alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Skodnek Industries, Inc., Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 39637.)

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding for the appropriation, for purposes of the Long Island Expressway, of lands in the Town of Oyster Bay. In testifying to a value of $12,000 per acre,, claimant’s expert gave effect to his conclusion that the highest and best use of the property was residential for “the front half ” while “ the rear would be industrial eventually ”. The property was in a Residential “B” zone, for one-acre building plots, and there is no adequate basis in the record for the witness’ assumption of a rezoning to permit industrial use, and, indeed, claimant’s application for such a change had been denied. There being no “reasonable probability” of such a change *(Masten*v. *State of New York,*11 A D 2d 370, affd. 9 N Y 2d 796), the trial court’s refusals of the State’s proposed findings and conclusions upon this issue were clearly in error as was its affirmative finding, not of a “reasonable probability”, within the *Hasten*rule, but of “a possibility of a variance”. The State contends, additionally, that the experts of both parties were in error in valuing the remainder area as landlocked, but that question may be more readily explored upon retrial than by evaluation of the documentary evidence submitted to us by the State, with respondent’s consent; retrial being necessary in any event since we do not find the record adequate to permit an award by this court. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/02/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99



                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT



Board of Directors
Carnegie Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Carnegie
Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of June 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income for the six and three-month periods ended June
30, 2001 and 2000, the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month
period ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the consolidated statement of changes
in stockholders' equity for the six-month period ended June 30, 2001. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated February 22, 2001 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.




Wexford, PA
August 10, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 7 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.7

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of 
               non-excess property of the Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension 
Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASES OF NON-EXCESS 
PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.
    Section 20145(g) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2018'' and inserting ``December 31, 2019''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Bubble Gum Productions, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00595

Honorable Joan H. Lefkow

Does 1−37

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 17, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan H. Lefkow: Status hearing held on

7/17/2012 and continued to 9/18/2012 at 8:30 A.M. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-00595 Document #: 24 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:141
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AMEER MURPHY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 145 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND 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 the quarterly report of Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, 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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |                                      
|------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|May 14, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Barry M. Yantis                  
|Date         |  |  |  | By: Barry M. Yantis                  
|             |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



26
#### 1509.502 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all EPA contracts except agreements with other Federal agencies. However, this subpart applies to contracts with the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the 8(a) program.
### §4204. Technical assistance

The Secretary is encouraged to provide technical assistance to any State or unit of local government, or any nonprofit organization, as determined by the Secretary, that desires to develop programs or policies to limit the conversion of productive farmland to nonagricultural uses.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1543, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1343.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective six months after Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1549 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4201 of this title.
EXHIBIT 12.1





THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES


COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


(In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)


(Unaudited)





Six Months Ended June 30,2002

2001Earnings:Pre-tax income

$
738

$
735Add:Interest and fixed charges excluding capitalized interest


79


87Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor


90


86Distributed income of investees accounted for under the equity method


2


3Amortization of capitalized interest


4


4Less: Undistributed equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity method


7


12Total earnings available for fixed charges

$
906

$
903Fixed charges:Interest and fixed charges

$
86

$
95Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor


90


86Total fixed charges

$
176

$
181Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


5.15x


4.99x




E-2
### §79c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. B, §7C, as added Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, title I, §155(3), 95 Stat. 372; amended Oct. 11, 1984, Pub. L. 98–469, §2(2), 98 Stat. 1831, which limited the total administrative and supervisory costs which could be incurred under this chapter for fiscal years 1982 through 1988, was effective for the period Oct. 1, 1981, through Sept. 30, 1988, pursuant to section 155 of Pub. L. 97–35, as amended. See section 79d of this title.
#### 1631.205-41 Taxes.

5 U.S.C. 8909(f)(1) prohibits the imposition of taxes, fees, or other monetary payment, directly or indirectly, on FEHB premiums by any State, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or by any political subdivision or other governmental authority of those entities. Therefore, FAR 31.205-41 is modified to include those taxes as unallowable costs. The prohibited payments, referred to elsewhere in these regulations as “premium taxes,” applies to all payments directed by States or municipalities, regardless of how they may be titled, to whom they must be paid, or the purpose for which they are collected, and it applies to all forms of direct and indirect measurements on FEHBP premiums, however modified, to include cost per contract or enrollee, with the sole exception of a tax on net income or profit, if that tax, fee, or payment is applicable to a broad range of business activity.

[56 FR 57496, Nov. 12, 1991]
Russell Ainsworth Debra Loevy-Reyes

Steve Art Aaron Mandel

Roshna Bala Keen Elizabeth Mazur

Vincenzo Field Pier Petersen

Gayle Horn Rachel Steinback

Michael Kanovitz Anand Swaminathan

Heather Lewis Donnell Julie Thompson

Samantha Liskow Tara Thompson

Arthur Loevy Cindy Tsai

Danielle Loevy Daniel Twetten

Jon Loevy Elizabeth Wang

Telephone 312.243.5900 Website www.loevy.com

Facsimile 312.243.5902 Email loevylaw@loevy.com

March 6, 2012

Thomas G. Bruton

Clerk of Court 

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60604

Re: Automated Facilities Management Corporation, V. IFS North America, Inc., 12 C 1555

Dear Mr. Bruton:

Please accept this letter as a Request for the Clerk of Court to Refund Filing Fee in the abovereferenced matter.

The $350.00 filing fee for this case was erroneously paid twice due to a technical issue during 

filing, as reflected by receipt nos. 0752-6901087 and 0752-6901023, respectively. Receipt No. 0752-

6901023 reflects the unintentional payment for which we request a refund.

Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael Kanovitz

 Michael Kanovitz

LOEVY & LOEVY

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

312 N. May Street

Suite 100

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 11 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:17
Page 1 of 35Page 2 of 35Page 3 of 35Page 4 of 35Page 5 of 35Page 6 of 35Page 7 of 35Page 8 of 35Page 9 of 35Page 10 of 35Page 11 of 35Page 12 of 35Page 13 of 35Page 14 of 35Page 15 of 35Page 16 of 35Page 17 of 35Page 18 of 35Page 19 of 35Page 20 of 35Page 21 of 35Page 22 of 35Page 23 of 35Page 24 of 35Page 25 of 35Page 26 of 35Page 27 of 35Page 28 of 35Page 29 of 35Page 30 of 35Page 31 of 35Page 32 of 35Page 33 of 35Page 34 of 35Page 35 of 35
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60353

MICHAEL E. STEWART,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. E. BORRIES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:06-CV-187

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 9, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
**COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED INCOME-DRIVEN REPAYMENT PLANS**

**01/23/2015**

� Under the ICR Plan, if the calculated monthly payment is greater than $0, but less than or equal to $5, the required monthly payment is $5. 

Under the Original IBR, New Borrower IBR, and Pay As You Earn Plans:

If the calculated monthly payment is less than $5, the required monthly payment is $0.

If the calculated monthly payment is greater than or equal to $5, but less than $10, the required monthly payment is $10.

1
1847.305-70 NASA contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.247-72, Advance Notice of Shipment, in solicitations and contracts when the f.o.b. point is destination and special Government assistance is required in the delivery or receipt of the items.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.247-73, Bills of Lading, in f.o.b. origin solicitations and contracts.
[62 FR 14028, Mar. 25, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 38908, June 6, 2002]
### §§516, 517. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–237, title X, §1019, Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1906

Section 516, act June 5, 1940, ch. 232, §1, 54 Stat. 231, prohibited exportation of seeds or plants without permit.

Section 517, act June 5, 1940, ch. 232, §2, 54 Stat. 231, provided penalty for violations.
#### Fun Fair Park, Inc., et al. v. Frances Ursini et al. Fun Fair Park, Inc., et al. v. Gabor Holding Corp. et al.

Motion for leave to reargue appeal denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 29, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1126

Lower Tribunal No. F17-4779

________________

Javier Alberto Ortiz-Modestti,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa 

Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1



THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

(In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)

(Unaudited)



|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- | - | -----
|Three Months Ended March 31,                                                                |  | 2004 |       | 2003
|Earnings:                                                                                   |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change                       |  | $    | 392   |      | $ | 319  
|Add:                                                                                        |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Interest and fixed charges excluding capitalized interest                                   |  |      | 32    |      |   | 38   
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor       |  |      | 48    |      |   | 46   
|Distributed income of investees accounted for under the equity method                       |  |      | 1     |      |   | 1    
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                        |  |      | 2     |      |   | 2    
|Less: Undistributed equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity method |  |      | 3     |      |   | 4    
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Total earnings available for fixed charges                                                  |  | $    | 472   |      | $ | 402  
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Fixed charges:                                                                              |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Interest and fixed charges                                                                  |  | $    | 34    |      | $ | 40   
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor       |  |      | 48    |      |   | 46   
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Total fixed charges                                                                         |  | $    | 82    |      | $ | 86   
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |      
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                          |  |      | 5.76x |      |   | 4.67x
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |      |   |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                                 BANCTEC, INC.
                                 Founded: 1972
                   Incorporated (Delaware): January 2, 1987



                                           PLACE OF                 DATE OF
     SUBSIDIARY NAME                     INCORPORATION           INCORPORATION
     ---------------                     -------------           -------------

BancTec Limited                          England              October 27, 1976
BancTec (Canada), Inc.                   Canada               June 11, 1986
BancTec (Puerto Rico), Inc.              Delaware             February 24, 1988
BancTec (Export), Inc.                   U.S. Virgin Islands  January  22, 1990
BancTec Holding N.V.                     The Netherlands      May 24, 1991
     BancTec A/S                         Denmark              January 8, 1971
     BancTec Iberica S.A.                Spain                April 9, 1981
     BancTec AB                          Sweden               September 30, 1992
     BancTec S.A.                        France               December 31, 1990
     BancTec GmbH                        Germany              December 14, 1976
     BancTec B.V.                        The Netherlands      June 4, 1991
BancTec Third Party Maintenance, Inc.    Texas                February 26, 1992
BancTec Japan Inc.                       Japan                June 30, 1994
Recognition Mexico Holding Inc.          Delaware             September 30, 1994
     Recognition de Mexico S.A. de C.V.  Mexico               November 16, 1994
Servibanca                               Chile                January 18, 1990
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Saunders, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 19, 1975, affirmed (see *People v Jackson*46 NY2d 721; *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589; *People v Gaines,*41 AD2d 742; *People v Ruiz,*34 AD2d 908). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
Order filed January 4, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00472-CV

____________

CURTIS TYLER, Appellant

V.

TORCSILL FOUNDATIONS LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-07582

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case was filed August 16, 2021. The clerk 

responsible for preparing the record notified this court that appellant has not made 

payment for the record. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has 

been filed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On November 15, 2021, this court notified 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response 

with proof of payment for the record. No response was filed. On December 14, 

2021, appellant was ordered to demonstrate to this court that appellant has made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record on or before December 29, 2021. See 
Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Appellant was informed that if he failed to do so, the 

appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

On December 29, 2021, appellant filed a response demonstrating that 

payment arrangements have been made for the reporter’s record. The response 

does not reflect payment arrangements have been made for the clerk’s record.

Therefore, the court issues the following order.

Appellant is ordered to demonstrate to this court that appellant has made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record on or before January 14, 2022. See Tex.

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to do so, the appeal will be dismissed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.