alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alice Harrell et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 172]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 25, 1994, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff was shot in the leg by an unidentified assailant standing near the rear exit doors while she was riding on a bus owned by the defendant. Prior to the gun shot, the bus driver had not noticed any unusual activity on the bus. The gun shot came as a complete surprise to the bus driver and the plaintiff and was fired just when the bus stopped and had its doors open. There was evidence that the assailant fired the shot from outside of the bus through the rear exit doors. When the bus driver made his way to the rear of the bus to investigate, the assailant had already left the scene.

The New York City Transit Authority owes no duty to protect a person on its premises from assault by a third person absent facts establishing a special relationship between the Transit Authority and the person assaulted. If a special relationship is found to exist, the plaintiff must establish that the Transit Authority did not exercise reasonable care in protecting the plaintiff under the circumstances *(see, Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*55 NY2d 175, 178; *Alleyne v New York City Tr. Auth.,*208 AD2d 666; *Rabadi v County of Westchester,*160 AD2d 858). Here, there are no facts establishing a special relationship and, in any event, the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 49698.

#### Protests 76588-K, etc., of Continental Grain Co. et al. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Celine, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Richardson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 6, C. D. 823). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained to this extent.
EX-10.31



 Exhibit 10.31 
 SUMMARY OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 
 The Addus HomeCare
Corporation (the “Corporation”) independent director compensation policy provides that independent directors receive an annual retainer of $35,000 for service on the Corporation’s board of directors, $1,500 per in person
scheduled board meeting (whether attended in person or telephonically) and $750 per telephonic board meeting. 
 The
chairmen of the Corporation’s audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and corporate governance committee receive an additional annual retainer of $15,000, $10,000 and $7,500, respectively. Independent directors who serve on the
audit committee receive $1,500 per audit committee meeting attended and independent directors who serve on other committees receive $1,000 per committee meeting attended. Independent directors are also reimbursed for reasonable expenses
incurred in attending board of directors meetings, committee meetings and stockholder meetings. 
 In addition, each independent
director is entitled to receive an annual grant of restricted shares of the Corporation’s common stock valued at $40,000, which shall be awarded following the Corporation’s annual meeting each year beginning with the Corporation’s
2015 annual meeting. Each grant of restricted stock to an independent director shall vest on the first anniversary of the date of issuance. 
 The foregoing independent director compensation is effective March 1, 2015 and is subject to review and adjustment on the recommendation of the Corporation’s nominating and corporate governance
committee.
# EUR-Lex - 52007DP0193 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DP0193

**European Parliament decision of 22 May 2007 on the setting up and numerical strength of the Standing Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0110 - 0110 *

P6_TA(2007)0193

Delegation to Eurolat

European Parliament decision of 22 May 2007 on the setting up and numerical strength of the Standing Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Rule 188 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its decision of 10 March 2004 on the number of interparliamentary delegations, delegations to joint parliamentary committees and delegations to parliamentary cooperation committees [1],

- having regard to the Constituent Act of 8 November 2006 of the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly;

1. Decides to set up a Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly;

2. Decides that the numerical strength of the Delegation shall be 60 full members and 30 substitutes;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission for information.

[1] OJ C 102 E, 28.4.2004, p. 635.

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 31
  
   Page - 44
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
  
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of  XRAYMEDIA, Inc;Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 annual report;Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have; 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 /s/Raymond C. Dabney
 
   
 
   Page - 45
  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
  
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of  XRAYMEDIA, Inc;Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 annual report;Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have; 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 /s/Raymond C. Dabney
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350),
the undersigned officer of Sysview Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the "Form 10-KSB/A") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in
all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                            /s/ William Hawkins
Date:  August 16, 2006
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            William Hawkins, Acting Chief Financial Officer,
                              Chief Operating Officer and Secretary


         This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Damico, Genevieve

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:38 AM

To: Ogulei, David; Woolums, Jane

Subject: FW: Follow-up meeting per your request in your December 19 letter

FYI 

From: Harris, Doug [mailto:doug.harris@veolia.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:15 AM 

To: Damico, Genevieve 

Subject: Re: Follow-up meeting per your request in your December 19 letter 

Genevieve, 

Good to hear from you....I hope Santa was good to you. And to answer your question NO I am freezing! All 

those days in February look good to me so I will get with the group and get a day picked out. Let you know 

ASAP. Thanks for the opportunity to meet and look forward to seeing you. 

On 8 January 2015 at 10:19, Damico, Genevieve <damico.genevieve@epa.gov> wrote: 

Doug, 

 

I hope you are keeping warm. 

 

I wanted to connect with you on your request for a meeting included in the cover letter to your comments on 

the draft Title V renewal permit so it doesn’t get lost in the hustle and bustle. We are currently busily working 

through the various comments we received but our calendars should free up some in early February. Could we 

plan to meet in the morning of February 10, 11, or 12? 

