alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles H. Moraski *v.*Yellow Cab Company, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Automobiles—Collision—Case *for jury.*

In an action to recover for damages to a motor truck, the plaintiff testified that as he came to a street intersection, he slowed down, and seeing no approaching vehicles within a distance of two hundred feet started to cross; that before he passed the center of the street, he was struck by defendant’s taxicab, proceeding at a high rate of speed. Under such circumstances, the case was for the jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained.

Argued November 14, 1924.

Appeal, No. 218, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1922, No. 3160, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Charles H. Moraski v. Yellow Cab Company.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover for damages to motor truck. Before Davis, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $300, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*Raymond A. White, Jr.,*and with him *Maurice W. Sloan,*for appellant.

*606
      *Edmund W. Kirby,*of *Morris and Kirby,*for appellee.

February 27, 1925:

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This appeal is from judgment for damages caused by collision of a taxicab with plaintiff’s half-ton Vim truck at 13th and Vine streets, Philadelphia. We shall state the facts as the jury may have found them. The truck was ten feet long. Plaintiff, in the 13th Street car tracks, driving north, in daytime, reached Vine Street, when, as he testified, “I slowed down and put my car in second gear, blew my horn. There was nothing coming in either direction.” He saw 200 feet each way, and, “nothing coming,” he proceeded across Vine Street at four miles an hour. In the middle of Vine Street, are street car tracks. Plaintiff had almost crossed these tracks — eight feet of his truck had passed the north rail, —when defendant’s taxicab approached from the east, in the Vine Street car tracks — going—as the taxicab driver testified: “15 tó 18 miles an hour”; he struck and pushed- [the truck] “sideways clean across the street” and broke off and knocked down a mailbox. When asked by the court, “Why did you hit this truck? What was the cause of the collision, if [plaintiff] was in the center of the street?” the taxicab driver said, “I couldn’t stop.” Obviously, with nothing on Vine Street approaching within 200 feet, plaintiff was justified in taking the risk of satisfying a jury that he acted prudently in crossing; the court could not say he was guilty of contributory negligence; he was proceeding lawfully and was quite past the “centre of the street” when he was struck by defendant’s driver who “couldn’t stop” though he should have had his car under control in approaching the 13th Street intersection.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 2, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 278


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on November 1, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-213459) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                           
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
Case No. ,7,863a.

#### KLAIBER v. ILLINOIS BENEVOLENT MASONIC SOC.

[12 Ins. Law J. (1883) 125.]

Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.

Life Insurance — Surrender and Reissue of Poliot — Change of Conditions.

[Where a new policy is issued in lieu of a former one, merely for the purpose of substituting a new beneficiary for the original one, who has died, and there is no new consideration, and no new application or examination of the insured, the company has no power to change the conditions so as to make the representations of the application warranties, when they were not se under the original policy.]

[This was an action at law by Emma Klaiber against the Illinois Benevolent Masonic Society to recover upon a policy of insurance issued upon the life of plaintiff’s husband.)

Frederick Tillman, for plaintiff.

Farlan Q. Ball, for defendant.

BLODGETT, District Judge.

The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws Of fhe state for the purpose of insuring the lives of Masons. The by-laws of the company provided that only affiliated master masons could become members and take out policies of insurance. In December, 1873, Klaiber made application, stating that he was an affiliated master mason, and a member of the Acassia Lodge, of La Salle. His application was accepted and a policy issued. In 1876, his wife, for whom the policy had been issued, died, and he afterwards married the plaintiff in this ease, and at her request the old policy was surrendered, and a new one issued, in which the loss was made payable to the plaintiff. Klaiber paid all the assessments made on him down to his death, in July. 1880. On July 21, 1880, the society changed its by-laws so as to allow any master mason, whether affiliated or not, to become a member. After Klaiber’s death the statement was found to be untrue as to his being an affiliated master mason. He had taken a demit from Acassia Lodge some time before making the application. The defense was based on the misrepresentation, the policy on which the suit was brought providing that any misrepresentation would make the policy void. The court decided under the first policy to the first Mrs. Klaiber there was no warranty that the representations were true, and under that policy, unless it appeared that the misrepresentations were intentionally made, the policy would not thereby be rendered void; and in the second policy was a clause expressly making misrepresentation a warranty; and the question then arose as to whether the decree should be governed by the first or second policy. Inasmuch as there was no new consideration for the second policy, nor a new examination of Klaiber, and no new application had been made, and as the second policy was issued in lieu of the first, it was not competent for the society to add any conditions not contemplated at the time of the original application. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for $4,600.
RE: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices

Higgins, Cortney to: Mary Kissell 03/30/2011 06:11 PM

Cc: Penny Lassiter, Ann Johnson

We have no further comments on the risk assessment.

Thanks,

Cortney

-----Original Message-----

From: Kissell.Mary@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kissell.Mary@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:07 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Lassiter.Penny@epamail.epa.gov; Johnson.Ann@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Fw: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices

----- Forwarded by Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/30/2011 05:07 PM

-----

 

 From: Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US 

 To: Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 03/30/2011 11:32 AM 

 Subject: Fw: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices 

Here's the newly revised Risk document with the 2 minor changes from the OMB 

call. Appendices are the same as previously sent - below.

E

(See attached file: Bin 1- 7 source categories Risk document final

_3_30_11_.doc)

----- Forwarded by Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/30/2011 11:28 AM

-----

From: Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Ted Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/30/2011 10:28 AM

Subject: Bin 1 Risk Document and Appendices

Assuming there are no changes to the risk document from the 11:00 OMB call, 

here's the final risk document and appendices.

E
(See attached file: Appendix 1.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 2.pdf) (See 

attached file: Appendix 3.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 4.pdf) (See 

attached file: Appendix 5.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 6 .pdf) (See 

attached file: Appendix 7.pdf)
Exhibit (13) a.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ENACTED BY



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Masahiro Sakane, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, 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.



