alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 935.61 Wake Island Court. ( a ) The trial judicial authority for Wake Island is vested in the Wake Island Court.
( b ) The Wake Island Court consists of one or more Judges, appointed by the General Counsel as needed. The term of a Judge shall be for one year, but he may be re-appointed. When the Wake Island Court consists of more than one Judge, the General Counsel shall designate one of the Judges as the Chief Judge who will assign matters to Judges, determine when the Court will sit individually or en banc, and prescribe rules of the Court not otherwise provided for in this Code. If there is only one Judge appointed, that Judge shall be the Chief Judge.
( c ) Sessions of the Court are held on Wake Island or Hawaii at times and places designated by the Chief Judge.
#### Virgil Hatcher, Appellant, v Board of Managers of the 420 West 23rd Street Condominium et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 112]

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered June 19, 2006, which reversed a judgment of the Housing Court, New York County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), entered on or about June 24, 2004, directing the respondent condominium to employ a certified resident janitor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellate Term properly found that the obligations of respondent condominium under Housing Maintenance Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) §§ 27-2053 and 27-2054 were met by its provision of janitorial services. Nothing in the relevant statutes supports petitioner’s contention that they must be construed as requiring that janitorial services be provided by the resident owner itself, and we decline to rewrite the governing statutes under the guise of interpretation.

The condominium properly complied with Housing Maintenance Code §§ 27-2055 and 27-2054 by certifying that its janitor was competent to perform the required janitorial services and capable of operating the furnace, boiler and other machinery that provides central heat and hot water, and that he did not service more than 65 units. We reject petitioner’s claim that the additional provision of services by a backup janitor who serviced *437more than 65 units impaired this compliance (see *Hatcher v Board of Mgrs. of 420 W. 23 St. Condominium,*12 Misc 3d 78, 80 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.
#### Anthony Noto, Appellant, v. Frances P. Headley et al., Respondents.

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law (now Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, art. 15) for determination of a claim *687to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1964, which, upon reargument: (1) denied his motion to transfer the action from the Equity Calendar to the Jury Calendar; and (2) granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. An action to determine title to real property is triable by a jury (CPLR 4101, suibd. 2). However, in his amended complaint the plaintiff included allegations setting forth, in addition, an equitable cause of action for specific performance, which is maintainable under the omnibus prayer for relief. By so doing, plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial *(Di Menna*v. *Cooper & Evans Co.,*220 N. Y. 391; *Vincent*v. *Cooperman,*283 App. Div. 812). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [39 Misc 2d 233.]
1Rule 10 (Court of Appeals).Affirmance W ithout Opinion.--(a) The Court, with the concurrence of all

judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal

opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumstances

exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) The Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the trial court.

(2) There is m aterial evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

(3) No reversible error of law appears.

FILED

September 18, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE

JEFFREY A. THOMPSON, a minor )

by his next friend and guardian, ) Davidson Circuit No. 93C-3547

TREIVA GRIFFIN, )

) Appeal No. 01A01-9604-CV-00146

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

)

vs. )

)

JOHN A. DYER, )

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

 

RULE 10 ORDER AND OPINION

 

This appears to be a proper matter for consideration pursuant to Court of

Appeals Rule 10(a).1

This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. Following a

trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. The sole issue raised by plaintiff is

whether the jury verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

We note at the outset that plaintiff has mischaracterized our standard of review on

appeal. The pertinent inquiry is not whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the

evidence because appellate courts may not reweigh the evidence on appeal from a jury

verdict. Grissom v. Metropolitan Gov’t., 817 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tenn. App. 1991). Where,

as here, a trial judge has approved a jury’s verdict, our standard of review is whether there

is any material evidence to support the verdict. T.R.A.P. 13(d). Thus, we will set aside a

judgment on a jury verdict only where the record contains no material evidence to support

the verdict. Foster v. Bue, 749 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tenn. 1988).

From our review of the record, we conclude that there was evidence presented at
2

trial from which the jury could have concluded that defendant was not negligent. The trial

judge agreed with the jury’s determination in this regard and approved the verdict. (TR 57)

Accordingly, we find that there exists material evidence in the record to support the

judgment below.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in toto. Costs of this appeal are adjudged

against appellant.