-- 

Doug Harris

General Manager

Veolia ES Technical Solutions

7 Mobile Avenue

Sauget, IL 62201

Office 618-271-2804 

Cell 618-616-7420

Fax 618-271-2128
2

Email: doug.harris@veolia.com

SERVICE FIRST. SAFETY ALWAYS.

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 

communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Neal C. Isaacson,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release No. 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 13, 2008

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Neal C.  Isaacson                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Neal C. Isaacson                              |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                       |
|   |   | (principal financial  and accounting officer) |

 

----
(Reap. Dec. 10097)

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 985133.

(Decided November 6, 1961)

*Bays, Bushy & Rivkin*for the plaintiff.

*William B. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement relates to certain perfumes, exported from France on or about March 19,1960.

The appeal has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel, on the basis of which I find that the articles involved are described on the final list (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that the proper basis for the determination of the value of said articles is cost of production, as defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; and that the cost of production in each instance is the invoiced units, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v J. W. Gaston, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 561]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered December 3, 1992, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant shot and killed his brother in 1991. At trial, he proffered an insanity defense, arguing that voices had instructed him to commit the murder. Further, he argued that he was suffering from the delusion that his brother had tried to poison him by putting "roots” on him, and that he was controlled by his brother.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the court’s instruction to the jury concerning his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect *(see,*Penal Law § 40.15) was insufficient to meet the requirements of *People v Kohl*(72 NY2d 191) because it failed to make clear the People’s primary, ultimate, and nontransferable burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defendant’s exceptions to the court’s charge were insufficient to preserve this argument for appeal *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Somers,*78 NY2d 1058). In any event, the court’s instruction to the jury, as a whole, complied with the guidelines of *People v Kohl (supra)*and properly conveyed the correct standard *(see, People v Kohl, supra; People v Robson,*197 AD2d 602; *People v Somers,*161 AD2d 954, *affd*78 NY2d 1058, *supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



Certification Of Periodic Financial Report



(Section 906 Certification)



Timothy P. Walbridge and Beth Sanders hereby certify as follows:



1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of 1st Centennial Bancorp.



2. The Form 10-KSB of 1st Centennial Bancorp for the Year Ended December 31, 2003 complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of 1st Centennial Bancorp.



|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2004 |  | /s/ Timothy P. Walbridge                     
|                     |  | Timothy P. Walbridge, Chief Executive Officer
|                    
|                     | 
|Date: March 24, 2004 |  | /s/ Beth Sanders                             
|                     |  | Beth Sanders, Chief Financial Officer
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC HODGSON, ) 2:04-cv-02436-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., )

)

Defendant. )

)

Attorney Kevin Whiteford and the law firm of Serlin &

Whiteford LLP have filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Plaintiff’s

counsel of record. The motion is scheduled to be heard approximately

nine (9) days before the discovery completion date. Since the

granting of the motion would leave Plaintiff without counsel at this

apparently critical stage of the proceeding, counsel is required to

have Plaintiff personally appear at the scheduled hearing. If this

cannot be arranged, then counsel is to reschedule the hearing through

the courtroom deputy at a time when Plaintiff can attend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02436-GEB-GGH Document 38 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to

defendant’s May 5, 2006, motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiff's May 5, 2006, motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file and serve

objections to defendant’s May 5, 2006, motion to dismiss. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be

filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: May 15, 2006.

/mp/004

arms2136.36

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 1
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 1 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH FREDERICK DEYULIA,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. JOHN W. SUTHERS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections; FRANK LUNA, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 00-1073 (D.C. No. 00-Z-40) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. Petitioner Joseph Frederick DeYulia appeals from the district court ’s denial of his habeas petition, filed pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act, petitioner must-2-

obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) before his appeal can proceed before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because the district court denied petitioner’s motion for COA, petitioner must demons trate “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” before COA can issue. See id. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis ; that request is granted. In his habeas application, petitioner challenged imposition of a mandatory parole period as part of his criminal sentence. He claimed the provision violated the separation of powers doctrine and double jeopar dy, and, because his parole was revoked, resulted in a period of incarceration greater than the presumptive maximum for his crime. The district court rejected these issues on the merits and denied petitioner’s habeas application. On app eal, petitioner argues these same issues. We construe petitioner’s allegations liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Our review of petitioner’s arguments and the applic able law convinces us that, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court ’s order dated-3-

January 18, 2000, petitioner has not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of ap pealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DAVID H. MOFFETT, Hospitalman Third Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 189, 36 CMR 345

No. 19,129

April 8, 1966

*Captain L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hanthorn,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. *Lieutenant JeanE. Van Slate,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

This case involves precisely the same issue as United States v Kugima, 16 USCMA 183, 36 CMR 339, this day decided: Whether Colonel Andrew I. Lyman was authorized to act as the Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, and thus appoint the general court-martial which tried and sentenced the accused. For the reasons set forth in United States v Kugima, supra, we find that he occupied the stated capacity during the period in question.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.