alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #:612
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #:613
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #:614
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #:615
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #:616
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #:617
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #:618
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #:619
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #:620
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #:621
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #:622
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #:623
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #:624
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #:625
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #:626
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #:627
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #:628
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #:629
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #:630
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #:631
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #:632
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #:633
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #:634
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #:635
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #:636
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #:637
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #:638
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #:639
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #:640
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #:641
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #:642
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #:643
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #:644
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-6 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #:645
206.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. ( a ) *Authority.* (2)(i) Section 8059 of Pub. L. 101-511 and similar sections in subsequent defense appropriations acts prohibit departments and agencies from entering into contracts for studies, analyses, or consulting services (see FAR subpart 37.2) on the basis of an unsolicited proposal without providing for full and open competition, unless— ( 1 ) The head of the contracting activity, or a designee no lower than chief of the contracting office, determines that— ( i ) Following thorough technical evaluation, only one source is fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
( ii ) The unsolicited proposal offers significant scientific or technological promise, represents the product of original thinking, and was submitted in confidence; or
( iii ) The contract benefits the national defense by taking advantage of a unique and significant industrial accomplishment or by ensuring financial support to a new product or idea;
( 2 ) A civilian official of the DoD, whose appointment has been confirmed by the Senate, determines the award to be in the interest of national defense; or
( 3 ) The contract is related to improvement of equipment that is in development or production.
( b ) *Application.* This authority may be used for acquisitions of test articles and associated support services from a designated foreign source under the DoD Foreign Comparative Testing Program.
( c ) *Application for brand-name descriptions.* ( 2 ) Notwithstanding FAR 6.302-1(c)(2), in accordance with section 888(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), the justification and approval addressed in FAR 6.303 is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions.
( d ) *Limitations.* Follow the procedures at PGI 206.302-1(d) prior to soliciting a proposal without providing for full and open competition under this authority.
(S-70) *Application for proprietary specifications or standards*. In accordance with section 888(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), the justification and approval addressed in FAR 6.303 is required in order to use proprietary specifications and standards. [56 FR 36303, July 31, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 14992, Apr. 23, 1992; 58 FR 28463, May 13, 1993; 69 FR 74991, Dec. 15, 2004; 80 FR 21657, Apr. 20, 2015; 84 FR 25192, May 31, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Warrelman, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered June 4,1962 on his plea of guilty convicting him of robbery in the second degree, armed, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve a term of not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years. Judgment affirmed. (See *People*v. *Arturo,*269 App. Div. 857.) Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34





December 21, 1999

____________________________
Venator Group, Inc.
233 Broadway
New York, NY  10279

Re:  Severance Agreement

Dear _____________:

In accordance with Section 2 of the agreement entered into between you and
Venator Group, Inc. (the "Company") dated as of ___________,1999 (the
"Agreement"), this is to advise you that the Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors of the Company has elected not to renew the term of the Agreement.
Therefore, the Agreement will expire on December 31, 2000 in accordance with its
terms, unless sooner terminated by agreement of the parties.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dennis M. Lee

Dennis M. Lee
Senior Vice President
Human Resources
2131.201-5 Credits. The provisions of FAR 31.201-5 shall apply to income, rebates and other credits resulting from benefit payments that include, but are not limited to— ( a ) Uncashed and returned checks.
( b ) Refunds attributable to litigation with regard to payments of FEGLI Program life insurance monies.
( c ) Erroneous benefit payment, refunds, overpayment, and duplicate payment recoveries.
( d ) Escheatments.
Exhibit
      23.2














**INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM CONSENT**










The
      Board
      of Directors


PhotoMedex,
      Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 2005, in the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580,
      333-91926, 333-106605 and 333-120921) on Form S-3, in the registration
      statements (Nos. 333-100609 and 333-121864) on Form S-4, and in the registration
      statements (Nos. 333-30298 and 333-114181) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex, Inc.,
      of
      our report dated February 18, 2004, except with respect to the eleventh
      paragraph of note 10, for which the date is March 10, 2004, with respect to
      the
      consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for
      the year ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31,
      2005 annual report on Form 10-K of PhotoMedex, Inc.





Our
      report with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to the
      adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and
      Other Intangibles” as of January 1, 2002.




/s/ KPMG
              LLPPhiladelphia,
                Pennsylvania
              March
                15, 2006






E-23.2
#### Wheeler *v.*Thomas.

March 11, 1913.

Processiouing. Before Judge Thomas. Berrien superior court. March *20, 1912.*

*J. Z. & II. L. Jackson*and *W. D. Buie,*for plaintiff.

*Knight, Chastain & Gaskins,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

The remedy afforded by the statute for the processioning of land (Civil Code, § 3818 et seq.) is applicable only to the location of land lines which once were marked or established. It is not available as a proceeding to malee and establish new lines between adjacent landowners, nor as a substitute for an action to try conflicting claims of title to land. *Amos*v. *Parker,*88 *Ga.*754 (16 S. E. 200); *Crawford*v. *Wheeler,*111 *Ga.*870 (36 S. E. 954); *Walker*v. *Boyer,*121 *Ga.*300 (48 S. E. 916). Accordingly, where it was admitted on the trial of the issue formed on a protest to the return of proeessioners that they undertook to mark anew and run a line where there had never been a line of any character, and the evidence disclosed that the real controversy was whether the dividing line between the adjacent landowners was the high-water mark or the thread of a creek, neither of which was shown to have been established as a dividing line, it was not error to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction of the proeessioners over • the subject-matter.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices*concur.,
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:19
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:21
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:30
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:31
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:32
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:33
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:34
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:35
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:36
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:37
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         425,306                 238,465
<SECURITIES>                                    18,823<F1>              18,823<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,144                  59,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                (12,495)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,762<F2>               3,732<F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               568,035                 307,890
<PP&E>                                       1,682,521               1,315,458
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,006,902)               (899,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,584,772               1,110,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          618,769                 421,235
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     5,702,558               5,632,158
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,016,915)<F3>         (5,127,453)<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,584,772               1,110,940
<SALES>                                        739,426                 316,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               910,824                 383,951
<CGS>                                           75,775                  37,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  800,286                 736,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            110,538               (352,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   110,538               (352,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02                   (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02                   (.08)
<FN>
<F1>Precious Metals
<F2>Prepaid Expense
<F3>Retained Earnings
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Irving V. A. Huie et al., Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property on Behalf of the City of Now York, in the County of Sullivan for the Purposes of Providing an Additional Supply of Water for the *985use of the City of New York. Abe Furman, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which directed Commissioners of Appraisal having jurisdiction in the premises to hear and determine a claim for damages arising from the acquisition in a proceeding instituted under its Water Supply Act (Administrative Code of City of New York, tit. K) of an easement in perpetuity to divert a portion of the Neversink River from premises owned by respondent. Concededly no claim for damages to his property was exhibited and presented to the Commissioners of Appraisal within the three-year period prescribed by the act (§ K41-18.0, now § K51-18.0). In a prior memorandum decision Special Term determined that these omissions barred the claim. From the order entered thereon claimant took no appeal. Subsequently upon an application which was treated as one for reargument and renewal of the initial motion the relief originally sought was granted solely upon the predicate of *Schroeder*v. *City of New York*(371 U. S. 208) which held the notice provisions of the statute to be constitutionally deficient. In our view respondent’s knowledge of the condemnation proceeding, of his right to assert a claim against the city for damages and of the time limitation provided .by the statute for its presentation, clearly demonstrated by the record, distinguishes this ease from *Schroeder.*Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs; and motion denied, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      339
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                        202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,141
<PP&E>                                          27,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,021
<BONDS>                                          3,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,136
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,784
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                       503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                832
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       832
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Third Department,

November, 1964

(November 2, 1964)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Helen White, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County convicting her, after a trial by jury, of the crime of assault in the second degree. (Penal Law, § 242, subd. *5.)*The persistent attempts of the prosecutor to labor the fact that defendant’s son had filed a claim for damages against the complaining witness, a police officer, and his municipal employer arising from the circumstances of the alleged assault after the trial court had properly sustained defendant’s objection to an initial question designed to elicit such information were so prejudicial as to deprive defendant of a fair trial. Moreover, we are persuaded that two jurors failed to disclose upon the *voir dire*examination, as the circumstances dictated, their kinship with law-enforcement officers. Their silence, even if unwitting, was tantamount to concealment and requires a new trial in the interest of justice. *(Knice*v. *Hedges,*119 Misc. 1, affd. 205 App. Div. 871.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interest of justice, and a new trial granted. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Report on terrorism [electronic resource].**
 
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:PREX 28.19/2:
Item Number:0857-T-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000730143
 
June 18, 2018
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the
"registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending April 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I,
Harvey Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.


July 20, 2006


/s/ Harvey Houtkin
--------------------------------------
Harvey Houtkin
Chief Executive Officer