alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cheshire,

No. 5746.

#### Oberline Bergeron *v.*W. W. Wyman, inc.

Argued October 1, 1968.

Decided November 26, 1968.

*Howard B. Lane*( by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Bell & Kennedy (Mr. William H. Kennedy*orally), for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

This action on the case to recover alleged damages to property claimed to have been caused by negligent blasting operations of the defendant was tried without a jury resulting in a verdict for the defendant. The exceptions of the plaintiff were transferred by *Dunfey,*J.

The plaintiff owned two houses located on the south side of Winchester Street in Keene numbered 220 and 228. They are separated from a bridge over the Ashuelot River by another house at number 232 owned by one Massicotte.

A new bridge was to be constructed across the river and during August of 1965 the concrete base of the old bridge was being blasted out. Mrs. Ross a tenant in the upstairs apartment of plaintiff’s house number 228 testified that early in the week ending Saturday, August 27 there was a severe blast which broke some dishes in her apartment. She testified that she went and talked with the State engineer at the job and then went to the hut and talked with a man she had seen giving orders and that he came to her house and saw the damage. She claims she thereafter wrote to the defendant but received no reply.

There was evidence that on Saturday, August 27, 1965 there was another severe blast which caused pieces of cement and rock *220to be thrown upon the premises of the plaintiff. There was evidence from which it could be found that this debris caused some damage to the property of the plaintiff. It was also findable that some damage was also caused either by the concussion or earth movement resulting from the blast. However the verdict for the defendant is sustained for want of evidence that the defendant did the blasting, or that it was responsible for the damage done. See *Crocker*v. *Company,*99 N. H. 330, 333.

In view of the result there is no need to consider other issues raised by the parties.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

All concurred.
References 


Hawkins, J.D., and Weis, J.G. 1985. The social development model: An integrated approach to 

delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention 6:37–97. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995. Title V: Community Prevention Grants 

Program Community Self-Evaluation Workbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Vermont Agency of Human Services. 1999. A Guide to State, Regional, and Community Partnerships 

With Vermont’s Children, Families, and Individuals. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Human 

Services. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—References 241
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-087
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., and its officers and agents

Date:  September 10, 2007


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior officer in charge of securitization
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title to Property Necessary for the Improvement of the Waterfront on the North River. The City of New York et al., Appellants; The American Ice Company, Respondent.

(Submitted February 8, 1909;

decided February 16, 1909.)

Motion for final order and to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 193 N. Y. 503.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6716

ANTONIO DEAN WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NEWPORT NEWS CITY JAIL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00481-WDK-FBS)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Dean Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Dean Walker appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice Walker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil

rights action. Because Walker may resubmit his complaint as

amended to cure the defects identified by the district court, the

dismissal order is not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods,

Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v.

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.

1993). Accordingly, we 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
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1785 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of extraordinary 

artistic ability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2009 

Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. SCHIFF, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

COBLE, Mr. WEINER, and Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of 

extraordinary artistic ability. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arts Require Timely 

5 Service (ARTS) Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1785 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYER PETI2 TIONS FOR ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY AR3 TISTIC ABILITY. 

4 Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each place 

7 it appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Se8 curity’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (6)(D)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘(D) Any’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘(D)(i) Any’’; 

12 (B) by striking ‘‘Once the’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘Except as provided in clause (ii), once the’’; 

14 and 

15 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adju17 dicate each petition for an alien with extraordinary ability 

18 in the arts (as described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i)), an 

19 alien accompanying such an alien (as described in clauses 

20 (ii) and (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(O)), or an alien de21 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(P) (other than an alien de22 scribed in section 214(c)(4)(A) (relating to athletes)) not 

23 later than 30 days after— 

24 ‘‘(I) the date on which the petitioner submits 

25 the petition with a written advisory opinion, letter of 

26 no objection, or request for a waiver; or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1785 IH

1 ‘‘(II) the date on which the 15-day period de2 scribed in clause (i) has expired, if the petitioner has 

3 had an opportunity, as appropriate, to supply rebut4 tal evidence. 

5 ‘‘(iii) If a petition described in clause (ii) is not adju6 dicated before the end of the 30-day period described in 

7 clause (ii) and the petitioner is an arts organization de8 scribed in paragraph (3), (5), or (6) of section 501(c) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 

10 under section 501(a) of such Code for the taxable year 

11 preceding the calendar year in which the petition is sub12 mitted, or an individual or entity petitioning primarily on 

13 behalf of such an organization, the Secretary of Homeland 

14 Security shall provide the petitioner with the premium15 processing services referred to in section 286(u), without 

16 a fee.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Argued and submitted May 13,

affirmed May 29,1996

#### 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*COLUMBIA COUNTY, *Respondent, and*MCFARLAND CASCADE HOLDINGS, *Petitioner.*

(95-084; CA A92656)

917 P2d 543

Michael C. Robinson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Stoel Rives LLP.

John H. Nelson argued the cause for respondent 1000 Friends of Oregon. With him on the brief was Preston Gates & Ellis.

No appearance for respondent Columbia County.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

DEITS, P. J.

*273DEITS, P. J.

Petitioner applied for and Columbia County granted a Goal 4 exception and comprehensive plan and zoning amendments to allow residential development in an extensive forestry area. 1000 Friends of Oregon (1000 Friends) appealed to LUBA. LUBA rejected petitioner’s contention that it lacked jurisdiction and, in a thorough discussion, remanded the county’s decision on the merits. Petitioner seeks our review, and challenges only LUBA’s jurisdictional conclusion that 1000 Friends’ appeal to it was timely. In connection with land use decisions of the kind in question, ORS 197.830(8) allows a 21-day period for taking an appeal to LUBA, beginning with the date the decision is mailed to those entitled to notice. Petitioner contends that the appeal was not filed within 21 days from the date the county mailed its decision to 1000 Friends.