Date: July 27, 2005



By:

/s/ Masahiro SakaneMasahiro SakanePresident, Chief Executive Officer




26
Before the Second Division,

May 11, 1960

No. 64156.

protest 59/23264 (San Francisco).

#### Miltonberg Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
**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**

|  | • | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September                30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on                the date                hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                                                                                                                    |                                       |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                                                               |                                  |
|         | By:                                                                                                                                                           | /s/ Samuel              F. Occhipinti |
|         | Samuel                F. Occhipinti Chief                Financial Officer (principal                accounting officer)November                14,                2005 |
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350


     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.ar.l.
(the "Company") 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, as amended, 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/ GARY ESHLEMAN
                                            ------------------------------------

                                            Gary Eshleman
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)


November 15, 2004

                                       67
No. 64885.

#### Aurora Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/31201 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1 - Certifications

                            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 General Steel  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Commission  on May 16, 2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Zuo Sheng Yu,  Chief  Executive
Officer and  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-  Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The 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.

                                        By: /s/ Zuo Sheng Yu
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Zuo Sheng Yu
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President


DATED: May 16, 2005
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–011 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–12 

DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL IN 

NIGER 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A NOTIFICATION THAT THE LAST ELEMENTS OF A DEPLOYMENT 

OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ADDITIONAL U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

HAVE ENTERED NIGER WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NIGER 

FEBRUARY 25, 2013.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, February 22, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On February 20, 2013, the last elements of 

a deployment of approximately 40 additional U.S. military personnel entered Niger with the consent of the Government of Niger. 

This deployment will provide support for intelligence collection and 

will also facilitate intelligence sharing with French forces conducting operations in Mali, and with other partners in the region. 

The total number of U.S. military personnel deployed to Niger is 

approximately 100. The recently deployed forces have deployed 

with weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security. 

I directed this deployment of U.S. forces in furtherance of U.S. 

national security interests, and pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in 

Chief and Chief Executive. 

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution 

(Public Law 93–148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in 

this action. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
No. 48523.

#### Protests 966576-G, etc., of Chan & Chan et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that merchandise consisting of bak hop, lotus nuts (hoi shin lien, hoi pak lin), sui sit, wai san (stick), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua is similar to that involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) and it was therefore held entitled to free entry as crude drugs under paragraph 1669 as claimed. Wai san (sliced) yuk-chuk, and sar sum (cut) were held dutiable as drugs, advanced, at 10 percent under paragraph 34, following *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-1358 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., Plan 

Administrator; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

KATHLEEN ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-559 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BRENDA DIMARO; and HALLIE LAVICK,

Plaintiffs,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-1726 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 78 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On April 3, 2005, a telephonic status conference was held in

Dimaro and Lavick v. Hollister, Inc., et al., 05-1726, and Ellis

v. Hollister, Inc., et al, 05-0559. As a result of that

conference, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The date for disclosure of experts in 05-1726 and 05-559

is hereby VACATED to be reset at the April 24, 2006 Status

Conference.

2. Any depositions taken in the three above-captioned cases

may be used in any of those three cases.

3. Counsel for the parties in the three above-captioned cases

are ordered to appear before the court on April 24, 2006 at 3:30

p.m. for a Status Conference. The parties are reminded of their

obligation to file status reports not later than ten (10) days

preceding the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 78 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2
69°30°E

69°15'E

69°E

68°45'E

51 0000

500

eae

t t+" p A
BIS OES NEA Gn

4.90000

4 geen

ul

a
,
=
me
ER Gham

; rh
y e _
2 ¥,
HH =>
nal
hated
tae Lt
Bia; \
i
1
E. rd
Dae =
‘
A,

ae

. ri |.
’ 4
y at 4
° ; a =
a Ys !
| . ‘
r r= ware, =| 7
A
4 "
~ ’ .
a . .
4 : _
.

r

1m)

tn

a

y=

_

raf

|

| h

i

i

i.

om] S fa) ©

o oS So fo)

So cS oS So

wW = S >
z

ae o a ioe
Co Sl
fo] o
= +
ae) ine)

EXPLANATION

10 KILOMETERS

Peak
[| Area of interest

CL]

A

— Road

5 MILES

—-— Stream, mostly intermittant

Image subarea

O City, town, or village
—- Province boundary
No. 53001.

#### Horrocks-Ibbotson Company *v.*United States,

petition 6687-R (Rochester).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From the record it was held that, the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Straw Hat Pizza, et al.

 CIV. S-04-1882 W BS KJM

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KATHLEEN FINNERTY, SBN 157638

LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH

1201 K Street, Suite 1100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 442-1111

Facsimile: (916) 448-1709

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SEHHAT MOSTAFA and OLGA MOSTAFA

dba STRAW HAT PIZZA; and DOES 1

through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV. S 04-1882 WBS KJM

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-01882-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Straw Hat Pizza, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S-04-1882 W BS KJM

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, JAMES

SANFORD, and defendants, SEHHAT MOSTAFA and OLGA MOSTAFA dba STRAW HAT

PIZZA, the parties hereby request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from the

above-entitled action.

Dated: _________, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

_/s/ Scott Hubbard, IV__________

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff James Sanford

Dated: _________, 2005 LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH

Signature on Fi.

KATHLEEN FINNERTY

Attorneys for Defendant Sehhat Mostafa and

Olga Mostafa dba Straw Hat Pizza

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S-04-

1882 WBS KJM, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 6, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01882-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEREK RICHARDSON, a/k/a Weasel,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00152-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00595-BO)

Submitted: June 24, 2014 Decided: June 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district 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 motion 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED