alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1443 

CA 12-00086 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

VILLAGE OF ILION, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, 

AND VILLAGE OF HERKIMER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF HERKIMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ADMINISTRATOR OF HERKIMER COUNTY SELF-INSURANCE 

PLAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

LONGSTREET & BERRY, LLP, SYRACUSE (MARTHA L. BERRY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

 

HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP, BINGHAMTON (ALBERT J. MILLUS, JR., OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony

J. Paris, J.), entered June 17, 2011. The order granted in part the

motion of defendant County of Herkimer, individually and as

administrator of Herkimer County Self-Insurance Plan, for a

declaratory judgment and an order of preclusion. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Village of Ilion v County of Herkimer

([appeal No. 3] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 1, 2013]).

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 4.07-5 Investigating officers, powers of. ( a ) An investigating officer investigates each marine casualty or accident reported under §§ 4.05-1 and 4.05-10.
( b ) Such investigating officer shall have the power to administer oaths, subpoena witnesses, require persons having knowledge of the subject matter of the investigation to answer questionnaires and require the production of relevant books, papers, documents and other records.
( c ) Attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents or any other evidence shall be compelled by a similar process as in the United States District Court.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 17099, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 72-104R, 37 FR 14234, July 18, 1972]
#### JAMES E. CHASTNEY, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted March 23, 1929

Decided April 11, 1929.

' Before Justice Parker, sitting alone under the statute.

For the prosecutor, *Carl A. Feich.*

For the board of education, *Winne & Banta.*

Memorandum by

Parker, J.

This case is submitted to me on briefs, but in a rather inadequate way. It has come up through the commissioner *386oí education and the state board, and apparently the commissioner wrote an opinion, but no copy of this, nor of the judgment of ■ the commissioner, or of the state board, has been embodied in the state of the case; but counsel have undertaken to substitute a stipulation. The matter is not aided by the honest avowal of counsel for the board that they did not wish to dismiss the prosecutor, and did so only under the influence of a *vis major*and make no argument in the matter. I should perhaps be justified in dismissing the writ for lack of a proper record, but conclude that on the whole it is better to deal with the merits.

It is conceded that the sole question in the case is whether prosecutor is within the provision of section 229 of the School law *(Comp. Stat., p.*4803), as amended in *Pamph. L.*1927, *p.*787, that “every board of education shall employ a competent physician to be known as the medical inspector.” Prosecutor is not licensed under the Medicine and Surgery act, but is licensed as an osteopath, and part of the argument rests on the fact that the Osteopathy act *(Pamph. L.*1913, *p. 388)*speaks of “osteopathic physicians.”

As I read the statute, the legislature meant that the medical inspector should be a physician as the word is ordinarily understood; in short, an M.D. This, to my mind, is indicated by the phraseology *“medical*inspector;” “shall *examine*every pupil to learn whether *any*physical defect exists.” Whatever may be the educational requirements for a license to practice osteopathy, the limitations of that practice as defined in the Osteopathy act are such that even conceding that a licensed osteopath will have, and retain, sufficient medical knowledge to enable him to perform satisfactorily the duties of “medical inspector,” still the word “physician” and its context seem to lead the mind back inevitably to the conclusion that what the legislature required was a general medical practitioner or at least someone licensed as such.

The notion of employing an osteopath for this purpose seems new, as the question has not been raised before. The statute, however, is not new, as this language is in the act of *3871903 and perhaps in earlier legislation which I have not taken time to examine. It was in force when the Osteopathy act of 1913 was passed. Before that act it plainly meant a licensed M.D., and that meaning it would naturally retain until the legislature showed an intent to modify it more plainly than it appears to have done.

The writ will be dismissed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2

                    MAXUS REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Maxus Real Property  Investors-Four,
L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, John W. Alvey,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial and Accounting
Officer of Maxus Capital Corp.,  General  Partner of the  Partnership,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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
Partnership  as of May 31,  2004  (the last date of the  period  covered  by the
Report).