The “notice of adoption” of the decision that the county provided the Department of Land Conservation and Development pursuant to ORS 197.615 shows a “date mailed” of April 12,1995. However, the envelope in which the decision was sent to 1000 Friends bears a postage meter imprint showing the date of April 13.1 1000 Friends filed its notice of intent to appeal to LUBA 21 days after the latter date.

Petitioner argued to LUBA, and now argues to us, that we should construe ORS 197.830(8), as a matter of law, as meaning that the 21-day period for appealing to LUBA runs from the earlier date. Petitioner surmises that “[postmarks or postage meter stamps can be applied on a later date and not reflect the date of mailing.” While that is conceivably true, the converse is definitely true and is *far*more likely to occur: The mailing of a document obviously can take place on a day after it is prepared, and the meter stamp or postmark obviously can be affixed on that actual date of *274mailing. In the absence of any demonstrated basis for believing that the county’s mailing to 1000 Friends in fact occurred on an earlier date than the date shown on the envelope, LUBA was correct in holding that the notice of intent to appeal was timely.

Affirmed.

1

 We assume, for sake of discussion only, the accuracy of petitioner’s presupposition that the date shown on the document sent to the department *could have*any bearing on when the county’s mailing to 1000 Friends was made. *See*ORS 197.615(1), (2).
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
          I, Dwight W. Decker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Conexant Systems, Inc., certifythat:
1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Conexant Systems, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Quarterly Report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this Quarterly Report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Reportis being prepared;  b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this QuarterlyReport based on such evaluation; and  c.  disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: February 8, 2005
/s/ Dwight W. Decker
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of SienaTechnologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that: **•** the quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and  **•** the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.               /s/ Jeffrey R. Hultman   Jeffrey R. Hultman   Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 21, 2007                  /s/ Christopher G. Pizzo   Christopher G. Pizzo   Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 21, 2007
§ 611.12 Effect on other regulations; forms and instructions. ( a ) *Effect on other regulations.* All regulations, orders, or like directions heretofore issued by any officer of the Foundation which impose requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program to which this part applies, and which authorize the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance to any applicant for or recipient of such assistance for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this part, except that nothing in this part shall be deemed to relieve any person of any obligation assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part, however, supersedes any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( 1 ) Executive Order 11246 and regulation issued thereunder, or
( 2 ) any other orders, regulations, or instructions, insofar as such orders, regulations, or instructions prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or situation to which this part is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
( b ) *Forms and instructions.* Each responsible Foundation official shall issue and promptly make available to interested persons forms and detailed instructions and procedures for effectuating this part as applied to programs to which this part applies and for which he is responsible.
( c ) *Supervision and coordination.* The Director may from time to time assign to officials of other departments or agencies of the Government, with the consent of such departments or agencies, responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of title VI of the Act and this part (other than responsibility for final decision as provided in § 611.10), including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Foundation and within the Executive Branch of the Government in the application of title VI and this regulation to similar programs and in similar situations. Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another Department or agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this subsection shall have the same effect as though such action had been taken by the responsible official of this agency.
[29 FR 16305, Dec. 4, 1964, as amended at 38 FR 17985, July 5, 1973; 68 FR 51382, Aug. 26, 2003]
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON. DC. 20463

(

A83-77

REPORT OP 'I'D AUDIT DIVISION

ON

THE PENSIONERS ACTION POND

1. Backgrouna

A. Overview

This report is based on an audit of the Pensioners

Action Fund (-the CommitteeW), undertaken ~y the Audit Division

of tbe Federal Election Commission in accordance wi~h the

Commission's audit policy to determine whether there bas been

compliance with the provisions of the Pederal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (Wthe ActW). The audit was conducted

pursuant to Section 438(b) of Title 2- of tbe united States COde

whicb states, in part, that the Commission may conduct audits and

field investigations of any political committee required to file

a report under section 434 of this title. Prior to conducting

any audit under this section, the Commission shall perform an

internal review of reports filed by selected commi~tees to

determine if the reports filed by a particular committee meet the

threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the Act.

The Committee registered with the U.S. Bouse of

Representatives on April 19, 1973, as the Masters, Mates and

Pilots Pensioners Action Fund reporting the International

Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots as its connected·

organization. On December 14, 1976, the Committee amended its

Statement of Organization changing its name to the Pensioners

Action Fund. The Committee maintains its headquarters in

Baltimore, Maryland.

The audit covered the period January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1982. The Committee reported a cash balance on

January 1, 1981 of $339,887.23J total receipts of $84,731.87, total expenditures of $108,453.30, ana a cash balance on December

31, 1982 of $316,165.80.

This audit report is based on documents and work papers which support each of its factual statements. They form part of

the record upon which the Commission based its decisions on the

matters in this report and were available to tbe Commissioners

and appropriate staff for review.
B. Kev Personnel

~be Treasurer of the Committee during the period covered by the Audit was Mr. Pietro Mazza!.

c. Scope

~he audit included sucb tests as verification of total

reported receipts ana disbursements and in4iviaual transactlons, review of required supporting documentation, analysis of debts

and obligations and sucb other audit procedures a. aeemed

necessary under the circumstances.

II. Matters Referred to the Office of General Counsel

Matters noted during the audit were referred to the Office

of General Counsel on March 16, 1984.
# CE2009294EN.01009201.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 294/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 294/92

---

Tuesday 8 July 2008European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument: general provisions ***I

P6_TA(2008)0315

European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 July 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (COM(2008)0308 — C6-0200/2008 — 2008/0095(COD))

2009/C 294 E/24

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0308),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 179 and 181a of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0200/2008),

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0271/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---