alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frances Wireman et al., Respondents, v Robert Reith, Appellant-Respondent, and Suffolk Bus Co. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 42]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Robert Reith appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated June 14, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied his motion to correct and amend a judgment entered August 26, 1992. The defendants Suffolk Bus Co. and Martin Logan cross-appeal from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal by the defendants Suffolk Bus *583Co. and Martin Logan is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by Robert Reith, the motion is granted to the extent indicated herein, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that Robert Reith is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the respondents Suffolk Bus Co. and Martin Logan.

This matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court so that the court can correct several errors. It appears that the court intended to reduce the plaintiff husband’s award by $5,000, but confused the plaintiff husband and the plaintiff wife. The record indicates that W.J. Wallace Wireman is the husband, and Frances Wireman is the wife. This mistake led the court to reduce the wife’s award instead of the husband’s and should be corrected on remittitur.

Additionally, the Supreme Court failed to properly allocate the amount of damages which arose out of each plaintiff’s injury, and thus erroneously apportioned the liability of the two insurance companies involved. It is well settled that "derivative damages for loss of consortium and direct damages must be added together to determine the limit of liability for bodily injury sustained by one person” *(Champagne v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*185 AD2d 835, 837; *see also, Wasserman v Glens Falls Ins. Co.,*19 AD2d 552; *Rankin v Travelers Ins. Co.,*254 App Div 687). The court must therefore add the wife’s derivative award for loss of consortium to the husband’s primary award for pain and suffering to establish the damages resulting from the husband’s injury. Similarly, the court must add the husband’s derivative award to the wife’s direct award to establish the damages resulting from the wife’s injury. This will enable the court to properly apportion liability between the insurance companies.

The court must recalculate the amount of postjudgment interest owed to the plaintiffs. Each of the four checks tendered by the two insurance companies constituted unconditional tender, which terminated the running of postjudgment interest on the amounts paid *(see,*CPLR 5003; *Meiselman v Allstate Ins. Co.,*197 AD2d 561; *Pellegrino v State of New York,*133 Mise 2d 888, *affd*139 AD2d 502). Further, interest should be calculated on a 365 day year *(see,*CPLR 5004).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

38
From: April Gonzales

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:55:21 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

April Gonzales

25820 N Vineyard Ln

Paulden, az 86334
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

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2006, of Collins & Aikman Floorcoverings, Inc. (the
Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Edgar M. BridgerEdgar M. BridgerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 12, 2006




/s/ Leonard F. FerroLeonard F. FerroVice President, Secretary, Treasurer &Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 12, 2006
Exhibit 13.2



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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Safe Bulkers, Inc. (the “Company”)
  for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
  officer of the Company certifies 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 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.



|Date: February 28, 2013 | /s/ KONSTANTINOS ADAMOPOULOS        
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                        |                                     
|                        | Konstantinos Adamopoulos            
|                        | Chief Financial Officer and Director
Exhibit 10.2
**SECOND AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT**
This Second Amendment to Business Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made asof August 18, 2004, between Bank of America, N. A. (“Bank”), and PacificSunwear of California, Inc., a California corporation (the “Borrower”).
**RECITALS**
     A. Borrower and Bank entered into that certain Business Loan Agreementdated as of January 30, 2004 (the “Agreement”).
     B. Borrower and Bank desire to amend the Agreement as herein provided.
**AGREEMENT**
     1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendmentshall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement.
     2. Amendments. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
          2.1 In subsection (c) of Section 7.10 of the Agreement, the first sentenceis amended to read as follows:
“(c) capital stock repurchases not in excess of (x) FiftyMillion Dollars ($50,000,000) in the aggregate from the dateof this Agreement through May 6, 2004, (y) Twenty-FiveMillion Dollars ($25,000,000) in the aggregate from May 7,2004 through August 18, 2004, or (z) Fifty Million Dollars($50,000,000) in the aggregate from August 19, 2004 throughthe Expiration Date; provided that, after giving effect tosuch stock repurchase (i) No Event of Default under thisAgreement has occurred and is continuing and (ii) Borrowerhas not less than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) inUnencumbered Liquid Assets....”
     3. Representations and Warranties. Borrower hereby represents and warrantsto Bank that: (i) no default specified in the Agreement and no event which withnotice or lapse of time or both would become such a default has occurred and iscontinuing and has not been previously waived, (ii) the representations andwarranties of Borrower pursuant to the Agreement are true on and as of the datehereof as if made on and as of said date, (iii) the making and performance byBorrower of this Amendment have been duly authorized by all necessary action,and (iv) no consent, approval, authorization, permit or license is required inconnection with the making or performance of the Agreement as amended hereby.
     4. Conditions. This Amendment will be effective when the Bank receives thefollowing items, in form and content acceptable to the Bank:
 