 

HIGHERS, J.

 

CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

 

CANTRELL, J.
#### Fred Thoma, defendant in error, v. Fred W. Gehrer, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 29,444.

Suit in attachment. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph B. David, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 3, 1925.

Adams, Pollansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for plaintiff in error; Samuel Adams, Melvin M. Hawley and Howard H. Wikoff, of counsel.

Hovak & Novak, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
# Fourth Cou rt of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00333

- CV

IN RE Cleo BUSTAMANTE

, Jr

.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

On May 26, 2016, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion

for temporary re lief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the

mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The

respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the p etition for writ of

mandamus in this court no later than June 20, 2016. Any such response must conform to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for emergency relief is GRANTED . All proceedings in the trial court

on this matter are stayed pending final resolution of the petition filed in this court.

It is so ORDERED on May 27, 2016

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Caus e No. 12

- 05

- 27517 , styled Roberto Fernandez and Maria Imelda Flores v.

Abaco Consultants, Inc., et al , pending in the 365th Judicial District Court

, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable

Amado J. Abascal, III presiding.
### §2279h. Cross-servicing activities of National Finance Center

On and after November 10, 2005, the Chief Financial Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.

(Pub. L. 109–97, title I, Nov. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 2121.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the appropriation act cited as the credit to this section.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 108–447, div. A, title I, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2812.

Pub. L. 108–199, div. A, title I, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 6.

Pub. L. 108–7, div. A, title I, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 14.

Pub. L. 107–76, title I, Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 705.

Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title I], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–2.

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(a) [title I], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–1.

Pub. L. 105–86, title I, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2080.

Pub. L. 104–180, title I, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1570.

Pub. L. 104–37, title I, Oct. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 300.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF UNIQUE MOBILITY, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31, 1999, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,537,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,601,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,961,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,689,997
<PP&E>                                      13,516,676
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,643,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,206,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,294,736
<BONDS>                                      4,396,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    43,574,620
<OTHER-SE>                                (26,458,496)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,206,578
<SALES>                                     14,280,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,798,418
<CGS>                                       14,505,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,943,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               271,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             338,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,754,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,754,070)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,754,070)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)


</TABLE>
#### Charlene Benton *v.*Edwin Benton

*Gordon A. Evans*and *Nicholas Triffin,*in support of the motion.

*William F. Gallagher,*in opposition.

Submitted November 14

decided November 26, 1974

The defendant’s motion for a review of the decision of the trial court dated October 22, 1974, terminating the stay of judgment in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Alex Goniprow

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management

FROM: Deborah S. Delisle

Assistant Secretary

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Request Closure/Certification of Internal Audit Reports

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

In accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the Department’s Handbook for 

the Post Audit Process and my responsibilities as Action Official for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services under the Department’s ACS Directive OCFO-01, I 

hereby delegate to you the authority to serve as the Action Official in issuing the Request 

for Closure/Certification Memorandum. This delegation of authority covers internal audits 

defined in this context as ED-OIG and GAO-issued audits, as well as alternative products 

issued by ED-OIG, and tracked by the Department’s automated tracking system.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

cited herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

 This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Delegations Control 

Officer.

____-signed-_______

 Deborah S. Delisle

 Assistant Secretary

Date Certified: July7, 2012

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Bruce Monblatt

Control Number: ES/ES/89
### Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Marryan Sproat <marryan_sproat@yahoo.com> Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:43 AM Faulk, Scott (OST); EAS (OST) EAS KAULAPAPA IMG_20131126_000l.pdf; IMG_20131126_0002.pdf

Aloha Department ofTransportation(DOT), ..

Hi my name is Marian Sprout and we are head ofthe Mule trip and Coffee Store located in Kalae Near Kalaupapa Hikerrrail. On behalfofthe Molokai community, we decided that it would be much easierto collect signatures from local citizens who wants to support MokuleleAirlines to provide inter-island flights to Kalaupapa. The patition shows signatures & addresses of residences, so no signature will be stated as fault.

1
# FY 2023-2025 State by State
Appeal No. 73-245.

#### Greater Providence Trust Company *v.*Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

*Stanley J. Kanter,*for plaintiff. *John G. Carroll, Edward E. Dillon, Jr.,*for defendant.