/s/ John W. Alvey
-----------------------------
John W. Alvey
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of
Maxus Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership
July 1, 2004
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 20 , 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR - 2013 - 0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: July 9 , 2014 Presentation to Oklahoma state agencies and coal -fired utilities

r egarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants **SUMMARY** A presentation was made by EPA to the Oklahoma state agencies and coal -fired utilities and the a ttendees listed below on July 9 , 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing P ower Plants , which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was held in Oklahoma City, OK. **ATTENDEES** Participants: Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy and the Environment (Tyler Powell

and Craig Sundstrom ), Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (Leon Ashford, Beverly Botchlet - Smith, Cheryl Bradley, Braxton Edwards, Artisha Hicks, Joyce Sheedy, Rob Singletary, Eddie Terrill , Scott Thomas, and Randy Ward), Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Nicole King) , Grand River Dam Authority (Mike Bednar and Nathan Reese), Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (Gerald Butcher and Kent Fletcher), American Electric Power / Public Service of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO) (Bud Ground), and Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OGE) (Usha Turner, Kimber Shoop, and Brian McQuown) EPA Participant s: Mark Hansen, Terry Johnson, Clovis Steib, and Rob Lawrence (Region 6)

and Kristen Bremer, Brian Fisher, and Chris Sherry (OAR)
# C_2014085EN.01000501.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel

(Case C-328/12) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency - Defendant resident in a third country - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)

2014/C 85/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann)

Applicant:

Defendant: Lilly Hertel

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor has the centre of his main interests for decisions deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) brought against a defendant whose place of residence is in a third country.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending May 5, 2007

----

Board OperationsOffice of Inspector General  -- appointment of Elizabeth A. Coleman as Inspector General.					-Approved, May 4, 2007 					

EnforcementBank of Durango, Durango, Colorado  -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition against Cheryl McMillan, a former cashier and institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, April 30, 2007 					First Interstate Bank, Casper, Wyoming  -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition against Bonnie C. Milne, a former employee and institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, April 30, 2007 					

Regulations And PoliciesHome Equity Lending  -- to hold a public hearing on June 14, 2007, under the authority of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, on how to curb abusive lending practices in the home mortgage market.					-Announced, May 3, 2007 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: May 10, 2007
Argued and submitted September 13,

remanded with instructions October 11, 1995

#### In the Matter of Jared Michael Kuhn, a Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, *Respondent, v.*Keith KUHN and Marlene Kuhn, *Appellants.*

(J92-4-17; CA A85139)

904 P2d 177

Steven M. Richkind filed the brief for appellants.

Stephanie Striffler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

*275-aBefore Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*276PER CURIAM

Parents appeal two dispositional orders relating to placement of their child in substitute care. The state concedes that the trial court’s dispositional order fails to comply with the provisions of ORS 419B.476(4) requiring that the court enter written findings specifying why neither placement with parents nor adoption is appropriate, and specifying a projected timetable for return home. Accordingly, we remand for the court to enter an order that complies with ORS 419B.476(4).

Parents also contend that the court erred in failing to enter its orders within 20 days of the hearings as required by ORS 417B.476(2). The state responds that, although the court entered the orders more than 20 days after the hearings, the orders were entered *nunc pro tunc*to the date of the hearings. Even assuming, as parents argue, that the court’s entry of the orders *nunc pro tunc*cannot cure the statutory defect, and even assuming a remedy exists for the court’s failure to comply with the statute, parents have not shown prejudice from the court’s failure to enter the orders within the statutory time.

Remanded for entry of corrected order in compliance with ORS 419B.746(4).
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.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice of new exposure draft Accounting for Federal Oil and Gas Resources.

*Board Action:*                     Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in April 2004, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft,                     *Accounting for Federal Oil and Gas Resources.*

The Exposure Draft proposes standards that would result in recognition of the estimated value of royalties from Federal oil and gas leases and changes in those values over time as well as the amount of royalties designated for distribution to other entities such as State governments.

