alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Augustine Babin, Appellant, v. Joseph Babin, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and matter remanded to Erie Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with memorandum. Memorandum: The order made herein involves the same parties in a companion proceeding decided herewith *(Babin*v. *Babin,*16 A D 2d 883). The defendant failed to make reduced payments of $20 weekly as directed by the order of November 15, 1960, and plaintiff commenced a proceeding to compel payment. Defendant countered with a motion to adjudge plaintiff in contempt for failure to grant him rights to visit the infant daughter in the custody of plaintiff. The latter responded with an application requesting that the infant son be removed from the custody of the father. Thus the court was presented with three issues, namely: (1) the failure of the defendant to comply with the prior orders awarding weekly monetary payments to the wife; (2) the proper custody of the infant son previously awarded to the defendant; and (3) the rights of defendant to visit the infant daughter in the custody of the plaintiff. Special Term ignored the first two issues and never passed thereon. After a lengthy hearing the order appealed from was made providing that defendant should be required to make no support payment to the plaintiff for the week during which the infant daughter should refuse to accompany defendant on any Sunday when he presents himself at the residence of the plaintiff. The proof presents an unfortunate situation where a 14-year-old son has aligned himself with his father and a 10-year-old daughter has joined forces with her mother in an extended battle carried on between the spouses. Each child exhibits marked antipathy toward the parent with whom the child is not residing. The order, however, is completely unrealistic. Compliance with the decree of the court should not be attempted against a 10-year-old child by depriving her of support. Moreover, as has been stated, the court completely ignored the request of the wife to explore the conditions surrounding the infant son who refuses to visit his mother and the court similarly ignored the failure of the husband to make the required payments in accordance with the orders of the court. Upon a new hearing the subject of the custody of both children, the visitation rights of both parents and a determination of a proper weekly amount to be paid by defendant for the support of the wife and the infant children should be fully reviewed. The issues presented are plain, but the solutions will be difficult. The guidance and assistance of a family counseling service may be required. The hearing should be held before another Justice. (Appeal by plaintiff from order of Erie Special Term adjudging the plaintiff in contempt of court.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §2627. Authorization

There is hereby made available from the funds provided by section 612c of this title such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter: Provided, That no such sum shall be used for the payment of any expenses or expenditures of the board in administering any provision of any plan issued under authority of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–670, title III, §318, Jan. 11, 1971, 84 Stat. 2047.)
### §5315. Scientific research and development in support of coordinated program and comprehensive plan

The Secretaries shall coordinate the conduct of, and may contract with the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other suitable Federal agencies for, such scientific research and development as may be necessary or appropriate in support of the coordinated program and the comprehensive plan and in furtherance of the purposes and objectives of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–445, title I, §105, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1040.)
OF 

SERVED APRL 20, 2011 •:PORTAT(ON 

i OPERATIONS 

.r.i \PR 2 0 P 2-3 U 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WESTMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP06NMOOO8 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS FAA-2006-26338 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

The Order to Show Cause of March 28, 2011 ("Order") required Respondent 

Westmark Industries, Inc. ("Respondent") to state, no later than April 6, 2011, why the 

relief requested by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") in its 

2°*^ Renewed Motion for Decision ("Motion") of March 7, 2011 should not be granted. 

The Motion argues that Respondent failed to answer the Complaint and, further, that no 

genuine issues of fact exist and it is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. Respondent 

filed a response to the Order. It acknowledges ih& truth of the allegations but takes issue 

with the amount of Complainant's proposed penalty, arguing that a lesser amoimt is 

appropriate. 

Complainant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 

1 - To the extent that Complainant*s Motion seeks judgment on the allegations of 

the Complaint, it is hereby GRANTED; 

2 - It is found that Respondent violated the hazardous materials regulations 

C'HMRs") as charged in Complainant^s Complaint, viz., 49 C.F.R. §§ 172.200(a), 

172.202(a)(1), 172.202(a)(3), 172.202(a)(4), 172.702(a), and 173.27(b)(3); 
3 ~ To the extent that Complainant's Motion seeks judgment on ils civil penalty 

proposal, ii is hereby DENIED; 

4 ~ The Order to Show Cause is VACATED to the extent consistent with the 

aforementioned rulings; and 

penalty. 

