alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) SHI RL EY TAB B, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 06-0789 ( PL F) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A and ) BREND A DONA L D WAL KER, ) ) Def endants. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER The pa rties appe are d befor e the Court for a pre trial confe renc e on June 14, 2010. For the re asons discussed in open c ourt, the Court has dete rmined that the District of Columbia must make ava ilable to plaintiff information fr om newly discovere d backup ta

pes of e mail
corr espondenc e within the Child and Family Service s Ag ency

(“CF SA”) for

the per iod Febr

uary 1, 2005 throug h Dec ember 31, 2005. Plaintiff has made a n adequate showingthat information rele vant to her c laims may exis t in the backup tape s for this time period. This dec ision required the Court to postpone the trial, which ha d been sc heduled to beg in on J une 21, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

The pa rties ar e dire cted to mee t and conf er, possibly

with the assistance of a third party vendor, to de termine the most ef ficient method of r estoringthe bac kup tapes a nd sear ching them — either by

using a g ree d upon sear ch ter ms or by restric ting the se arc h to cer tain email custodians — for r eleva

nt information. The sea

rch sha ll be consistent with plaintiff’s orig inal discovery reque sts. The parties a

re instruc ted to desig n the sea rch a nd restora tion in a manner that avoids the nee d to conduct any additional sear ches of

these ba ckup tape s. The District ofColumbi a shall bea r the c ost of this restoration and pr oduction beca use the District is the par

ty responsible for

maintaining this information in an acc essible format and bec ause the plaintiff’s orig inal discovery

reque st was re asonable and timely
. Upon re achingan agree ment as to the method of the r estoration and the sear ch, the District is directe d to beg in this process as soon as possible, irr espec tive of the c urre nt fiscal y ear , in order to avoid further delay of trial. The District may move for a

protec tive order

as neede d to protect c onfidential information contained on the tape s. I n addition, it may protec t privileg ed mater ials either with a pr ivilege log or by using a clawba ck proc edure . The pa rties shall repor

t to the Court with respect to this proce ss at a status conf ere nce on June 29, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. Acc ording ly , it is hereby

ORDERED that def

endants’ motion for a

protec tive order

[56] is DENI ED; and it is FURTHE R ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [76] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED. /s/________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: June 16, 2010

2
#### The Cyllene Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Fannie Eisen et al., Respondents.

(Argued September 29, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*527
      *John Stuart Dwinell*and *Charles C. Lamm*for appellant.

*Joshua S.*Shapiro. and *Joshua S. Koenigsberg*for Gussie Shapiro, respondent.

*528Orders of the Appellate Division and of Special Term reversed and motion granted, with costs in all courts. Second question certified answered in the negative. Fifth question certified answered in the affirmative. Other questions certified not answered. (See *Matter of City of New York [Neptune Ave.],*271 N. Y. 331.) No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of VOS International, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Allan J. Ligi, President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 2, 2006                                               By: /s/ DennisLaVorgna                                                                                                         Dennis LaVorgna                                                                                     Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer

----
#### KENNAMER v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

Appeal dismissed for failure to file record, the time for presenting bill of exceptions having expired.
Exhibit 99.1





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 Quarterly Report of Avenue A, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Brian P. McAndrews, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)    The Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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.





Dated: November 14, 2002





/S/    BRIAN P. MCANDREWSBrian P. McAndrews Chief Executive Officer and President
#### STEINHARDT v PALM BEACH COUNTY and THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD

Case No. AP 89-11869 AY

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County

April 16, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Richard W. Espstein, Esquire, Greenspoon & Marder, P.A., for petitioner.

Kimberly A. Tendrich, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

Before RODGERS, OFTEDAL, RAPP, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

*63Petitioner was found to be in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-9.21(1) when the rental apartment he owned was occupied but not provided with potable water. On May 2, 1989, Petitioner received written notice that failure to correct the violation within seven (7) days would result in a civil penalty of up to $500 a day being imposed. Failing to correct the violation within the prescribed time, Steinhardt was personally served on June 13, 1989, with a Notice of Non-Compliance, an Order To Show Cause, and a Notice of Hearing for July 13, 1989. The subject property was sold on June 1, 1989, and thereafter the new owner corrected the violation. Steinhardt thus believed he did not have to attend the July 13th hearing.

The Environmental Control Board, apprised that Steinhardt ceased to own the property as of June 1, found that the violation existed from May 9 (seven days after receiving the notice of violation) until May 31, 1989. The maximum penalty of $500 a day for twenty-two days for a total fine of $11,000 was imposed. There was some discussion among the Board members that if Steinhardt had been there to explain his side, i.e., that the occupant was there illegally or other mitigating circumstances, a lower fine would have been imposed. Petitioner requested a rehearing but his request was denied.

We find that under the circumstances presented the denial of petitioner’s request for a rehearing was inappropriate. *See State Dept. of Environmental Regulation v Brown,*449 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), *pet. for review denied,*459 So.2d 1039 (Fla.). The decision of the Environmental Control Board is affirmed in so far as it found Petitioner had violated Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10D-9.21(1). However, we remand to the agency for Petitioner to present evidence in mitigation of the fine.

RODGERS and OFTEDAL, JJ., concur.

RAPP, J., dissents with opinion.

RAPP, J.,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which disallows petitioner’s request for a full rehearing of the matter.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Page 41 of 95


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1



                     RAILWORKS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
        FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
                        (UNAUDITED, DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1999        1998         1997        1996         1995
                                                  --------    --------     --------    --------     --------
<S>                                               <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations .....    $ 20,086    $(12,847)    $  1,428    $     58     $(19,972)

Add (deduct):

     Income tax ..............................      11,063       1,472        1,198         500          150
                                                  --------    --------     --------    --------     --------

          Sub-total ..........................      31,149     (11,375)       2,626         558      (19,822)

     Interest and other financial charges ....      19,781       2,334        1,761       2,023          871

     Amortization of deferred financing costs          972         224           --          --           --

     Interest factor attributable to rentals .       1,627         762          671         882          792
                                                  --------    --------     --------    --------     --------

Earnings as adjusted .........................    $ 53,529    $ (8,055)    $  5,058    $  3,463     $(18,159)
                                                  ========    ========     ========    ========     ========

Fixed charges from above .....................    $ 22,380    $  3,320     $  2,432    $  2,905     $  1,663
                                                  ========    ========     ========    ========     ========

Ratio of earnings, as adjusted, to total fixed
charges ......................................         2.4           *          2.1         1.2            *
</TABLE>


*        Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $11,375 in 1998 and
         $19,822 in 1995.




                                        1
#### The People, *ex rel.*Newell and others, *vs.*Montgomery Common Pleas.

An appeal cannot be allowed by the first judge of a county when absent from the county for which he was appointed.

Motion for mandamus. The common pleas of Montgomery *quashed*an appeal from a justice’s judgment on the ground that the appeal was allowed by the first judge of the county, when absent from the county, to wit, in Albany. The relator asked for a mandamus to vacate the rule quashing the appeal. The court denied the mandamus, saying the judge had no jurisdiction to allow the appeal; it was a judicial act which could properly be performed only in the county for which he was appointed.
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch Chemicals, Inc.,
        a
        Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the period ending September 30, 2005
        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge, 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
        as of
        and for the periods presented in the Report.
  The
        foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with
        the
        provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
        to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.
  Dated:
                  November   3, 2005
              
              /s/Michael
                  E. CampbellMichael
                  E. Campbell
                Chief
                  Executive OfficerDated:
                  November   3, 2005
              
              /s/Louis
                  S. MassimoLouis
                  S. Massimo
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
 
  A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals,
        Inc.
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.17 Charters conducted by educational institutions. ( a ) This section shall apply only to charters conducted by educational institutions for charter groups comprised of bona fide participants in a formal academic course of study abroad which is of at least 4 weeks duration. The charter group may also include a student participant's immediate family (spouse, children, and parents). Except as modified in this section, all terms and conditions of this part applicable to the operation of Public Charters shall apply to charters conducted by educational institutions.
( b ) An educational institution conducting such a charter shall submit to theOffice of International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division, a statement, signed by its president, certifying that it meets the definition of “educational institution” set forth in § 380.2.
( c ) An educational institution conducting such a charter need not comply with the requirements of §§ 380.25, 380.28, 380.34, and 380.35.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4079 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or 

transfer certain land, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4079 ES

1 SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE CER2 TAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS OF THE SEMI3 NOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not withstanding any other provi5 sion of law, without further approval, ratification, or au6 thorization by the United States, the Seminole Tribe of 

7 Florida may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise 

8 transfer all or any part of the interest of the Seminole 

9 Tribe of Florida in any real property that is not held in 

10 trust by the United States for the benefit of the Seminole 

11 Tribe of Florida. 

12 (b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this 

13 section— 

14 (1) authorizes the Seminole Tribe of Florida to 

15 lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all 

16 or any part of an interest in any real property that 

17 is held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

18 of the Seminole Tribe of Florida; or 

19 (2) affects the operation of any law governing 

20 leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise 

21 transferring any interest in any real property that is 
3 

†S 4079 ES

1 held in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

2 the Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

Passed the Senate December 18, 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4079 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease 

or transfer certain land, and for other purposes.
#### Helen Russell PIERCE, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of George Washington Pierce, Deceased, Appellant, v. ALLEN B. DU MONT LABORATORIES, INC.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued April 19,1960.

Decided May 9, 1960.

Thomas Cooch, Wilmington, Del., for appellant.

Floyd H. Crews, New York City, for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Du Mont has moved to docket and dismiss the appeal at bar, that of Pierce, Executrix. The basis asserted for dismissal is the death of the original plaintiff, G. W. Pierce. The suit involves the validity and infringement of certain patents formerly owned by him and now possessed by his Executrix. Du Mont asserts that since, allegedly, the cause of action did not survive G. W. Pierce’s death the suit should have been dismissed by the court below since his Executrix does not have the standing to maintain it. The court below ruled against Du Mont on this issue and determined the case on the merits rendering judgment against the Executrix. Pierce v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc., D.C.1959, 178 F.Supp. 84.

 Du Mont’s motion must be denied. We can dismiss an appeal only if we lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Here, clearly we have jurisdiction to decide whether the court below was right or wrong in holding (1) that the Executrix had the right to maintain the suit, and (2) whether the court below was *324right or wrong in holding on the merits that the patents sued on were invalid and not infringed. Consequently the motion to dismiss must be denied. An order to that effect will be entered.
§ 1240.109 Hearing procedure. ( a ) An Oral hearing held by the Board will be in accordance with the following procedures: ( 1 ) If the applicant requests a hearing within the time set in accordance with § 1240.108(d) or (e), the Board will set a place and date for such hearing and notify the applicant.
( 2 ) The applicant may be represented by an attorney or any other appropriately designated person.
( 3 ) Hearings will be open to the public unless the applicant requests that a closed hearing be held.
( 4 ) Hearings may be held before the full membership of the Board or before any panel of Board members designated by the Chairperson.
( 5 ) Hearings will be conducted in an informal manner with the objective of providing the applicant with a full opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of the application. Evidence may be presented through means of such witnesses, exhibits, and visual aids as are arranged for by the applicant. While proceedings will be *ex parte,* members of the Board and its counsel may address questions to witnesses called by the applicant, and the Board may, at its option, utilize the assistance and testimony of technical advisors or other experts.
( 6 ) Subject to the provisions of § 1240.104(c)(2), the applicant will submit a copy of any exhibit or visual aid utilized unless otherwise directed by the Board. The Board may, at its discretion, arrange for a written transcript of the proceedings and a copy of such transcript will be made available by the recorder for purchase by the applicant.
( 7 ) No funds are available to defray traveling expenses or any other cost incurred by the applicant.
§ 382.10 How does a U.S. or foreign carrier obtain a determination that it is providing an equivalent alternative to passengers with disabilities? ( a ) As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you may apply to the Department for a determination that you are providing an equivalent alternative to passengers with disabilities.
( b ) You must send your application for an equivalent alternative determination to the following address: Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W96-322, Washington, DC 20590.
( c ) Your application must be in English and include the following elements: ( 1 ) A citation to the specific provision of this part concerning which you are proposing an equivalent alternative.
( 2 ) A detailed description of the alternative policy, practice, or other accommodation you are proposing to use in place of compliance with the provision of this part that you cite, and an explanation of how it provides substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with disabilities.
( d ) The Department may grant the application, or grant the application subject to conditions, if it determines that the proposed facilitation does provide substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with disabilities, compared to compliance with the provision of this part in question.
( e ) If your application is granted, you will be deemed to be in compliance with this Part through implementing the equivalent alternative. If your application is denied, you must implement this part as written.
( f ) ( 1 ) If you submit your application on or before September 10, 2008, the Department will respond to the request before May 13, 2009 to the maximum extent feasible. If the Department does not respond to the application by May 13, 2009, you may implement your policy or practice that is the subject of your application until the Department does respond.
( 2 ) With respect to an application you make after September 10, 2008, you must comply with the provisions of this part without change from May 13, 2009 until the Department responds to your application.
Exhibit 24.1




                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 10th day of
March, 2004.





                                                     /s/Andrea S. Christensen
#### § 31.37 Fastenings.

Only approved bolts, pins, screws, and rivets may be used in the structure. Approved locking devices or methods must be used for all these bolts, pins, and screws, unless the installation is shown to be free from vibration. Self-locking nuts may not be used on bolts that are subject to rotation in service.