                    The Exposure Draft is available on the FASAB home page                     *http://www.fasab.gov/​exposure.html.*                     Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350. Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by September 21, 2007, and should be sent to: Wendy M. Comes, Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street, NW., Suite 6814, Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463.

Dated: May 22, 2007.

Charles Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-2606 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
#### Wheeler *v.*Whitney.

In trespass for an assault, a justification of the assault in self-defence is not available under the general issue.

Trespass, for an assault and battery. Plea, the general issue. The court gave the jury certain instructions on the subject of self-defence, to which the defendant excepted.

*.Blair Burleigh*and *Pike*Blodgett, for the defendant.

*Carpenter*and Fling, for the plaintiff.

Foster, J.

Under the pleadings in this case, the exception to the instructions of the court cannot be sustained. The justification of self-defence was not available. *Jewett*v. *Goodall,*19 N. H. 562.

*Exception overruled.*

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 30019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Research Grant Review Panel.
    Date: June 29, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 
Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Houmam H. Araj, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye 
Institute, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892-
9602, 301-451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f79f9685969db79a969e9bd9999e9fd9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5830392a3932183539313476363130763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 23, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2661 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2




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 Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rick Berry, Chief Financial 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 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.










/s/ RICK BERRY


Rick Berry


Chief Financial Officer








May 10, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fiscal Year2009
    
    
    2008Net earnings (loss)
    
    $
    1,288,108
    
    
    $
    (1,374,970
    )Average shares outstanding
    
    
    9,381,285
    
    
    
    9,286,261Stock options and restricted stock
    
    
    149,606
    
    
    
    Warrants assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Assumed treasury stock buyback
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Convertible redeemable preferred
stock assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Number of shares used in per
common share computation
    
    
    9,530,891
    
    
    
    9,286,261Basic net earnings (loss) per share of common Stock
    
    $
    .14
    
    
    $
    (.15
    )Diluted net earnings (loss) per share of common stock
    
    $
    .14
    
    
    $
    (.15
    )
 92
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO




CHARTER AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO CHARTER
AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”), is effective as of this 5th day of February,
2005, by and among AIRBORNE, INC., a New York corporation with a principal
business address of Elmira Corning Regional Airport, 236 Sing Sing Road,
Horseheads, New York, 14845, (“Airborne”) and MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC., a
Delaware corporation with its principal business address at 622 Third Avenue,
New York, New York, 10017 (“Customer”).


 


WHEREAS, Airborne and Customer
entered into a Charter Agreement dated as of the 17th day of June
2003 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Airborne and
Customer desire to amend the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as
follows:


 


1.             DEFINITIONS: 
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the
respective meanings described to them in the Agreement.


 


2.             MODIFICATION TO SECTION 3(A),
CHARTER RATE: The
first sentence of section 3(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:


 


“Customer
shall be entitled to One Hundred Fifty (150) charter hours of flight time on
the Aircraft per year during each twelve month period of the Term of this
Agreement.”


 


The second sentence of
Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:


 


“Customer shall pay a
charter rate of Six Thousand United States Dollars (US$6,000.00) per charter
hour on the Aircraft

(the “Charter Rate”).”


 


3.             NO OTHER AMENDMENTS: 
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and provisions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.             CONSTRUCTION:  This
Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws
thereof.


 


5.             COUNTERPARTS:  The
parties may execute this Amendment in two or more counterparts, which shall, in
the aggregate, be signed by all the parties; each counterpart shall be


 


1





















 


deemed an original
instrument as against any party who signed it and such counterpart (s) may be
transmitted by facsimile with the original(s) and/or hard copies thereof to be
provided by the parties thereafter.


 


The
parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the date first above written.


 


	
  MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC.

  	
  AIRBORNE, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Michael Sileck

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John Dow

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Michael Sileck

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Senior Vice President,
  Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President

  
							



 


2