alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2007-1475.

#### State v. Roberts.

Hamilton App. No. C-060675.

O’Donnell and *Cupp,*JJ., dissent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Watts, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on December 15, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Lupiano and Carro, JJ.
Subpart 1419.1 [Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 1419 - SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
**Exhibit 23.2**

[LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP] 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-144102) of Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (the“Company”) of our report dated March 16, 2007, relating to the financial statements of Vista Gold Corp. – Nevada exploration properties for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

**Chartered Accountants**

Vancouver, BC, Canada 

March 6, 2008
609.503 Waiver.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.503.

Parent topic: Subpart 609.5—Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interests
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-CV-737-WKW

)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this case is referred

to Magistrate Judge Susan Russ Walker for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders

or recommendations as may be appropriate.

DONE this 22nd day of August, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 959.86 Effect of termination or amendments.

Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant to this subpart, or the issuance of any amendments to either thereof, shall not (a) affect or waive any right, duty, obligation, or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provisions of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (b) release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or of any regulation issued under this subpart, or (c) affect or impair any rights or remedies of the Secretary or of any other person with respect to any such violation.
#### Mary D. Baird, Respondent, v. Thomas Bardis, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Rocco M. Ranaudo, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 1, 1968 and May 8, 1968, respectively, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below have not been affirmed. In our opinion, there was conflicting evidence as to the rate of plaintiff’s commission and the scope of her agency. The issues thereon should have been submitted to the jury. Further, there was error in the refusal to charge the jury that, under an open listing, the owner had the right to personally negotiate a sale with a purchaser other than the broker’s prospect. On the new trial, evidence of plaintiff’s unsuccessful efforts to sell to persons other than John or Rocco Ranaudo should be received only for relevant purposes and only to the extent necessary (cf. *Hoch Assoc.*v. *Western Newspaper Union,*308 N. Y. 461, 463). Lastly, we do not think it was error for the court to decide the third-party action as a matter of law, since the findings of fact implicit in the jury’s determination of the main action must determine the disposition of the indemnity claim. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of KCAP Financial, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Report), I, Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Company.  Date: March 12, 2014

          

          By:/s/ Dayl W. PearsonDayl W. Pearson President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
309.470-1 Situations where reports are

required.

The contracting officer shall report to the HCA and the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary -

Acquisition whenever the contracting officer -

(a) Knows or suspects that a contractor is committing or has committed any of the acts described in

FAR 9.406-2 or 9.407-2; or

(b) Suspects a contractor is attempting to evade the prohibitions of debarment or suspension

imposed under FAR 9.405, or any other comparable regulation, by changes of address, multiple

addresses, formation of new companies, or by other devices.

Parent topic: Subpart 309.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility
#### § 51.894 Weak.

*Weak* means that individual berries are somewhat translucent, watery and soft, may have relatively low sugar content, inferior flavor, or are of poor keeping quality.

[36 FR 9126, May 20, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981. Redesignated at 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991]
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 42 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 66 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 66 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 66 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 66 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 4 of 4
Subpart 1632.1—General

Parent topic: PART 1632—CONTRACT FINANCING

1632.170 Recurring premium payments to carriers.

(a)

(1) Recurring payments to carriers of community-rated plans. OPM will pay to carriers of

community-rated plans the premium payments received for the plan less the amounts credited to the

contingency and administrative reserves, amounts assessed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section,

and amounts due for other contractual obligations. Premium payments will be due and payable not

later than 30 days after receipt by the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Fund.

(2) The difference between one percent and the performance based percentage of the contract price

described at 1615.404–4 will be multiplied by the carrier's subscription income for the year of

performance and the resulting amount (performance adjustment) will be withheld from the net-tocarrier premium disbursement during the first quarter of the following contract period unless an

alternative payment arrangement is made with the carrier's Contracting Officer. Amounts withheld

from a community rated plan's premium disbursement will be deposited into the plan's Contingency

Reserve.

(3) Any subsidization penalty levied against a community rated plan as outlined in 48 CFR

1615.402(c)(3)(ii)(B) must be paid within 60 days from notification. If payment is not received within

the 60 day period, OPM will withhold from the community rated carriers the periodic premium

payment payable until fully recovered. OPM will deposit the withheld funds in the subsidization

penalty reserve described in 5 CFR 890.503(c)(6).

(b)

(1) Recurring payments to carriers of experience-rated plans. OPM will make payments on a letter of

credit (LOC) basis. Premium payments received for the plan, less the amounts credited to the

contingency and administrative reserves and amounts for other obligations due under the contract,

will be made available for carrier drawdown not later than 30 days after receipt by the FEHB Fund.

(2) Withdrawals from the LOC account will be made on a checks-presented basis. Under a checkspresented basis, drawdown on the LOC is delayed until the checks issued for FEHB Program

disbursements are presented to the carrier's bank for payment.

