alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(114 App. Div. 794)

#### MARDER v. HEINEMANN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Conversion—Taking Out Pbopebty of Tenant—Removal of Plate Glass Feont.

A landlord, by assenting to the removal by an incoming tenant of a plate glass front to take in an ice box, assented to the taking of it out in the same way, and his refusal to allow the tenant to do so was a conversion, thereof.

Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.

Action by Arthur Harder against Adam Heinemann. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The action was by tenant against landlord for the conversion of an ice box. The defendant leased a store to the plaintiff, who carried on in it the business of retail dealer in butter and eggs. The ice box he put in for his business being too large to go through the door,. he took out the large plate glass which formed part of the front of the store, and was set in the building itself, instead of in a movable sash, and put the ice box in through the opening, and replaced the plate glass. The defendant was present while the ice box was being put in in that way, and did not forbid or prevent it, but only asked who was to repair the damage by the removal of the glass, the plaintiff saying he would. When the tenant was moving out at the end of the term the defendant prevented him from taking the ice box out in the way he took it in and there was no other way to take it out. It could not be taken apart without being destroyed, or greatly injured.

*251Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, MIDLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Robert H. Roy, for appellant.

Fenton Rockwell, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiff to remove the plate glass to take out his ice box was a conversion thereof. By assenting to the removal of the plate glass to take the ice box in, the defendant assented to the taking of it out in the same way. Kelsey v. Durkee, 33 Barb. 410.

The judgment should be reversed.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.
#### §§ 4287.346-4287.355 [Reserved]
§ 51.2655 Damage. *Damage* means any specific defect described in this section; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which materially detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit. The following specific defects shall be considered as damage: ( a ) Cracks within the stem cavity when deep or not well healed, or when the appearance is affected to a greater extent than that of a cherry which has a superficial well healed crack one-sixteenth inch in width extending one-half the greatest circumference of the stem cavity;
( b ) Cracks outside of the stem cavity when deep or not well healed, or when the crack has weakened the cherry to the extent that it is likely to split or break in the process of proper grading, packing, and handling, or when materially affecting the appearance;
( c ) Hail injury when deep or not well healed, or when the aggregate area exceeds the area of a circle three-sixteenths inch in diameter;
( d ) Insects when scale or more than one scale mark is present, or when the appearance is materially affected by any insect;
( e ) Limbrubs when affecting the appearance of the cherry to a greater extent than the amount of scarring permitted;
( f ) Pulled stems when the skin or flesh is torn, or when the cherry is leaking;
( g ) Russeting when affecting the appearance of the cherry to a greater extent than the amount of scarring permitted;
( h ) Scars when excessively deep or rough or dark colored and the aggregate area exceeds the area of a circle three-sixteenths inch in diameter, or when smooth or fairly smooth, light colored and superficial and the aggregate area exceeds the area of a circle one-fourth inch in diameter;
( i ) Skin breaks when not well healed or when the appearance of the cherry is materially affected; and,
( j ) Sutures when excessively deep or when affecting the shape of the cherry to the extent that it is not well formed.
116 STAT. 1338 PUBLIC LAW 107–223—AUG. 21, 2002

Public Law 107–223

107th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of-way permits for natural

gas pipelines within the boundary of Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may issue rightof-way permits for natural gas pipelines that exist as of September

1, 2001, within the boundary of Great Smoky Mountains National

Park.

(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A permit issued under subsection

(a) shall be—

(1) issued consistent with laws and regulations generally

applicable to utility rights-of-way within units of the National

Park System; and

(2) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary

deems necessary.

SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may issue rightof-way permits for natural gas pipelines within the boundary of

Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are proposed to be

constructed across the following:

(1) The Foothills Parkway.

(2) The Foothills Parkway Spur between Pigeon Forge and

Gatlinburg.

(3) The Gatlinburg Bypass.

(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A permit issued under subsection

(a) shall be—

(1) issued consistent with laws and regulations generally

applicable to utility rights-of-way within units of the National

Park System; and

(2) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary

deems necessary, including—

(A) provisions for the protection and restoration of

park resources that are disturbed by pipeline construction;

and

16 USC 403 note.

16 USC 403 note.

Aug. 21, 2002

[H.R. 3380]

PUBLIC LAW 107–223—AUG. 21, 2002 116 STAT. 1339

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3380 (S. 1097):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–491 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–72 accompanying S. 1097 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

July 8, considered and passed House.

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(B) assurances that construction and operation of the

pipeline will not adversely affect Great Smoky Mountains

National Park.

Approved August 21, 2002.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2583 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2583

