1 000 employees (Aid No CR 62/2003, ex NN 7/2003 – Italy) (OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover the aid declared incompatible with the common market. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
§ 273.11 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
( b ) 41 CFR chapters 101 and 102, also known as the Federal Property Management Regulation and Federal Management Regulation (FPMR and FMR), and 40 U.S.C. subtitle I, also known as the Federal Property and Administrative Services, take precedence over this part if a procedural conflict exists.
Exhibit 10.32

                        ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This Addendum to Employment Agreement (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is made
by and between W. Peter Ragan, Sr., c/o Ragan & Ragan, P.C., 3100 Route 138
West, Wall, NJ 07719 (hereinafter "EMPLOYEE"), and VOM, LLC on behalf of itself,
its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, assigns; and their
directors, officers, employees and agents (hereinafter collectively referred to
as "VOM"), with its principal place of business, 3100 Route 138 West, STE A,
Wall, NJ 07719.

        WHEREAS, VOM and EMPLOYEE entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as
of January 1, 2004 (the "Initial Employment Agreement") and

        WHEREAS, VOM and EMPLOYEE have entered into an Addendum to the
Employment Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2004 (the "Addendum No. 1 to the
Employment Agreement", together with the Initial Employment Agreement, the
"Employment Agreement") and

        WHEREAS, VOM and the EMPLOYEE desire to amend certain provisions of the
Employment Agreement,

        NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual and respective
covenants and agreements contained herein, VOM and EMPLOYEE agree as follows:

1.    Article "1" of the Employment Agreement, is hereby deleted and the
following is substituted in its place and stead:

                                    ARTICLE 1

                                   EMPLOYMENT

1.1   VOM shall employ EMPLOYEE in the position of President for a period of
four (4) years commencing on January 1, 2004 and continuing until terminated as
provided in Article 4 of this AGREEMENT.

2.    Except as provided above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHREOF, the parties have executed this ADDENDUM as of the date first
above written.

VOM, LLC                                      EMPLOYEE;

By: /s/ JAMES J. MASTRIANI                    /s/ W.PETER RAGAN, SR.
-----------------------------------           ---------------------------------
JAMES J. MASTRIANI                            W.PETER RAGAN, ESQ.
CFO & CLO
Dated:  January 1, 2006                       Dated:   January 1, 2006
#### § 875.1 Scope.

This part establishes land and water eligibility requirements and for noncoal reclamation.
#### § 2002.46 CUI and the Privacy Act.

The fact that records are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 does not mean that agencies must mark them as CUI. Consult agency policies or guidance to determine which records may be subject to the Privacy Act; consult the CUI Registry to determine which privacy information must be marked as CUI. Information contained in Privacy Act systems of records may also be subject to controls under other CUI categories or subcategories and the agency may need to mark that information as CUI for that reason. In addition, when determining whether the agency must protect certain information under the Privacy Act, or whether the Privacy Act allows the agency to release the information to an individual, the agency must base its decision on the content of the information and the Privacy Act's criteria, regardless of whether an agency designates or marks the information as CUI.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement Pursuant to Section 1350(a) of title 18, United States Code



The undersigned, Richard F. Zannino and William B. Plummer, certify that:





|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Form 10-Q), which is being filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. | 
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 







|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 





|/s/ Richard F. Zannino   
|-------------------------
|Richard F. Zannino       
|Chief Executive Officer  
|Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
|                         
|Date: May 8, 2007        
|                         
|/s/ William B. Plummer   
|William B. Plummer       
|Chief Financial Officer  
|Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
|                         
|Date: May 8, 2007
#### Rachel E. Kautzman, as Administratrix of the Estate of James E. Kautzman, Deceased, Appellant, v. William D. B. Ferris et al., Respondents. Betty B. Scoutten, as Administratrix of the Estate of Douglas Scoutten, Deceased, Appellant, v. William D. B. Ferris et al., Respondents.

In consolidated actions to recover damages for wrongful deaths, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, entered May 28, 1963, which denied their motion to vacate the settlement of the actions and to restore the actions to the Trial Term Calendar. The actions were struck from the calendar as the result of an alleged settlement. Order reversed, without costs and motion granted; the purported stipulation of settlement is vacated and the Calendar Clerk is directed to restore the actions to their former position on the calendar upon being served with a copy of the order entered hereon. Under all the -circumstances, it is our opinion that the settlement, if there were such, should be vacated, and that the actions should be restored to the calendar for further proceedings (cf. *Aecarino*v. *Kirsch,*6 A D 2d 795; *Rosen*v. *Grand,*6 A D 2d 799). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 2004.11 CSA and agency implementing regulations, internal rules, or guidelines. ( a ) Each CSA implements NISP practices in part through policies and guidelines that are consistent with this regulation, so that agencies for which it serves as the CSA are aware of appropriate security standards, engage in consistent practices with entities, and so that practices effectively protect classified information those entities receive (including foreign government information that the U.S. Government must protect in the interest of national security).
( b ) Each CSA must also routinely review and update its NISP policies and guidelines and promptly issue revisions when needed (including when a change in national policy necessitates a change in agency NISP policies and guidelines).
( c ) Non-CSA agencies may choose to augment CSA NISP policies or guidelines as long as the agency policies or guidelines are consistent with the CSA's policies or guidelines and this regulation.