alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Dwight, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 525]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered April 16, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly concluded that the prosecutor supplied race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenge of a certain black juror *(see, People v Richie,*217 AD2d 84, 89). The defendant thereafter failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the explanations provided were merely pretextual *(see, People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172, 181; *People v Rivers,*255 AD2d 463; *People v Lassic,*254 AD2d 303; *People v Richie, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see, People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292; *People v McKay,*260 AD2d 408; *People v Callistro,*259 AD2d 625). Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### HOWARD E. BOTTOMLEY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45645.

Decided March 5, 1945]

*Mr. Mahlon G. Masterson*for the plaintiff. *Ansell*and *Ansell*were on the brief.

*Mr. Louis R.*Mehlinger, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M.*Shea, for the defendant.

*285
      *Opinion*

*per Curiam:*

*■*The facts in this case are not in dispute and show conclusively that plaintiff’s mother was dependent upon him for her chief support for the period from March 13, 1941, to November 30,1942. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,641.10. It is so ordered. See *Mumma*v. *United*States, 99 C. Cls. 261; *Herrick*v. *United*States, 100 C. Cls. 308.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                     

      ( print page 33612)    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before June 23, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. 

# COPIES:

Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. 

# ADDRESSES:

Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Financial Institution Confirmation Form.                

*Form No:*                     SBA Form-860.                

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     SBIC Investment Companies.                

*Annual Responses:*                     750.                

*Annual Burden:*                     750.                

Jacqueline White,

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-12985 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-06435, No. 333-105219, No. 333-132767, No. 333-132768 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to333-132768 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 29, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2007 and for the years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006(before retrospective adjustments to the 2007 and 2006 consolidated financial statements (not presented herein)) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*), appearing in this annual Report on Form 10-K of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and subsidiaries for the year ended September28, 2008. 

 

/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Davenport, Iowa 

December 29, 2008
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990

              														Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990, November 29, 1990.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1134,			accessed on September 2, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Bertha Hantmann *vs.*John H. Ryan.

Second Judicial District, Norwich,

October Term, 1917.

Prentice, O. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

It is quite within the province of a trial court to set aside, as unreasonable, a verdict which is founded solely upon the testimony of a single witness which is not only unsatisfactory and improbable in itself, but is at variance with that of other witnesses and with facts and circumstances established beyond question.

Argued October 16th —

decided December 16th, 1917.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before *Case, J.;*verdict for the plaintiff for $200, which the trial court, upon motion, set aside as against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.

*No error.*

*Jeremiah J. Desmond,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Roderick M°. Douglass,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, a child of tender years, was injured in her person by being run into by an automobile driven along the highway in front of her home by someone. It was claimed in her behalf that the defendant was the driver of the car. This the latter denied. Most of the evidence presented to the jury concerned the issue thus raised. Recovery by the plaintiff was dependent upon her ability to sustain the burden which was upon her to establish the defendant’s identity as the driver of the car. The evidence offered in support of her claim was limited to testimony given *217by her mother. That testimony was so unsatisfactory and improbable and so much at variance, not only with the testimony of other witnesses but also with facts and circumstances established beyond reasonable question, that it was quite within the province of the trial court, having observed her appearance and demeanor upon the stand, to set aside a verdict founded solely upon it as being one which, especially in view of the other testimony, was not reasonably reached.

There is no error.
EXHIBIT
      32


STATEMENT
      FURNISHED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350




In connection with the Quarterly
      Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
      quarterly period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, John B. Dicus, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend, Chief Financial Officer
      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
      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 result of
      operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in
      the
      financial statements included in such Report.










Date:   February
      4,
      2008                                                By:   /s/ John B.
      Dicus                                                                                        
John B. Dicus, President and
                                                                                        
Chief Executive Officer






Date:   February
      4,
      2008                                                By:   /s/ Kent G.
      Townsend                                                                                        
Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President
      and                                                                                      
  Chief Financial Officer
#### HOLMES v MELLON, etc.

Case No. 90-303AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

June 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Nancy C. Wear, Esquire, for petitioner.

Enoch J. Whitney, General Counsel, Kim Feigin, Assistant General Counsel, for respondent, Mellon, as Executive Director of Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Before SALMON, JONES, POSTMAN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SALMON, J.