5 - This matter will proceed, as limited to the issue of the appropriate civil 

SO ORDERED. 

fichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP06NM0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000* 

ONE COPY 

Michael Offer, Owner 

Westmark Industries, Respondent 

6701 S.W. McEwan Road 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035-7815 

TEL: 503-620-0945 

FAX: 503-639-6749 

ScottR. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton,WA 98055-4099 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E, 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Servicewasby U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Adimnistration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. \
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: No. 51726

- 4

- II ANTON D. ROBINSON, UNPUB LISHED OPINION Petitioner.
W ORSWICK , J

. — Anton Robinson seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following his 1997 guilty pleas to first degree rape, second degree rape, and first degree robbery, each with a firearm enhancement. At the time of his crimes, Robinson was 17 years old. The trial court sentenced Robinson to a mid

- range standard sentence with a to tal confinement of 245 months. Robinson filed this personal restraint petition in April 2018. We stayed Robinson’s petition pending decisions from our Supreme Court regarding sentencing of juvenile offenders

. Robinson completed serving his sentence and was released from custody in February 2021.

“ An issue is moot when a court can no longer provide meaningful relief

. ” In re Det. of
J.S. , 138 Wn. App . 882, 889, 159 P.3d 435 (2007). However, we may review a moot case if it presents issues of continuing and substantial public interest. State v. Waller , 197 Wn.2d 218,
22 4 n.6 , 481 P.3d 515 (2021). “Whether a moot case involves a matter of substantial public interest depends on whether the issue is of a public or private nature, whether an authoritative d etermination is desirable to provide future guidance to public officers, and whether the issue is likely to recur.” State v. Enriquez

- Martinez , ___ Wn.2d ___, 492 P.3d 162, 165 n.1 (2021) , https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/991014.pdf

. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two November 2, 2021No. 51726

- 4

- II

2

Because the relief Robinson seeks is resentencing, and he is no longer in custody, this petition is now moot. Robinson concedes that this case is moot, but requests this court consider his PRP, arguing that the appeal raises issues of substantial public interest requiring authoritative determination . But Robinson does not raise any issues that have not been previously resolved by our Supreme Court. T here is no effective relief that we may provide , and this case does not raise any matters requiring further author itative determination , thus, we dismiss this petition as moot. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Worswick, J. We concur:

Glasgow, A.C. J.

Cruser, J.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory J. Fisher, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ElkCorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15e) for the registrant and
have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to S.E.C. Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: May 14, 2004
    By /s/ Gregory J. FisherGregory J. FisherChief Financial Officer
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:16:46-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### 1032.113 Customary contract financing.

The specified arrangements are considered customary within Treasury.
#### Wayne Lampert, Respondent, v Kirsch Beverages, Inc., Appellant.

In a proceeding by a stockholder to inspect corporate books and records, the corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 30, 1978, which granted the application. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The sole issue is whether Special Term correctly granted petitioner’s application to inspect the corporate books of the appellant. Section 624 (subds [b], [c]) of the Business Corporation Law gives a person who has been a shareholder for at least six months the right to the information requested by petitioner, *provided*such shareholder furnishes an affidavit "that such inspection is not desired for a purpose which is in the interest of a business or object other than the *836business of the corporation and that he has not within five years sold or offered for sale any list of shareholders”. Once the stockholder alleges compliance with the statute, "the *bona ñdes*of the shareholder will be assumed * * * and it becomes incumbent on the corporation to justify its refusal by showing an improper purpose or bad faith” *(Matter of Crane Co. v Anaconda Co.,*39 NY2d 14, 20). Special Term correctly held that appellant did not meet its burden of showing an improper purpose or bad faith. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §4505. Certification of organizations

(a) The eligibility of any organization to represent milk producers, and to participate in the making of nominations under section 4504 of this title shall be certified by the Secretary. The Secretary shall certify any organization that the Secretary determines meets the eligibility criteria established by the Secretary under this section and the Secretary's determination as to eligibility shall be final.

(b) Certification shall be based, in addition to other available information, on a factual report submitted by the organization, which shall contain information deemed relevant and specified by the Secretary, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) geographic territory covered by the organization's active membership;

(2) nature and size of the organization's active membership including the proportion of the total number of active milk producers represented by the organization;

(3) evidence of stability and permanency of the organization;

(4) sources from which the organization's operating funds are derived;

(5) functions of the organization; and

(6) the organization's ability and willingness to further the aims and objectives of this subchapter.

The primary considerations in determining the eligibility of an organization shall be whether its membership consists primarily of milk producers who produce a substantial volume of milk and whether the primary or overriding interest of the organization is in the production or processing of fluid milk and dairy products and promotion of the nutritional attributes of fluid milk and dairy products.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §114, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1140.)
### §1445c–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §171(b)(2)(E), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 938

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §108B, as added Nov. 28, 1990, Pub. L. 101–624, title VIII, §806(3), 104 Stat. 3475; amended Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, title I, §1105(b), 104 Stat. 1388–3; Dec. 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–237, title I, §117(b)(1)(B), 105 Stat. 1841; Aug. 10, 1993, Pub. L. 103–66, title I, §1109(a), 107 Stat. 325, related to price support program for 1991 through 1997 crops of peanuts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POWER EXPLORATION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS AUDITED BY
MERDINGER, FRUCHTER, ROSEN & CORSO, P.C., NEW YORK, NEW YORK AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         129,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                   123,542
<INVENTORY>                                    352,462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               738,635
<PP&E>                                       7,005,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,707,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,741,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       221,218
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,744,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,707,036
<SALES>                                        446,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               446,108
<CGS>                                          290,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  525,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,616,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             445,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,695,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,695,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,695,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
§ 757.4 Claims that may be collected. ( a ) *Against responsible third parties for damage to Government property, or the property of non-appropriated fund activities.* It should be noted, however, that as a general rule, the Government does not seek payment from service members and Government employees for damages caused by their simple negligence while acting within the scope of their employment. Exceptions to this general policy will be made when the incident involves aggravating circumstances.
( b ) *For money paid or reimbursed by the government for damage to a rental car in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel regulations (volume 1, paragraph U 3415-C and volume 2, paragraph C 2101-2).* Collection action shall be taken against third parties liable in tort. Collection action shall not be taken against Government personnel who rented the vehicle.
( c ) *Other claims.* Any other claim for money or property in favor of the United States cognizable under the Federal Claims Collections Act not specifically listed above.
[72 FR 53427, Sept. 19, 2007]
-••>nTMEMTO F BEFOR E TH E • ^.-?0R1A!^0J1.
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N 0-6^^'^-' ^

WASHINGTON , D.C
. r- > !0
. O U Essentia l Ai r Servic e a t STAUNTON , VIRGINI A Unde r 4 9 U.S.C
. §4173 1 e t

seq . Docke t OST-2002-1137 8

REOUES T FO RSUBMISSIO N DEADLIN EEXTENTIO N

B Y SILVE RAIRWAY S Correspondenc e withregar dt o thi s documen t shoul db e addresse dto : Micke y Bowman Vic e Presiden t

o f Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Silve r Airway s 110 0 Le e Wagene r

Blvd. , Suit e 20 1 Ft
. Lauderdale , F L3331 5 Telephone : 270-303-871 9 Fax : 270-689-218 0 Silve r Airway s respectfull y request s a n extensio n of

th e submissio n deadlin e dat e o f Apri l 25 , 201 2 a s se t

b y th e Departmen t

of Transportatio n i n its ' solicitatio n o f carrie r proposal s i n th e abov e mentione dcity t o o n o r abou t May 9 , 201 2 , . Silve r

Airway s doe s no t feel th e curren t

deadlin e dat e wil l allo w it sufficient tim e t o complet e it s necessary du e diligenc e o n thi s market , no r complet e negotiation s withit s codeshar e partner . Submitted : Apri l 22,201 2 Micke y Bowman Vic e Presiden t

of Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Silve r Airway s
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies
Corporation (the "COMPANY") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 29, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"FORM 10-Q/A"), I, Robert W. Cremin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: January 6, 2006       By: /s/ Robert W. Cremin
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                    Robert W. Cremin
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
### §3808. Cooperation with States

In order to avoid duplication of functions, facilities, and personnel, and to attain closer coordination and greater effectiveness and economy in administration of this chapter and State laws and regulations relating to the feeding of garbage to swine, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture and other State agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of such State laws and regulations and to provide that any such State agency which has adequate facilities, personnel, and procedures, as determined by the Secretary, may assist the Secretary in the administration and enforcement of this chapter and regulations hereunder. The Secretary is further authorized to coordinate the administration of this chapter and regulations with such State laws and regulations whenever feasible: Provided, That nothing herein shall affect the jurisdiction of the Secretary under any other Federal law, or any authority to cooperate with State agencies or other agencies or persons under existing provisions of law, or affect any restrictions upon such cooperation.

(Pub. L. 96–468, §9, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2232.)