The circumstances out of which this case arose are the same as those giving rise to *Old Colony Co-operative Bank*v. *Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*114 R. I. 289, 332 A.2d 434 (1975). The issues in the two are identical, and consequently the decision in the latter case which was handed down today controls in this case. The defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
Order entered March 8 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 01203
- CV EBF PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant

V. REACH ENERGY, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cou rt at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 15
- 01188
- A



### O RDER
Before t he Court is appellant’s March 6, 2018 agreed motion for extension of time to file reply brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 26 , 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 1052.2 of Part 1052

#### Editorial Note:

At 79 FR 15554, Mar. 20, 2014, subpart 1052.2 was added, however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### 1052.219-75 Mentor Requirements and Evaluation.

As prescribed in 1019.202-70(p), insert the following clause:

# Mentor Requirements and Evaluation (AUG 2011)

(a) Mentor and protégé firms shall submit an evaluation to the Department of the Treasury's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) at the conclusion of the mutually agreed upon Program period, or the voluntary withdrawal by either party from the Program, whichever occurs first. At the conclusion of each year in the Mentor-Protégé Program, the prime contractor and protégé will formally brief the Department of the Treasury Mentor-Protégé Program Manager regarding program accomplishments under their mentor-protégé agreements.

(b) A mentor or protégé must notify the OSDBU and the contracting officer, in writing, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the effective date of the firm's withdrawal from the Program. A mentor firm must notify the OSDBU and the contracting officer upon receipt of a protégé's notice of withdrawal from the Program.

(c) Contracting officers may provide, as an incentive, a bonus score, not to exceed 5% of the relative importance assigned to the non-price factors. If this incentive is used, the contracting officer shall include language in the solicitation indicating that this adjustment may occur.

(End of clause)
### §2142. Humane standards and recordkeeping requirements at auction sales

The Secretary is authorized to promulgate humane standards and recordkeeping requirements governing the purchase, handling, or sale of animals, in commerce, by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors at auction sales and by the operators of such auction sales. The Secretary is also authorized to require the licensing of operators of auction sales where any dogs or cats are sold, in commerce, under such conditions as he may prescribe, and upon payment of such fee as prescribed by the Secretary under section 2153 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §12, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 91–579, §13, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; Pub. L. 94–279, §5, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–279 substituted "in commerce" for "affecting commerce" in two places.

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 extended requirements for recordkeeping and humane standards to exhibitors and operators of auction sales, with such requirements to apply to animals as defined instead of only to cats and dogs when transactions in auction sales are affecting commerce, and required operators of auction sales to obtain a license when he sells cats or dogs and such transactions are affecting commerce, upon payment of fee prescribed by the Secretary.

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

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective one year after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
#### Robert E. Johnson et al. *v.*Frederick A. Flammia et al.

*Julius Watstein,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*David E. Kamins,*for the appellants (defendants).

Argued October 1

decided October 2, 1974

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County is denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsData reduction programs for a laser radar systemThe listing and description of software routines which were used to analyze the analog data obtained from LIDAR - system are given. All routines are written in FORTRAN - IV on a HP - 1000/F minicomputer which serves as the heart of the data acquisition system for the LIDAR program. This particular system has 128 kilobytes of highspeed memory and is equipped with a Vector Instruction Set (VIS) firmware package, which is used in all the routines, to handle quick execution of different long loops. The system handles floating point arithmetic in hardware in order to enhance the speed of execution. This computer is a 2177 C/F series version of HP - 1000 RTE-IVB data acquisition computer system which is designed for real time data capture/analysis and disk/tape mass storage environment.Document ID19840008362Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBadavi, F. F.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA, United States)*Copeland, G. E.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberPTR-83-7NAS 1.26:173152NASA-CR-173152Accession Number84N16430Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-1Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840008362.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1
           Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
             U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Howard  Pinsley,
President and 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 to my knowledge:

         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 this report fairly presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2007


                                               /s/ Howard Pinsley
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Howard Pinsley, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                       16
#### In re GILCHRIST’S ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

In the matter of the application for letters of administration on the goods, chattels, and credits of James A. Gilchrist, deceased.

No opinion. Order of Surrogate’s Court of Kings county (75 N. Y. Supp. 1055) affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.