Holmes was arrested for DUI, and his license was seized pursuant to *87Florida Statutes, Section 322.2615(l)(a) (1989). He requested a formal review from respondent’s department, which resulted in a hearing officer’s order sustaining the suspension. Holmes seeks review of that order raising many grounds. In our view, two grounds are well taken, and we grant certiorari.

The hearing officer, in order to sustain the suspension, must, among other things, determine whether the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that Holmes was driving or in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, and whether Holmes’ blood alcohol was unlawful. There is no *competent*evidence that either requirement was met.

All that was presented to the hearing officer on these questions was documents. The probable cause document was not signed by the arresting officer. It was signed by the officer who performed the breathalyzer test. The record indicates that Holmes was involved in an accident. In what capacity and under what circumstances are not stated. The respondent speculates that the arresting officer probably had cause to arrest Holmes, and that he must have told the second officer what that cause was, and that the hearing officer could “infer” that Holmes was driving.1 Nonetheless, there is no competent evidence to support the conclusion.

The alcohol level of Holmes’ blood was shown by test results. Holmes claims the test results were inadmissible because the readings vary by more than the + .02 deviation permitted by the applicable regulations. The first and second readings were a substantial deviation; as were the second and third readings. The test and the permitted deviations were undoubtedly adopted so that the test results would have the necessary reliability and trustworthiness that allows relevant evidence to be considered. Having failed that test, the scores should not have been considered. There was no other evidence relating to blood alcohol level.

We have considered the other grounds raised by Holmes, and find them to be without merit.

Certiorari granted; the order of suspension of petitioner’s driver’s license by respondent is vacated.

JONES and POSTMAN, JJ., concur.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

1

 Precisely how the respondent knows that the information was given by one officer to the other is not disclosed by the record; neither officer testified.
UTC Building & Industrial Systems 

One Carrier Place 

Farmington, Connecticut 06032 U.S.A. 

John Mandyck 

Vice President 

Sustainability, Marketing & Communications 

July 2, 2014 Ms. Margaret Sheppard 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J) 

1310 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Ms. Sheppard: 

United 

Technologies 

Building & Industrial Systems 

Thank you for your letter of March 27, 2014 regarding Carrier's Significant New 

Alternatives Policy ("SNAP") submission for the approval of carbon dioxide ("C02") for 

Refrigerated Transport, New Equipment (including marine containers, trailers, trucks and direct 

drive applications). This letter is intended to respond to your questions and provide the 

information necessary for the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to proceed with 

approval. 

1. Magnitude ofRelease. You requested that we provide supporting documentation for 

determining the activation time of the safety valve. 
Valve [ ] 

Trial 

1 [ ] 

1 Trial 2 [ ] 

Trial 

3 [ ] 

Trial 

1 [ ] 

2 Trial 2 [ ] 

Trial 

3 [ ] 

You additionally requested that we clarify where the refrigerant is released. [ 

] 

r 
Altogether, we are pleased to continue working with the Stratospheric Ozone Division on 

our application for SNAP approval. If needed, we would be more than willing at any time to 

discuss any matter concerning our original submission as well as the information contained in the 

response and attachments below. 

cc: Mr. Gerald Wozniak 

Sincerely, 

John M. Mandyck 

Vice President 

Sustainability, Marketing and Communications 

UTC Building & Industrial Systems 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J) 

1310 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP99-355-002]

Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) separately filed reports to comply with a Commission order issued July 29, 1999, in Docket No. RP99-355-000. The filings report on the parties' efforts to develop an unbundling program with BGE that does not require waiver of the Commission's shipper must have title policy.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13011  Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### Geology and ground-water resources of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska

By: Leland Keith WenzelR.C. CadyHerbert A. Waite

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp943

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
(74 South. 1007)

#### McCOMBS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 219.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Dan A. Greene, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

On examination of the record in this case we find nothing therein to cause a reversal of the judgment of conviction, or that warrants discussion. Affirmed. ' i
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12270]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 137-002]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Meetings

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice there will be a joint meeting of the Recreation and 
Ecological Resources subgroups of the Mokelumne Relicensing 
Collaborative on May 16, 2000. There will be meetings of the Ecological 
Resources subgroup on May 17-18, 2000, and a meeting of the Recreation 
subgroup on May 23, 2000. The Full Collaborative will meet on May 24-
25, 2000. These meetings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at 
2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, California. Expected 
participants need to give their names to David Moller (PG&E) at (415) 
973-4696.
    For further information, please contact Diana Shannon at (202) 208-
7774.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12270 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M