alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Feeko, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.

June 5, 1981:

Argued April 8, 1981,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three.

*James S. Palermo,*for petitioner.

*William Kennedy,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Elsa D. Newman-Silverstine,*Assistant Attorney General, *Richard Wagner,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Opinion by President

Judge Crumlish,

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied Joseph Feeko benefits on the basis of *518willful misconduct connected with his work.1 We affirm.

The referee made the following findings of fact:

> 1. The claimant was last employed as a driller helper by Beltrami Enterprises for aproximately four years at a final hourly rate of . $5.47, and his last day of work was November 10, 1978.

> 2. Claimant was discharged on his last day of work for stealing gasoline for use in his own automobile.

> 3. On November 10, 1978, at approximately 10 a.m., the claimant used a company gas pump for the purpose of filling a driller’s truck with gasoline. In addition to filling the truck, the claimant filled a five-gallon can with gasoline for his own use.

> 4. The claimant did not require the use of an additional five gallons of gasoline while working on the job site.

Feeko argues, and we agree, that the evidence fails to establish that he stole gasoline for use in his own automobile. However, whether Feeko actually used the gasoline in his automobile is not dispositive to a finding of willful misconduct. He admits taking the additional five gallons of gasoline at the time he filled the company truck. Feeko’s purported reason for taking the gasoline was to use it as a cleaning solvent for tools at his work site and to start a drill motor. The employer testified that the use of gasoline as a cleaning solvent was contrary to company policy and that the drill at Feeko’s job site was electrically powered.

*519We are compelled to agree with the referee in that Feeko took gasoline from the employer’s pump and brought it to a job site where it was not required. This clearly is conduct in disregard of standards of behavior which Feeko’s employer can rightfully expect.2*Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 97, 309 A.2d 165, 168-69 (1973). We are not concerned with what use was made of the gasoline but rather that the actual taking was in itself willful misconduct.

Affirmed.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at B-78-3-H-424, dated November 13, 1979, is affirmed.

1

 Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802(e).'

2

 Whether conduct resulting in the discharge of an employee constitutes willful misconduct under the Act is a question of law subject to this Court’s judicial review. *Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 305, 405 A.2d 1387 (1979).
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr., Treasurer****and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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.               To my knowledge, 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 period covered by the Report.
| Date:  March 13,  2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Salvatore  R. DeFrancesco, Jr.    |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   |   | Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.         |
|                             |   |   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                  |        |        |                                       |        |  |  |

 

83

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEONARD ARTHUR READ, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 182, 39 CMR 182

No. 21,615

March 14, 1969

*Lieutenant Donald B. Brant, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, *s,*
      *183
      *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had - been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b)' of the Code.

In United States v Donohéw, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement .has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8184 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the scheduled 

reduction in the deduction for foreign-derived intangible income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself and Mr. MORELLE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the scheduled reduction in the deduction for foreignderived intangible income. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Growing and Pre5 serving Innovation in America Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SCHEDULED REDUCTION IN THE DE7 DUCTION FOR FOREIGN-DERIVED INTAN8 GIBLE INCOME. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 250(a)(3) of the Internal 

10 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘paragraph 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8184 IH

1 (1)’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(B) 

2 shall be applied by substituting ‘37.5 percent’ for ‘50 per3 cent’.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Gary Baker et al., Plaintiffs, v David Younts, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

September 1, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Wertime, Robinson & Ries (Michael M. Emminger*of counsel), for plaintiffs. *Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case & Black-more (William P. Sorone, Jr.,*of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Edward S. Conway, J.

This is a motion by the plaintiffs for a protective order to vacate a notice for discovery and inspection of plaintiff’s treating physicians’ records and reports, upon the ground that the information requested is not discoverable because it was matter prepared for purposes of litigation.

The action was instituted to recover money damages for personal injury and property damage allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs in an accident that occurred on June 30, 1977 involving a motorcycle owned by plaintiff Richard Baker and one owned by defendant David Younts.

*133The defendant served a notice of discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3101, requiring plaintiff to furnish defendant with "any and all reports of plaintiffs attending physicians concerning the injuries allegedly sustained in the accident mentioned and described in plaintiffs complaint.”

The plaintiff contends that the notice is objectionable because it seeks production of material privileged by CPLR 3101 (subd [d]); that is, medical reports prepared upon request of the plaintiffs attorneys for the purpose of preparing the case for trial.

This court cannot agree with the contention of the plaintiff. Certainly this material (reports of attending physicians) is not prepared solely for litigation. The plaintiff did not treat with his attending physicians for the injuries sustained in the accident solely because he wanted to commence a lawsuit or one was contemplated, but because his injuries required medical treatment at the time.

Further, the generally accepted, liberal interpretation of CPLR article 31 compels the conclusion that the medical reports sought are material and relevant *(Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,*21 NY2d 403; *Moses v Woodbury,*54 AD2d 961; *Greuling v Breakey,*56 AD2d 540, 541). Accordingly, a party should not be permitted to assert a physical condition in seeking damages and at the same time assert the privilege of material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101, subd [d]) to prevent the other party from ascertaining the truth of the claim *(Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287).

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is denied, and the plaintiffs are directed to provide the defendant with the medical reports as requested (see *Hall v Saratoga Hosp.,*Supreme Ct, Schenectady County, June 26, 1978, Quinn, J.).
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v STEPHEN A. GAUTHIER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

21 USCMA 313, 45 CMR 87

No. 25,052

April 14, 1972

*Colonel George J. MeCartin, Jr., Captain Bruce Topman,*and *Captain*J. *Houston Gordon*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain David E. Wilson, Captain Benjamin P. Fishburne, III,*and *Captain M. Douglas Deitchler*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Judge:

We granted review to determine whether the accused’s unauthorized possession of Lysergic Acid Diethyl- • amide (LSD) in violation of a general regulation, and wrongful possession of marihuana on the same occasion were separate for the purposes of punishment. For the reasons set out in United States v Meyer, 21 USCMA 310, 45 CMR 84, decided this date, we conclude that the offenses are separately punishable. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review.

Judge Duncan concurs.

Darden, Chief Judge:

I concur in the result. See my opinion concurring in the result in United States v Meyer, 21 USCMA 310, 45 CMR 84 (1972).
#### EDITH A. ZEIGLER, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Richman, Berry & Ferren*and *Mr. Robert*TP. *Page*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Theodore A. Winard*for the respondents.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
Before the Third Division,

April 7, 1949

No. 53011.

#### Albert Alfandari et al. *v.*United States,

protests 76950-K, etc. (New York).

*282Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Lawrence Schaffer, certify that:

I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial, 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 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 registrant as
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:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting; and

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



                             /s/ Lawrence Schaffer
                             -------------------------------
                             Lawrence Schaffer
                             Chief Financial Officer
                             January 11, 2008
#### Harold J. McLaughlin, Respondent, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

May 11, 1977

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (L. Kevin Sheridan*and *Renee Modry*of counsel), for appellant. *Harold J. McLaughlin,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously modified by vacating the award in *57favor of plaintiff and by remanding the matter to the court below for an assessment of damages and, as so modified, aifirmed, without costs.

The matter was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, based on an action for moneys due from the pension plan administered by the defendant. The amount of the plaintiff’s pension must be computed in accordance with the mortality, service and other tables adopted by the defendant’s board of trustees for that purpose (see Administrative Code of City of New York, § B3-11.0). Since the judgment of the court below was concededly based on tables other than those adopted by the board, it cannot be sustained. Although it was argued by defendant that an article 78 proceeding was the proper vehicle to achieve the relief sought by plaintiff, nevertheless since it is conceded that the plaintiff’s pension has been computed, an action at law is now proper (see *Toscano v McGoldrick,*300 NY 156). It should be noted that any award of interest is limited to 3% (see *Post v New York City Employees’ Retirement System,*41 AD2d 606).

We are compelled to observe that the record does not disclose any explanation on the part of the defendant to account for the extraordinary delay in determining the final payments due plaintiff. In the absence of such an explanation, it is our view that the apparent protracted delay was unreasonable. We, incidentally, note that a city employee should not be required, in anticipation of his retirement, to accumulate a substantial sum of money upon which he can draw pending receipt of retirement payments to which he is entitled. [See 90 Misc 2d 509.]

Concur: Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Thompson, JJ.
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd.

Form 40-F

We consent to the use of our report dated March 31, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, included in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Ernst & Young LLP

Chartered Accountants



Toronto, Ontario Canada

March 31, 2004
No. 49217.

#### Protests 949352-G, etc., of Asturr Trading Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 16400 the court dismissed the protests.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 POS (No. 333-37914 filed on July 5, 2000) of Genius Products, Inc. and
Subsidiaries of our report dated March 20, 2001, on our audit of the financial
statements of Genius Products, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000,
and for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2000.


                                       /S/ CACCIAMATTA ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

                                           CACCIAMATTA ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Irvine, California
April 17, 2001
March 10, 2011

Dear Dennis McLerran US EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Ave Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Dennis:

Washington Department of Ecology and the Southwest Clean Air Agency support the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed SIP correction to narro w approval of WAC 173- 400-040 (which includes the RACT requirement a nd emissions detrimental provision) and the local air agency counterparts (i ncluding Southwest Clean Air Ag ency’s SWCAA 400-040) in the State Implementation Plan to include only Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) pollutants and their precursors.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Clark Robert D. Elliott Program Manager Director Air Quality Program Southwest Clean Air Agency

cc: Kay Shirey, ATG
Laura Watson, ATG Rick Albright, EPA
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WALTER SLAUGHTER, JR., Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 28,525

January 10, 1975

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Major Franklin D. Arness, Captain Steven J. McAuliffe, Captain Sammy S. Knight*and *Captain Leland M. Stenehjem, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain Robert L. Powell*and *Captain Joel M. Martel*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to *United States v Driver,*23 USCMA —, 49 CMR — (December 13, 1974). Because the same question concerning speedy trial is presented under comparable facts and circumstances, our holding in that case is dispositive. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Tobin V. Levy, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2005 of Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Partners II, LLC;

     2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  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 report;

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

     4. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I are responsible
for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

        a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,  including its
consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by  others  within  those
entities,  particularly  during the  period in which  this  report is being
prepared;

        b.  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,  as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

        c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the  registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely
to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal  control over financial
reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent  evaluation  of internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the  registrant's  auditors  and the board of  directors  of
Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Strategies LLC:

        a. All  significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses  in the
design or operation of internal control over financial  reporting which are
reasonably  likely to adversely affect the registrant's  ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

        b. Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or
other employees who have a significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial reporting.

Date:   August 15, 2005

/s/ Tobin V. Levy
-----------------------------------
Name:   Tobin V. Levy
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### SALVATORE PIRO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Beggans & Keale*and *Mr. Geoffrey GauTkin*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Warren, Ghasan, Leyner & Holland*and *Mr. Arthur N. H’ltalia*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Granted.