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic basketballs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic basketballs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC BASKETBALLS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.11       Basketballs        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         having an                                                          31/2009
                         external surface
                         other than
                         leather or rubber
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         9506.62.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### §§ 3565.459-3565.499 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                          16,549
<SECURITIES>                                     5,505
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (196)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,545
<PP&E>                                           8,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,319)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,549
<SALES>                                          7,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,277
<CGS>                                            1,917
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,375
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
#### Consolidated Petroleum Terminal, Inc., Appellant, v Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare invalid an amendment to a village zoning law, plaintiff *612appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 20, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order. Order modified by adding thereto, after the words "a protective order is granted”, the following: "except as to the former Chairman of the Village Planning Board.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although inquiry into the motivation underlying the enactment of legislation is impermissible, it is well settled that inquiry into the purpose of the legislation is proper *(Burack v Town of Poughkeepsie,*32 AD2d 806). Consequently where plaintiff attacks the validity of a zoning amendment, pretrial discovery as to the circumstances surrounding the enactment is legitimate *(Free Synogogue of Flushing v Board of Estimate of City of N. Y.,*57 Misc 2d 80). This is not to say, however, that plaintiff will have unfettered discretion as to whom he may depose, for as in the case at bar, it is the right of the municipality to determine which of its officers with knowledge of the facts underlying the litigation may appear for examination; and where such officials are offered for deposition, there are no special circumstances which would warrant deposition of nonparty former employees (CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [4]; *Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp.,*35 NY2d 113). Therefore unless it becomes apparent that the knowledge of the proffered officials is inadequate, plaintiff is not entitled to depose the former trustees of the village’s board of trustees. However, no alternative witnesses have been offered to substitute for the former chairman of the planning board. Because his agency’s recommendation played some part in the decision to enact the zoning amendment, the circumstances surrounding that recommendation are relevant *(Free Synogogue of Flushing v Board of Estimate of City of N. Y., supra).*Pursuant to the policy of liberal discovery, the former chairman may be properly deposed. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

VICTOR JEROME JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5595-MCR-EMT

ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 

8, 2021. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05595-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv5595-MCR-EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

14) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of March 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05595-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv5595-MCR-EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05595-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3
#### §§ 4284.20-4284.99 [Reserved]
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 3 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 3 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6258

JEFFREY L. TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH HALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise M. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02107-FL)

Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: August 31, 2007

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey L. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey L. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
CERTIFICATION
BY CEO AND CFO PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT








EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2008 of BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION (the “Company”) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








Date:  August
14, 2008 /s/ Wayne E.
Ahart


Name:       Wayne
E. Ahart


Titles:       Chairman of the Board of
Directors


and Chief Executive
Officer









Date:
August 14,
2008                  /s/ Barry N.
Shamas


Name:        Barry N.
Shamas


Titles:        Executive Vice
President,


Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer

















E5
Page
      Twenty Seven





Exhibit
32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the Principal financial
officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.

















/s/ R. Alan MillerR.
      Alan MillerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerMay
      12, 2009
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Wangul.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Wangul*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 308.]

(No. 98-755

Submitted June 10, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*309
      *Donald Cybulski,*for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. The appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. *Toledo Bar Assn. v. Batt*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 189, 677 N.E.2d 349, and cases cited therein. We find no mitigating circumstances here which would cause us to *310deviate from imposing that sanction. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
156 So.2d 601

#### BOLOGNA BROTHERS et al. v. Mike T. MORRISSEY, deceased, and Elizabeth M. Morrissey et al.

No. 46878.

Oct. 9, 1963.

In re: Elizabeth M. Morrissey et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to> the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Madison. 154 So.2d 455.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the-Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
26.403 Procedures.       (a) 						            In accordance with the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 an executive agency shall comply with the following:                                                         (1)                         *Encourage donations*. In the applicable contracts stated at section 26.404, encourage contractors, to the maximum extent practicable and safe, to donate apparently wholesome excess food to nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to food-insecure people in the United States.                                                            (2)                         *Costs*.                                                                           (i) 										                    In any case in which a contractor enters into a contract with an executive agency under which apparently wholesome food is donated to food-insecure people in the United States, the head of the executive agency shall not assume responsibility for the costs and logistics of collecting, transporting, maintaining the safety of, or distributing excess, apparently wholesome food to food-insecure people in the United States under this Act.                                                                              (ii) 										                    The Government will not reimburse any costs incurred by the contractor against this contract or any other contract for the donation of Federal excess foods. Any costs incurred for Federal excess food donations are not considered allowable public relations costs in accordance with 31.205-1(f)(8).                                                                                                           (3)                         *Liability*. An executive agency (including an executive agency that enters into a contract with a contractor) and any contractor making donations pursuant to this Act shall be exempt from civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 26.4 - Food Donations to Nonprofit Organizations
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 251

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through

the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a water resource

feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins in Oregon.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 †

2

S 251 ES

1 SECTION 1. LITTLE BUTTE/BEAR CREEK SUBBASINS, OR2 EGON, WATER RESOURCE STUDY.

3 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the

4 ‘‘Little Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins Water Feasibility

5 Act’’.

6 (b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary of the Interior,

7 acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, may partici8 pate in the Water for Irrigation, Streams and the Econ9 omy Project water management feasibility study and envi10 ronmental impact statement in accordance with the

11 ‘‘Memorandum of Agreement Between City of Medford

12 and Bureau of Reclamation for the Water for Irrigation,

13 Streams, and the Economy Project’’, dated July 2, 2004.

14 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

16 appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation

17 $500,000 to carry out activities under this Act.

18 (2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

19 (A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share

20 shall be 50 percent of the total costs of the Bu21 reau of Reclamation in carrying out subsection

22 (b).

23 (B) FORM.—The non-Federal share re24 quired under subparagraph (A) may be in the

25 form of any in-kind services that the Secretary

26 of the Interior determines would contribute sub-
†

3

S 251 ES

1 stantially toward the conduct and completion of

2 the study and environmental impact statement

3 required under subsection (b).

Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 251

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting

Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins in Oregon.a water resource feasibility study for the Littlethrough the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  37