alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mattie Hawley, Deceased. Irene C. O’Neal, Appellant; Edmund J. Baisley, as Public Administrator, Respondent.

— In a proceeding by a maternal first cousin of an intestate, for the issuance to her of letters of administration, in which the five other such cousins waived their right to letters in the petitioner’s favor and in which the Public Administrator of Queens County interposed an answer challenging petitioner’s status as a distributee and alleging the existence of persons with a prior right to letters, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much Of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, made June 21, 1963 upon the report of a Referee after hearings before him, as directed the issuance of letters to the respondent, the Public Administrator of Queens County. [In the record and briefs, such order is erroneously referred to as having been made and entered on June 11, 1963.] Order of June 21, 1963, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to petitioner payable out of the estate. Petition granted; letters of administration directed to he issued to petitioner upon her qualifying according to law; and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate for the entry of an appropriate decree not inconsistent herewith. The decree should also provide that the administratrix is prohibited, until further court order, from: (a) collecting assets in excess of the amount of her bond; and (b) from making any distribution prior to the judicial settlement of her account. The decree should further require the administratrix, prior to the judicial settlement of her account, to make a reasonable search for the decedent’s distributees presently claimed to he unknown. Findings of fact implicit in the Surrogate’s decision and the Referee’s report, insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. On the proof adduced in this record, we find that the petitioner is entitled to letters of administration (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 118, subd. 6; *Matter of Peters,*104 N. Y. S. 2d 647; *Matter of*McMahon, 104 N. Y. S. 2d 1020). There is only a remote possibility that the decedent left her surviving any distributee other than the petitioner and those in her class, all of whom have duly waived their right to letters and have consented to the petitioner’s appointment. The petitioner is therefore entitled to letters of administration as against the Public Administrator. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         603,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,133,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,648
<INVENTORY>                                  1,279,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,053,912
<PP&E>                                       7,874,655
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,017,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,627,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,571,883
<BONDS>                                        584,841
<COMMON>                                        46,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,010
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,638,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,627,517
<SALES>                                      9,344,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,344,089
<CGS>                                        6,890,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,890,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,375,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,390
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### §8352. Authorization of expenditures for the eradication and control of predatory and other wild animals

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make such expenditures for equipment, supplies, and materials, including the employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to employ such means as may be necessary to execute the functions imposed upon him by section 8351 of this title.

(Mar. 2, 1931, ch. 370, §3, 46 Stat. 1469.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 426b of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Secretary of Agriculture administered through Bureau of Biological Survey, relating to conservation of wildlife, game, and migratory birds, transferred to Secretary of the Interior by 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, §4(f), eff. July 1, 1939, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. See also sections 401 to 404 of said plan for provisions relating to transfer of functions, records, property, personnel, and funds.
### §87k. Standardizing commercial inspections

#### (a) Testing equipment

To promote greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection results, the Secretary may work in conjunction with the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, or other appropriate governmental, scientific, or technical organizations to—

(1) identify inspection instruments requiring standardization under subsection (b);

(2) establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments;

(3) develop a national program to approve grain inspection instruments for commercial inspection; and

(4) develop standard reference materials or other means necessary for calibration or testing of approved instruments.

#### (b) General inspection procedures

To ensure that producers are treated uniformly in delivering grain, the Secretary shall develop practical and cost-effective procedures for conducting commercial inspections of grain with respect to the application of quality factors, that result in premiums and discounts. The procedures shall be made available to country elevators and others making first-point-of-delivery inspections.

#### (c) Inspection services and information

To encourage the use of equipment and procedures developed in accordance with subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall provide for official inspection services by the Secretary, States, and official inspection agencies and provide information on the proper use of sampling and inspection equipment, application of the grain standards, and availability of official inspection services, including appeals under this chapter.

#### (d) Standardized aflatoxin equipment and procedures

The Secretary shall—

(1) establish uniform standards for testing equipment; and

(2) establish uniform testing procedures and sampling techniques;

that may be used by processors, refiners, operators of grain elevators and terminals, and others to accurately detect the level of aflatoxin contamination of corn in the United States.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. B, §22, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XX, §2009, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3931; amended Pub. L. 103–156, §§11, 13(b)(2), Nov. 24, 1993, 107 Stat. 1528, 1529; Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §293(a)(7), (8), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3237.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original "this Act" and was translated as reading "this part", meaning part B of act Aug. 11, 1916, known as the United States Grain Standards Act, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–354 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" wherever appearing and "Secretary" for "Service" in subsec. (c).

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–156, §11, substituted ", the National Conference on Weights and Measures, or other appropriate governmental, scientific, or technical organizations" for "and the National Conference on Weights and Measures" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–156, §13(b)(2), substituted "subsections (a) and (b)" for "subsection (a) and (b)".
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          6,609
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                      713
<INVENTORY>                                    15,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,002
<PP&E>                                         29,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                108,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          40,250
<BONDS>                                        73,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          15,311<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (25,825)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  108,884
<SALES>                                        34,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               34,588
<CGS>                                          29,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   49
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                      560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               869
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      869
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> In accordance with SFAS No. 128, earnings per share is not required to be
     calculated.
<F2> Preferred stock-mandatory includes preferred stock units
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Alwin Construction Company, Inc. *v.*Douglas M. Costle, Commissioner of Environmental Protection et al.

*Melvin J. Silverman,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Samuel M. Chambliss,*for the appellant (intervening defendant CBET, Inc.).

Argued October 1

decided October 8, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the intervening defendant CBET, Inc., from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
#### 1204.804-5 Procedures for closing out contract files.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence
Fensterstock, Chief Financial 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 the best of 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 the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                      By: /s/ Lawrence Fensterstock
                                              Lawrence Fensterstock
                                              Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2006
(May 25, 1964)

#### Anthony A. Bravata et al., Respondents, v. Marie Russo, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) City of New York, Respondent, v. Marie Russo, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Marie Russo, Plaintiff, v. City of New York, Defendant. (Action No. 3.)

In three negligence actions, involving a collision between a police patrol car and a private automobile, which were consolidated and tried together solely on the issue of liability, the defendant Russo (in the first two captioned actions) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 2, 1964 after a jury trial, which: (1) granted the motion of the plaintiffs Bravata, Vitiello and the City of Hew York to set aside the jury’s special verdict as contrary to law and against the weight of the credible *690evidence; (2) directed the entry of judgment against the said defendant Russo in favor of said plaintiffs; and (3) directed an assessment of the damages in said two actions upon a trial before the court and jury (see 41 Misc 2d 376). Order reversed, with costs; the motion of the three plaintiffs Bravata, Vitiello and the city to set aside the jury’s special verdict denied; verdict reinstated; and the three actions remanded to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings and for the entry of an appropriate judgment not inconsistent herewith. The special verdict of the jury was that the individual parties (plaintiffs Bravata and Vitiello and defendant Russo) failed “ to exercise reasonable care, which failure proximately caused the collision ”. On the proof adduced it may not be held that the evidence preponderates so greatly in favor of plaintiffs as to establish that the jury’s special verdict, insofar as it was against them, “ could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(Olsen*v. *Chase Manhattan Bank,*10 A D 2d 539, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829; cf. *Scheuerman*v. *Knapp Coal Co.,*238 App. Div. 874). Hence, it was error to set aside the verdict and to direct judgment in favor of the three plaintiffs named against the defendant Russo. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EPA SLN No. CO-060009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7207

SHARON R. WAZNEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (3:23-cv-03497-JD) 

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert William Wazney seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting with 

modification the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying his motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, and remanding the underlying proceeding back to state court after 

determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal. 

Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code places “broad restrictions,” 

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995), on the jurisdiction of 

courts of appeals to review remand orders. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the 

State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in 

pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified 

in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 

127. Thus, § 1447(d) bars appellate court review of remand orders when they are based on 

“(1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other 

than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 

days after the notice of removal was filed.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 

519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Taking the requisite “brief peek” at the district court’s reasoning, we are satisfied 

that “a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was a colorable or plausible explanation of the 

legal ground on which the [district] court actually relied for remand.” Protopapas v. 

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., ___ F.4th ___, No. 23-1339, 2024 WL 764144, at *4 (4th Cir. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Feb. 26, 2024). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand 

order under § 1447(d) and thus dismiss this appeal. Id. at *7. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### FAHEY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK EDISON CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by John Fahey against, the New York Edison Company. L. H. Porter, for appellant. J. Notnan, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT
32.2





Section
1350 Certification


By
Principal Financial Officer





I,
Craig R. Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for
the quarter ended February 28, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.





Date:  April
7, 2010


/s/ Craig R. JonesCraig
      R. Jones
                Chief
      Financial Officer
### §672. Agreements; licenses, regulations, programs, etc., unaffected

(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as invalidating any marketing agreement, license, or order, or any regulation relating to, or any provision of, or any act of the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with, any such agreement, license, or order which has been executed, issued, approved, or done under the Agricultural Adjustment Act [7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], or any amendment thereof, but such marketing agreements, licenses, orders, regulations, provisions, and acts are expressly ratified, legalized, and confirmed.

(b) Any program in effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act [7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], as reenacted and amended by this Act, on January 1, 1950, shall continue in effect without the necessity for any amendatory action relative to such program, but any such program shall be continued in operation by the Secretary of Agriculture only to establish and maintain such orderly marketing conditions as will tend to effectuate the declared purpose set out in section 2 or 8c(18) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act [7 U.S.C. 602 or 608c(18)], as reenacted and amended by this Act.

(June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §4, 50 Stat. 249; July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title III, §302(e), 62 Stat. 1258.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act June 3, 1937, ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, known as the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act, referred to in text, is title I of act May 12, 1933, ch. 25, 48 Stat. 31, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (§601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 601 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1948—Act July 3, 1948, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment by act July 3, 1948, effective Jan. 1, 1950, see section 303 of act July 3, 1948, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 15, 2023

NO. 03-21-00281-CV

Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC, Appellant

v.

Sophie Pouye and Cheikh Toure, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on June 2, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s interlocutory

order. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Bailey, hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of PMC on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 21, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert L. Bailey                 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Robert L. Bailey                     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer