alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DAY v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Street Railroads—Passengers Alighting—Duty to Stop Car—Instructions.

An instruction that it was the duty of defendant to bring its car to a stop, and allow it to so remain for a length of time “sufficient” to allow plaintiff and her children to alight therefrom, was not erroneous, though the law only required the Car to stop a reasonable time, where other instructions stated that only ordinary care was required.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Kate L. Day against the Union Railway Company of New York City. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Henry A. Robinson (Bayard H. Anes and F. Angelo Gaynor, of counsel), for appellant.

Alfred & Charles Steckler, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful review of the whole case it cannot be held that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The claim that the court committed reversible error in charging the jury that it was defendant’s duty to bring the car to a stop, and allow it to remain in such a position for a length of time sufficient to allow plaintiff and her children to alight therefrom, on the ground that “sufficient” and “reasonable” are not synonymous terms, and the law requires only reasonable time, is without merit; because the jury were further instructed that no extraordinary, but only ordinary, care was required. The charge in its entirety fully protected every right of the defendant, and the complaint against the use of the word “sufficient” constitutes, under all the circumstances, mere verbal criticism.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D. C.  20549

Form 10-Q
Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Quarter Ended June 30, 2002
Commission File No. 1-3871

CALIFORNIA-ENGELS MINING COMPANY
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

State of California
 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

94-0357560 (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
Address: 117 Crescent Street, P. O. Box 778,
Greenville, California  95947-0778
 (Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)

(530) 284-6191
 (Registrant's telephone number including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file
such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements
for the past 90 days.

Yes   X       No

CLASS

Capital Stock, par value: $0.25 per share.

OUTSTANDING AT JUNE 30, 2002: 759,315.94 shares.

Filing Contains 3 pages.

<page>
<PAGE>
CALIFORNIA-ENGELS MINING COMPANY
FORM 10QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June 30, 2002

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The Registrant falls within the provisions of Rule 13a - 13 (c) (2)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and claims
exemption thereunder from the requirement to file Part 1.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings.

          None

Item 2.  Changes in Securities.

          None

Item 3.  Defaults upon Senior Securities.

          None

Item 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

          None

Item 5.  Other Information.

          None

Item 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K.

          None

<page>
<PAGE>
CALIFORNIA-ENGELS MINING COMPANY
FORM 10QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June 30, 2002

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,the registrant has duly caused this
report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.


CALIFORNIA-ENGELS MINING COMPANY
Registrant



July 18, 2002                        By: /s/ Norman A. Lamb
                                     Norman A. Lamb, President
                                     and Chief Executive Officer


July 18, 2002                        By: /s/ James E. Brousseau
                                     James E. Brousseau, Secretary-
                                     Treasurer and Chief
                                     Financial Officer
#### 2009.407 Suspension.
#### 15.101 Best value continuum.

An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.
#### Francis S. Hanlon, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 38977.)

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts by reducing the amount of the award to $16,900 and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: There was no substantial evidence to support the determination of the Trial Judge that the value of the property after taking was $18,000. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
#### Murray Wolfeld, Appellant-Respondent, v. Saul Bush et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In an 'action (1) to recover the value of the plaintiff’s stockholdings in the defendant corporation; (2) to recover plaintiff’s unpaid accrued salary, and (3) to recover plaintiff’s share of undistributed corporate profits, in which the defendants’ answer was amended at the trial, *756over plaintiff’s objection so as to plead counterclaims in favor of defendant King-Freeze Corp. and defendant Alphonse Martinez, the parties cross-appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 14, 1962: (1) Plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment: (a) as, on the first cause of action, awarded him the sum of $3,651.66 (the appeal being on the ground that such amount is inadequate); (b) as awarded $300 to the defendant King-Freeze Corp. upon its counterclaim; and (e) as awarded $200 to defendant Martinez upon his counterclaim. (2) Defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as, on the first cause of action, awarded plaintiff $3,651.66, the appeal being on the ground that such amount is excessive. Plaintiff also appeals from an order of said court, dated January 4, 1962, which denied his motion to set aside the court’s decision and for a new trial pursuant to section 549 of the Civil Practice Act. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, and order, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, J.J., concur. [33 Misc 2d 839.]
FIPSE's four international programs represent a first-of-a-kind collaboration among the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education and foreign government agencies to fund and coordinate federal education grant programs. For the period 1995-2004, the EU-U.S. Program, North American Program, and U.S.-Brazil Program have involved over 1,400 institutions in Europe, North America, and Brazil. Through funding from FIPSE and its foreign government counterparts, these programs, from 2001 through 2004, helped over 3,500 students study in their disciplines and professions in another country, often in a foreign language. Over 9,000 non-mobile students have been impacted by the changes to the curricula at their home institutions that have come about through collaboration among the participating institutions.

- Spotlight on FIPSE International Programs    PDF  (1.18MB) |  MS Word  (1.56MB)
- About the FIPSE International Initiatives
- Program for North American Mobility In Higher Education
- EU-U.S. Atlantis Program
- United States-Russia Program
- U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program
- International Opportunities in the Comprehensive Program
- Program Reports and Evaluation

FIPSE Home
# C_2016419EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 419/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 410, 7.11.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 402, 31.10.2016

OJ C 392, 24.10.2016

OJ C 383, 17.10.2016

OJ C 371, 10.10.2016

OJ C 364, 3.10.2016

OJ C 350, 26.9.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### In the Matter of Ramon Cepeda, Petitioner, v Glenn Goord, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 265]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Glenn Goord, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, dated July 28, 2004, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated May 28, 2004 made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating disciplinary rules 113.25 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]), and imposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination that the petitioner violated disciplinary *641rules 113.25 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]) was based upon, inter alia, a contraband test which positively identified the suspected contraband as marijuana. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the contraband test was performed in compliance with the relevant regulatory procedures and constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charges against him (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [£]; *Matter of Cross v Goord,*19 AD3d 990 [2005]; *Matter of Otero v Selsky,*9 AD3d 631 [2004]; *Matter of Martinez v Selsky,*290 AD2d 789, 790 [2002]).

We reject the petitioner’s further contention that he was improperly precluded from calling a certain witness inasmuch as the testimony of the witness he requested would have been irrelevant *(see Matter of Rios v Selsky,*32 AD3d 632 [2006]; *Matter of Rincon v Selsky,*28 AD3d 565 [2006]; *Matter of Burse v Goord,*274 AD2d 678, 679 [2000]).

Moreover, the petitioner’s contention of hearing officer bias is, in part, not properly before us. The petitioner failed to raise at the hearing and on the administrative appeal his contention that the Hearing Officer was biased because she was not concerned with the caselaw, improperly based her findings on his denial of guilt, and imposed an unauthorized penalty *(see Matter of Townes v Goord,*32 AD3d 1136 [2006]; *Matter of Royster v Goord,*26 AD3d 503 [2006]). In any event, the claim of hearing officer bias is without merit. The record establishes that the hearing was conducted fairly, and the mere fact that the hearing officer ruled against the petitioner does not establish bias *(see Matter of Rincon v Selsky, supra; Matter of Pabon v Phillips,*16 AD3d 589 [2005]; *Matter of Martinez v Scully,*194 AD2d 679 [1993]).

Further, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not timely commenced within seven days of the misbehavior report as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a). The record discloses that a valid extension was granted within the seven-day period in response to the petitioner’s request for additional time to obtain documents. Since the hearing was commenced on the date set forth in the extension, it was timely *(see Matter of Berry v Portuondo,*6 AD3d 848 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,356
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     82,627
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          26,195
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,786
<LOANS>                                        175,367
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 303,243
<DEPOSITS>                                     253,050
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,535
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,192
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,006
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 303,243
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,603
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,612
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    15
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,230
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,990
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,777
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,453
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      310
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (10)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,963
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,963
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,327
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,610
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,012
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      183
<RECOVERIES>                                        70
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,209
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,480
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,729
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-97-4, CA-00-874-7)

Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Watson, Nos. CR-97-4; CA-00-

874-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00452 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
DESCRIPTION OF DEBT AND LEASES
   AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1995


INDEBTEDNESS (other than capitalized rentals)
                                         Outstanding     Due
           Lender               Rate      Balance        Date

  Merrill Lynch                   6.75%   $4,300,000    01-Oct-98

  Istituto Mobilare Italiano      9.00%   $3,144,500    30-Jun-01

  Centrobanca                     9.00%   $3,144,500    01-Jul-01

  Decatur IRB                72% of Prime $3,000,000    01-Dec-10
                             to 12/1/95,
                             adjustable
                             thereafter

  Youngs Notes                    5.86%   $2,457,318    12-Sep-96

  Banque Nationale de Paris       7.59%   $2,192,430    06-Aug-01

  CIC - Union Europeene           7.75%   $2,105,348    06-Aug-01
  International Et Cie

  State Street Bank               9.64%   $1,141,050    28-Jul-98

  Istituto Mobilare Italiano      4.50%   $743,619     01-Jul-02

  Midlantic Bank, as Trustee      7.38%   $610,000     01-Sep-04

  Istituto Mobilare Italiano      5.50%   $298,466     01-Jul-98


  OVERDRAFTS / SHORT TERM DEBT

 France - Sofibel                       $4,571,319
        - Sante Beaute                      $1,445

  Italy - Laboratori Bouty               $4,057,499
        - Technogenetics                 $2,937,944


CAPITALIZED LEASES
                             Principal    Interest      Total

  France                      $150,770     $33,315      $184,085

  Spain                        $19,419      $2,123       $21,542

SECURED INDEBTEDNESS

            NONE
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Accountants and
Financial Statements" in Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 under the Securities
Act of 1933 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 16 under the Investment Company Act
of 1940 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-49998) and the related
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of Separate Account VA-2L of
Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company and to the use of our report
dated March 31, 2000 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements of
Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company and our report dated March 24,
2000 with respect to the financial statements of Separate Account VA-2L, both
included in the Statement of Additional Information.

                                 /s/ Ernst & Young


Los Angeles, California
April 24, 2000
#### Henry Brown et al., Respondents, v. Saul Liss, Appellant.

by defendant for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term denied, with $10 costs. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### (A) 11 West 42nd Street, Inc. v. Elzee Realty Corp. et al. (B) Thomas Wynn v. Anthony Parisi et al.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### LISNER v. TOPLITZ et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by David Lisner against Samson L. Toplitz.

No opinion. Motion granted. Question to be settled on settlement of order.
1415.404-2 Information to support proposal analysis. The CO shall initiate an audit by sending a completed form DI-1902, Request for Audit, to the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, OIG (see 1453.215-70). ( a ) The CO shall allow at least 30 working days in assigning a realistic deadline for receipt of the audit report. In exceptional circumstances 20 working days may be allowed but the circumstances shall be documented in the contract file.
( b ) Upon receipt of a DI-1902, the OIG will conduct the audit or arrange for its conduct by the cognizant audit agency in accordance with 360 DM 3.7.
( c ) Upon receipt of the audit report, the CO and the price analyst (if assigned), shall discuss any questions regarding the report's contents with the cognizant auditor. If a question cannot be resolved or agreement cannot be reached on a recommendation in the report, the CO shall prepare a written statement for the contract file documenting the decision on the matter. A copy of the statement shall be promptly forwarded to the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing for information.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") of
Cambridge Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2006, each
of the undersigned Gregory Pusey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, the Senior Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: September 28, 2006
                                   /s/ Gregory Pusey
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Gregory Pusey, President and
                                   Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  September 28, 2006
                                   /s/ Jeffrey G. McGonegal
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Jeffrey G. McGonegal, Senior Vice
                                   President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer



                                    * * * * *

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






<PAGE>
#### (A) Armand A. Cioffi v. City of New York et al. (B) Ventura Figueroa v. St. Catherine’s Hospital Association of the City of Brooklyn et al.

[In each action] Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied without prejudice, however, to a renewal thereof upon a proper affidavit of merits. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.