(3) OPM may grant a waiver of the restriction of LOC disbursements to a checks-presented basis if

the carrier requests the waiver in writing and demonstrates to OPM's satisfaction that the checkspresented basis of LOC disbursements will result in significantly increased liability under the

contract, or that the checks-presented basis of LOC disbursements is otherwise clearly and

significantly detrimental to the operation of the plan. Payments to carriers that have been granted a

waiver may be made by an alternative payment methodology, subject to OPM approval.
1632.171 Clause—community-rated contracts.

The clause at 1652.232–70 shall be inserted in all community-rated FEHBP contracts.

1632.172 Clause—experience-rated contracts.

The clause at 1652.232–71 shall be inserted in all experience-rated FEHBP contracts.
H. Res. 1082

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 6, 2006.

Whereas on the night of December 9, 1981, Police Officer 

Danny Faulkner was shot and killed in cold blood during 

a traffic stop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

Whereas in the process of arresting the driver of a car traveling the wrong way down a one-way street, the driver’s 

brother appeared from across the street and proceeded to 

open fire on Officer Faulkner while his back was turned 

away; the driver’s brother was identified as Mumia AbuJamal; 

Whereas Mumia Abu-Jamal struck Officer Faulkner four 

times in the back with his gun; although seriously injured, Officer Faulkner returned fire, striking his 

attacker; undeterred, Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him in the face, mortally wounding him; Mumia Abu-Jamal attempted to flee, but collapsed several feet from the slain Officer Faulkner, murder weapon in hand; 

Whereas Mumia Abu-Jamal was charged and convicted of 

first degree murder by a jury of his peers; although 

Mumia Abu-Jamal has had numerous legal appeals, including appeals to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth 

Court of Appeal, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, 
2

•HRES 1082 EH 

and the United States Supreme Court, his conviction has 

been upheld each time; 

Whereas on April 29, 2006, the municipal government of St. 

Denis, a suburb of Paris, dedicated a street in the honor 

of Mumia Abu-Jamal; 

Whereas December 9, 2006, marks the 25th anniversary of 

Officer Danny Faulkner’s murder at the hand of Mumia 

Abu-Jamal; and 

Whereas the official recognition and celebration of a convicted murderer of a United States police officer is an affront to law enforcement officers across the Nation: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner; 

(2) urges the municipal government of St. Denis to 

take immediate action to change the name of Rue 

Mumia Abu-Jamal and, if such action is not taken by 

the municipal government of St. Denis, urges the Government of France to take appropriate action against 

the city of St. Denis to change the name of Rue Mumia 

Abu-Jamal; and 
3

•HRES 1082 EH 

(3) commends all police officers in the United 

States and throughout the world for their commitment 

to public service and public safety. 

Attest:

Clerk.
(51 Misc. Rep. 156.)

#### In re MILLER’S WILL.

(Surrogate’s Court, Rensselaer County.

June, 1906.)

Wills—Revocation—Evidence.

A paper ottered tor probate as the will of a decedent came from his safe. The signature had been canceled by pen marks, and underneath, in decedent’s handwriting, were the words, “Am going to make a new will. ’ Important changes in decedent’s family had occurred since the making of the will. *Held*to show revocation, authorizing a denial of probate.

[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see voi. 49, Cent. Dig. Wilis, §§ 446, 447, 732, 733.]

In the matter of the probate of the will of James H. Miller. Probate denied.

E. E. Boothby, for petitioner.

Irving Oliver, special guardian, and also for Josephine Post.

E. A. Heffner, for next of kin.

HEATON, S.

This will was found in the safe of the deceased at his place of business, and across his signature thereon were five pen marks such as one would make in canceling a signature, and they were so distributed that they affected the whole signature, even to the middle initial of his name. Under this signature, in the handwriting of the deceased, were written the words, “Am going to make a new will.” This paper was in an envelope marked as the will of the deceased, which had been sealed, and later opened at the end. The son of the deceased, who is the executor named in the will, testifies that he took the will from the safe after his father’s death in its present condition, and that he believes no one had access to the safe except his father. The will was holographic, and made in 1888, and divided his property among his children, issue of a deceased child, and his wife. Subsequently his wife died, and one of his daughters married and died, leaving two children.

The will comes directly from the safe of the testator to the court with not the least suspicion of its having been tampered with by any person. Furthermore the words, “Am going to make a new will,” written by the deceased below his canceled signature, indicate that he himself canceled the signature. We have, then, these undisputed facts: A will 18 years old. Several important changes in the family of testator after the making of the will. From these facts a court is allowed to draw but one conclusion, the legal conclusion of revocation. Matter of Hopkins, 73 App. Div. 559, 77 N. Y. Supp. 178; Id.,172 N. Y. 360, 65 N. E. 173, 65 L. R. A. 95, 92 Am. St. Rep. 746; Matter of Brookman, 11 Misc. Rep. 675, 33 N. Y. Supp. 575; Matter of Philp (Sup.) 19 N. Y. Supp. 13; Matter of Alger, 38 Misc. Rep. 143, 77 N. Y. Supp. 166. The fact that the testator was acquainted with the law of wills strengthens the presumption of revocation by cancellation, since the method adopted by him has long been recognized as a proper and legal manner of revoking a will. Let a decree be prepared denying probate.

