alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Harry Tamberg, Petitioner, v. Wilfred A. Waltemade, a Justice of the Supreme Court, State of New York, Borough of The Bronx, Respondent.

Order, entered on September 18, 1963 by respondent, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, adjudging petitioner guilty of a criminal contempt and fixing punishment of three days’ imprisonment in the civil jail, unanimously annulled on the law, without costs, and the mandate vacated. The finding of criminal contempt is predicated upon allegedly false and inconsistent testimony given by petitioner as a defendant in the trial of a negligence case before respondent. The mandate declares that *“*there was a willful act by the defendant to mislead the court and to hold it up to ridicule and that the defendant’s conduct was, therefore, insolent and -contemptuous ”. Primarily, the record does not establish that petitioner was deliberately trifling with the court in his testimony *875regarding his residence. Considering that this was petitioner’s initial appearance in a court, and taking into account his age and comparative lack of formal education, it cannot he said that petitioner’s explanation for the inconsistent testimony as to residence was patently false and wholly implausible. However, even assuming that petitioner’s protestations of good faith were properly rejected and that the petitioner’s testimony was false, there was no proof that the perjury obstructed the court in the performance of its duty. False testimony alone is not punishable summarily as a criminal contempt. *(People ex rel. Valenti*v. *McGloskey,*6 N Y 2d 390, 398, opp. dismd. 361 U. 6. 534.) To constitute criminal contempt, false testimony must be given with an intent to obstruct the court in the performance of its duty. *(People*v. *Sliapolsky,*8 A D 2d 122, 128; *Matter of Fmkel*v. *McCook,*247 App. Div. 57, 63, affd. 271 N. Y. 636; *Ex parte Eudgings,*249 U. S. 378, 383; see, also, Ann.: Perjury as Contempt, 89 A. L. R. 2d 1258.) There is no basis in the record before us to warrant a conclusion that the court was justifiably convinced that the performance of its duties was being obstructed by the false testimony. Hence, the drastic remedy of criminal contempt should have been withheld. As Black, J., said in *Matter of Michael*(326 U. S. 224, 227): “ All .perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting on truth. Therefore it cannot be denied that it tends to defeat the sole ultimate objective of a trial. It need not necessarily, however, obstruct or halt the judicial process.” Since the essential element of obstruction of the court in the performance of its duties and functions was lacking, the alleged false swearing could not be transmuted into criminal contempt. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                       698
<INVENTORY>                                     55,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,485
<PP&E>                                         194,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,118
<BONDS>                                         36,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,950
<PREFERRED>                                     15,640
<COMMON>                                         5,994
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,501
<SALES>                                        272,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,590
<CGS>                                          188,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (550)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,920
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

</TABLE>
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Oregon Department of Education255 Capitol Street, NESalem, OR 97310-0203Phone: (503) 947-5600Fax: (503) 378-5156Website: http://www.oregon.gov/ode/Pages/default.aspx

### State Higher Education Agency

Office of Student Access and Completion (OSAC)Suite 1001500 Valley River DriveEugene, OR 97401Phone: (541) 687-7400Toll-Free: (800) 452-8807Fax: (541) 687-7414Website: http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/default.aspx

### Special Education Agency

Office of Special EducationOregon State Department of Education255 Capitol Street, NESalem, OR 97310-0203Phone: (503) 947-5600Website: https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/SpecialEducation/Pages/default.aspx

### State Adult Education Agency

Higher Education Coordinating Commission3225 25th Street SESalem, Oregon 97302​Phone: (503) 378-5690Website: http://www.oregon.gov/ccwd/Pages/abs/index.aspx

Back to state map
19.502-4 Partial set-asides of multiple-award contracts. ( a ) In accordance with section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)(1)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside a portion or portions of a multiple-award contract, except for construction, for any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3) when— ( 1 ) Market research indicates that a total set-aside is not appropriate (see 19.502-2);
( 2 ) The requirement can be divided into distinct portions;
( 3 ) The acquisition is not subject to simplified acquisition procedures;
( 4 ) Two or more responsible small business concerns are reasonably expected to submit an offer on the set-aside portion or portions of the acquisition that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery; and
( 5 ) The specific program eligibility requirements identified in this part apply.
( b ) When the contracting officer determines that a requirement is to be partially set aside, the solicitation shall identify which portion or portions are set aside and not set aside.
( c ) The contracting officer shall specify in the solicitation how offers shall be submitted with regard to the set-aside and non-set-aside portions.
( d ) Offers received from concerns that do not qualify as small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and shall be rejected on the set-aside portion of partial set-asides. However, before rejecting an offer otherwise eligible for award because of questions concerning the size representation, an SBA determination must be obtained (see subpart 19.3).
[85 FR 11761, Feb. 27, 2020]
#### Rocell Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, v. City of Rochester, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum. The denial of the motion to serve an amended answer was an improvident exercise of discretion. We do not pass upon the merits of the proposed amendment. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court denying defendant’s motion for permission to serve an amended answer to the amended complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          375876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1973601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     670243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3565927
<PP&E>                                         1836781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1260977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6605447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3039361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5831027
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2264941)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6605447
<SALES>                                        6448370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6452000
<CGS>                                          4196436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7354187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               55365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (971703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (322800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (648903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (648903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
From: "Matz, Tim" <tmatz@htcnam.com> 

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Curtis Lesslie <curtis.lesslie@ashgrove.c

Date: 11/23/2009 03:31 PM 

Subject: Portland Cement MACT Rule 

Dear Keith, I am writing to you today to express Lehigh Cement Company's concurrence with Ash Grove Cement 

Company's proposed Beyond the Floor standards and work practices regarding mercury reductions for 

the Tehachapi and Durkee cement plant operations. Lehigh has a shared interest with Ash Grove in 

promoting a subcategory for the outlier sources with high mercury limestone. Lehigh is in agreement with 

Ash Grove on EPA setting a beyond the floor standard with work practices for such outliers. Lehigh 

specifically agrees with the following proposal for EPA to set a subcategory: 

1. Limestone mercury content >225 ppb

2. Establish a floor based on the average uncontrolled emissions of the two sources in the subcategory 

category

3. Impose a minimum technology based limit of 75% control through addition of activated carbon injection

4. Require development of a Mercury Minimization Plan

 - Prohibit the use of fly ash as an ingredient in the kiln raw feed

 - Source must limit the acceptance of off-site raw materials that contain mercury

 - Source must minimize mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible

 - Source must shuttle main baghouse dust to the finish mill to the extent allowed by product standards

 - These work practices should be imposed without a specified emission control since they are site 

specific Lehigh requests that you and EPA strongly consider this proposal to set a beyond the floor cement 

NESHAPs standard with work practices for these high mercury limestone sources. 

Thank you, 

 

 

Timothy L. Matz

Corporate Director of Environmental Affairs 

 

Lehigh Hanson 

300 East John Carpenter Freeway 

Irving, Texas 75062 

phone: (972) 653-3787 

cell: (469) 834-7349 

fax: (972) 653-5693 

tmatz@htcnam.com 

 

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this 

e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of 

the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. 

 

3Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail
#### In the Matter of John J. Sullivan v. John A. Wallace, as Director of Probation.

Motion for an order dismissing charges and specifications and for other relief dismissed. (See CPLR 7804.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager,-JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Planof ACR Group, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) pertaining to the registration of 2,411,667 shares of common stock of ACR Group, Inc., of our report dated May 13, 2004 (except for Notes 1, 2, 4 and 6 as to which the dateis October 11, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, and schedule of ACR Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A2) for the year ended February 29, 2004. 

 

Houston, Texas 

May 31, 2005
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The Atlantic Mutual Life Insurance Company.

(Argued June 5,1883 ;

decided June *12,*1883.)

*William Barnes*for appellant.

*Nathaniel C. Moak*for respondent.

*John C. Keeler*for Attorney-General.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Camco Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of Camco as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. Camco’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(f) and15d 15(f))for Camco and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Camco, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of Camco’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in Camco’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during Camco’s fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Camco’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. Camco’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Camco’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Camco’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  November 8, 2007 /s/ Richard C. Baylor   Richard C. Baylor, Chief Executive Officer
#### Alfa Angrisani, Appellant, v. New York Central Railroad Corp. et al., Respondents.

Judgment appealed from is unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs to defendants-respondents. This 76-year-old plaintiff fell or was pushed to the tracks from the platform of defendant railroad on June 13, 1961, at or about the hour of 7:00 f.m. He fell into a space between two cars which was approximately three feet wide and does not know exactly what happened. On plaintiff’s own testimony he failed to establish that there was an unruly or unmanageable crowd on the platform, or that plaintiff’s freedom of movement was unduly restricted *(Cross*v. *Murray,*260 App. Div. 1030; *Williams*v. *New York R. T. Corp.,*272 N. Y. 366). The station platform which could accommodate simultaneous loading of two trains, each with a capacity of 1,000 persons, on this occasion had slightly in excess of 700 persons. There was a single loading in process of the train which plaintiff intended to board and which carried a total of 719 passengers on the evening in question. Plaintiff fell into a space or opening between the last two cars which was approximately three feet wide. He "felt pushed” to the track and does not know exactly what happened. If the accident were due to an unexpected movement of the crowd, defendants could not be held liable *(Hanshew*v. *Lehigh Val. R. R. Co.,*247 App. Div. 784). Additionally, plaintiff urges that there was a custom and practice to station trainmen at the open door of each ear to admit passengers and on this evening that custom was not observed. It does not appear that this was a standard practice or custom followed to protect passengers from falling into the open space between the ends of the two cars. So far as it appears, the trainman would be so stationed, when the train doors were opened, for the purpose of assisting passengers in boarding the train. It was the testimony of the plaintiff, however, that at the time of the accident, the doors, between which he fell, were still closed. In any event, the open space between the two ears was readily apparent to anyone who looked and there is no showing thajt the failure to have men stationed at the door openings, if there was such failure, caused or contributed to the happening of the accident, or even that their presence would have prevented such occurrence *(Commerford*v. *Interborough R. T. Co., 199*App. Div. 852). Plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of these defendants, or to show that they failed to do what was reasonably necessary to assure plaintiff’s safety. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

- Appellee ,

v.
JAMES DOW VANDIVERE , Respondent

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02017

- D )

Submitted : May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Dow Vandivere , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Dow Vandivere appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

recu sal . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Vandivere , No. 5:15

- hc

- 02017

- D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Tracy A. Kern, as Chief Financial Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that:(6) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.; (7) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (8) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (9) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e)and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) paragraph omitted;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and(10) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: June 29, 2007 /s/ Tracy A. Kern   Tracy A. Kern   Chief Financial Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.