 

          4.1 This Amendment duly executed by all parties hereto.
          4.2 Payment of all out-of-pocket expenses, including attorneys’ fees,incurred by the Bank in connection with the preparation of this Amendment.
     5. Effect of Amendment. Except as provided in this Amendment, theAgreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall be performed by theparties hereto according to its terms and provisions.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the partieshereto as of the date first above written.     BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.    By: Name: Title:    PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.    By: Name: Title:    By: Name: Title:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimmie Latimer, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 12]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), rendered July 31, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and, after a probation revocation hearing, resentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the trial court effectively denied his right to proceed *pro se*at his probation revocation hearing by coercing him into accepting counsel he did not want. The court’s warnings to defendant that he who proceeded as his own counsel had a fool for a client, and that defendant would be strictly held to the rules of evidence, were proper attempts to make defendant aware of the dangers of representing himself, as were the other efforts by the court to insure that the waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary and unequivocal *(see, People v Vivenzio,*62 NY2d 775, 776; *People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10, 17). Defendant’s ultimate decision not to represent himself was made after the court had granted him permission to do so, and thus could only have been the result of the consultation defendant had with his legal advisor during a recess, rather than any coercion by the court. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
From: fbc-pastor@knology.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:15:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ryan Brandenberger

Storm Lake, IA 50588
February 10, 1959

No. 62755.

Suit 4952.

#### Floral Arts Studio et al. *v.*United States.

C.D. 1943 affirmed November 5, 1958. C.A.D. 690.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6695** 

JOSEPH EUGENE HOOVER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. BUTCH JACKSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00168

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : August 10, 2012 Decided: August 16, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joseph Eugene Hoover, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Eugene Hoover seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circu it justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the d istrict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hoover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hoover’s motion for a certificate of appealability, de ny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Reclamation

          - [RR04093000, XXXR4081G3, RX.05940913.FY19310]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is renewing the charter for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group. The purpose of the Adaptive Management Work Group is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary concerning the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the exercise of other authorities pursuant to applicable Federal law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        William Stewart, Adaptive Management Group Chief, (385) 622-2179,                         *wstewart@usbr.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-463, as amended). The certification of renewal is published below.

## Certification

I hereby certify that Charter renewal of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. ch. 10.                

Deb Haaland,

Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 2023-20900 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
(R.D. 11471)

#### Mohawk Brush Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 711395.

(Decided January 24, 1968)

*Busty é Rivlcin*for the plaintiff.

*Edioin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the Court, in the above entitled case, that:

> 1. The merchandise herein consists of aromatic substances (perfume compounds) exported from the United Kingdom during the year 1966 which merchandise is not on the Final Valuation List of the Secretary of the Treasury, T.D. 54521, and on which it is agreed that the proper basis for appraisement is constructed value under Sec. 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 2. On or about the date of exportation of said merchandise the cost of materials and of fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing such or similar merchandise, together with the amount of general expenses and profit usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind, made by producers in the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for shipment to the United States, including the cost of all containers and packing and all other expenses incidental to placing said merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, are as follows:

> 

> 3. The appeal for reappraisement herein may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

*762On. th.e agreed facts, I find and liold constructed value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was as follows:

> 

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0001037189
<NAME>                             SB Westport Futures Fund L.P.
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  59,960,055
<SECURITIES>                             1,899,298
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        61,859,353
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          61,859,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      941,750
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                              60,917,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            61,859,353
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        (2,336,424)
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           353,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,690,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,690,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (47.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
No. 65996.

#### J. F. Garvey Company *v.*United States,

protest 274713-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mlferris3@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:18:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Ferris

Northborough, MA 01532