Probate denied.
#### Arthur Waugh, as Attorney-in-Fact for C. Leonard Lapadula, Respondent, v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company, Appellant. Stetter & Levy, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Continental Casualty Company, Third-Party Defendant.

Order entered July 14, 1966, to the extent that it denied moving defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant summary judgment to moving defendant, and otherwise affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Concededly the one-year limitation for the bringing of this action on a policy of fire insurance has expired. Plaintiff, however, contended that defendant is estopped to assert the defense. The contention is based on the facts set out below. Plaintiff previously brought an action against the moving defendant on the same policy. The action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff appealed to this court. To excuse the delay plaintiff contended that he was induced to refrain from prosecuting the action by the insurance company’s fraud. The alleged fraud consisted of pleading that the hazard of the policy had been increased by allowing the premises to remain vacant and by examining the plaintiff before trial to establish the defense. The policy, however, had a rider which permitted the premises to be unoccupied. These contentions were fully explored on a motion to reargue the determination of this court, adverse to the plaintiff, on the appeal. It was then determined, on the basis of facts which then and now were not controverted, that no fraud was practiced on plaintiff. It therefore appears that plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts to support an issue of estoppel. Lacking such estoppel, the defense of limitations is unchallenged and defeats the action. Concur- — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-731

)

v. )

)

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

JOINT MOTION TO ADD FREDRICK S. KUCZMASKI AS PLAINTIFF

Plaintiffs James Kuczmaski, Adam Pike, Ryan Phillips, Josh Stone, Suhane

Lowery, Kevin Bell, Kevin Moorer, and Hamp Crum, III (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and

Defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel,

hereby file this Joint Motion to Add Fredrick S. Kuczmaski as Plaintiff. Through their

Motion, the Parties ask the Court to issue an Order adding Fredrick S. Kuczmaski as an

additional Plaintiff in this action. As grounds for this Motion, the Parties state that

Fredrick S. Kuczmaski indicated his desire to pursue a claim against Defendant under the

Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). In the interest of judicial economy, the Parties

agreed to include Fredrick S. Kuczmaski in the mediation of this matter, and a settlement

also was reached as to his potential claims against Defendant under the FLSA.

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully ask the Court to enter an Order adding

Fredrick S. Kuczmaski as a Plaintiff in this action.

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 39 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
Respectfully submitted, this 4

th

day of September 2007.

s/ Gregory O. Wiggins

Gregory O. Wiggins

WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN

& PANTAZIS, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 314-0543

Tucker F. Burge

BURGE & BURGE

850 Park Place Tower

2001 Park Place North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Counsel for Plaintiffs

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker, ASB-9522-B62T

BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

2001 Park Place North

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

Counsel for Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 39 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on September 4, 2007, the undersigned electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Tucker F. Burge, Esq.

Burge & Burge

850 Park Place Tower

2001 Park Place North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 39 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



* * *



|                           
|---------------------------
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    
|                           
|/s/ JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, JR.
|Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.    
|                           
|Date: June 8, 2005
#### § 996.16 Producer.

*Producer* means any person in the United States engaged in a proprietary capacity in the production of peanuts for market.
Honorable R. M. Dixon Opinion No. WW-473 

Board of Water Engineers 

1410 Lavaca Street Re: May an existing Water 

Austin, Texas Control and Improvement District change 

its name, and related 

'Dear Mr. Dixon: questions. 

Your letter of June 18, 1958, requests our opinion 

on.,the,following: 

:,% 

"1. Does Art. 7880-16 authorize an existing 

Water Control and Improvement District 

to change its name to a name more descriptive of the locale and principal 

powers to be exercised so long as the 

word "district" appears in the new 

name? 

"2 e If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the 

affirmative, does the Board of Water Engineers have tine authority to approve an 

application for such name change? 

"3. If the answer to Question No. 2 is in the 

affirmative, may the Board of Water Engineers at its discretion establish the 

procedure and fees to be paid by the applicant? 

"4. If the answer to Question No. 2 is negative, 

what action is necessary to change the name 

of an existing district?* 
Honorable .R. M. Dixon, page 2 (WW-473) 

Article 7880-11, V.C.S. requires that the petition 

for the organization of a water control and improvement district "shall designate the name of the district." Article 

7880-16 prescribes the name which may be given such a district. 

There is no statute which either expressly or by 

implication authorizes the change of name of an existing district. The district may exercise only such powers as have 

been expressly delegated to it by the Legislature, or which 

exist by clear and unquestioned implication. Tri-City Fresh 

Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Harris CoUnty v. Mann, Atty. Gen., 

135 Tex. 280, 142 S.W. 2d 945 (1940). 

Your first question is answered: No. Consequently, 

no answers to questions 2 and 3 are necessary. Your fourth 

question is answered: There is no authority for the change 

of name of an existing district. 

SUMMARY 

There is no authorization for an 

existing Water Control and Improvement District to change its 

name, 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

APPROVED; 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

J. C. Davis, Jr., Chairman 

Marietta McGregor Payne 

Tom I. McFarling 

Jack Goodman 

Henry G. Braswell 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: W. V. Geppert 

Assistant