alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Brusco West 78th Street Associates, Appellant, v State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 232]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner maximum base rent increases for two rent-controlled apartments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that respondent did consider all of the items of proof offered by petitioner bearing upon its correction of Code violations, including letters from tenants “indicating violation removal,” as invited in respondent’s forms, but found the proof insufficient to show correction of all rent impairing violations and at least 80% of all other violations (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-405 [h] [6]; 9 NYCRR 2202.3 [h]). This finding was not irrational. At best, petitioner’s evidence permitted a different finding with respect to a fact-intensive issue falling within the area of respondent’s expertise *(see, Matter of West Vil. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*277 AD2d 111). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY LEE WAIDE, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GRAIG BELCOURT, Doctor, Health Care

Provider at Rynning Unit; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17518

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01522-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Lee Waide, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17518

 § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual

determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Waide’s action because Waide failed to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548

U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (explaining that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and

requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of

administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

Waide’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM           Exhibit 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Northeast Utilities

  The Connecticut Light and Power Company (100%)
     - CL&P Capital, L.P. (3%)
     - Research Park, Inc. (100%)
     - The City and Suburban Electric and Gas Company (100%)
     - Electric Power Incorporated (100%)
     - The Connecticut Transmission Corporation (100%)
     - The Nutmeg Power Company (100%)
     - The Connecticut Steam Company (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (34.5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (24.5%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (12%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (9.5%)

  Public Service Company of New Hampshire (100%)
     - Properties, Inc. (100%)
     - New Hampshire Electric Company (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (7%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (5%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (4%)

  North Atlantic Energy Corporation (100%)

  North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (100%)

  Western Massachusetts Electric Company (100%)
     - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (9.5%)
     - Yankee Atomic Electric Company (7%)
     - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (3%)
     - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (2.5%)

  Holyoke Water Power Company (100%)
     - Holyoke Power and Electric Company (100%)

  Charter Oak Energy, Inc. (100%)
     - Charter Oak (Paris) Inc. (100%)
     - COE Development Corporation (100%)
     - COE (UK) Corp. (79.9%)
     - COE (Gencoe) Corp. (49%)
         - COE (UK) Corp. (20.1%)
     - COE Argentina I Corp. (100%)
     - COE Argentina II Corp. (100%)
     - COE Tejona Corporation (100%)
     - COE Ave Fenix Corporation (100%)

  Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (100%)

  Northeast Utilities Service Company (100%)

  The Quinnehtuk Company (100%)

  The Rocky River Realty Company (100%)



  Mode 1 Communications, Inc.  (100%)

  NUSCO Energy Partners, Inc. (100%)
  HEC Inc. (100%)
     - HEC International Corporation (100%)
     - HEC Energy Consulting Canada, Inc. (100%)
     - Southwest HEC Energy Services L.L.C. (100%)
#### James Robert HAMMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42725.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.

CARLTON, ROBERTS, ERVIN, Mc-CAIN and DEKLE> JJ„ concur.
FORM 10-K                                    Page 193

Exhibit 4.3(f)

         THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
                c/o Prudential Capital Group
                     Four Gateway Center
                  Newark, New Jersey 07102



                     As of June 30, 1995



CONE MILLS CORPORATION
1201 Maple Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27405
Attention: David Bray, Treasurer

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This letter is to amend the Note Agreement dated as of
August 13, 1992, as amended previously (the "Note Agreement")
between Cone Mills Corporation (the "Company") and The
Prudential Insurance Company of American ("Prudential").
Capitalized words in this letter shall have the same meaning
as in the Note Agreement except as otherwise defined herein.
Prudential and the Company agree that the Note Agreement shall
be amended as follows:

     1.   Paragraph 6A is hereby amended and restated in its
          entirety as follows:

          6A. Funds from Operations to Debt Ratio. The
          Company covenants that it will not permit its Funds
          from Operations to Debt Ratio to be less than 20%
          at the end of any fiscal quarter during 1995 and
          26% at the end of any fiscal quarter thereafter.

     2.   Except as amended herein, all of the terms,
          conditions and obligations of the Note Agreement
          shall remain in full force and effect.

     3.   This letter supercedes our letter to you dated as
          of June 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached
          hereto.


<PAGE>
FORM 10-K                                    Page 194

Exhibit 4.3(f)   (continued)



Cone Mills Corporation
As of June 30, 1995
Page 2



If you agree to these changes, please sign each copy of this
letter enclosed and return two of them to Prudential, at which
time this letter shall become a binding agreement as of the
date first above written.

Very truly yours,

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY OF AMERICA

By: /s/ Robert Derrick    
    Vice President

Agreed to and accepted
as of June 30, 1995

CONE MILLS CORPORATION

By: /s/ David E. Bray  
    Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           133,455
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       5,312
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 138,767
<CASH>                                          20,692
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               8,631
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,635
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 95,998
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             50,564
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 14,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,635
<PREMIUMS>                                      48,904
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,955
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  79
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  18,218
<BENEFITS>                                      27,532
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      4,276
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            28,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,646
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  65,775<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 63,486<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Before reinsurance recoverable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 11485.

#### Jacobs *v.*The City of Norwalk.

Decided January 18, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Huron county.

*Mr. Stephen M. Young,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. R. Primer,*city solicitor; *Mr. J. R. McKnight*and *Mr. A. V. Andrezvs,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J.,, Davis, Sitauck and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>



                                                                      

                               CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

                                        Computation in Support of
                                   Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                            Years 1992 to 1996
                                         (Thousands of Dollars)



                                                 1996        1995         1994         1993         1992
                                                 ----        ----         ----         ----         ----

<S>                                         <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>    <C>    <C>

Earnings

Net Income ......................           $ 694,085**  $  723,850   $  734,270    $  658,522   $  604,088
Federal Income Tax ..............             355,590       328,600      374,500       270,800      252,600
Federal Income Tax Deferred .....              49,510        78,330       73,710       106,470       81,670
Investment Tax Credits Deferred .              (8,910)       (9,310)      (9,620)      (12,260)     (13,800)
                                                                 

Total Earnings Before
  Federal Income Tax ............            1,090,275    1,121,470    1,172,860     1,023,532      924,558

Fixed Charges* ..................              343,308      350,254      327,353       320,554      315,305
                                            

Total Earnings Before
  Federal Income Tax and
  Fixed Charges ................             1,433,583   $1,471,724   $1,500,213    $1,344,086   $1,239,863





*Fixed Charges

Interest on Long-Term Debt .....            $  296,443   $  287,842   $  277,685    $  272,781   $  270,469
Amortization of Debt Discount,
  Premium and Expense ..........                11,376       14,075       11,376         8,975        3,974
Interest on Component of Rentals                18,157       19,383       18,439        19,077       19,175
Other Interest ................                 17,332       28,954       19,853        19,721       21,687

Total Fixed Charges ...........             $  343,308   $  350,254   $  327,353    $  320,554   $  315,305



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                4.18         4.20         4.58          4.19         3.93






** Reflects  increased  depreciation  expense,  but  not  the  net  gain,
   resulting from refunding of preferred stock. See  "Note B  Capitalization
   - Preferred  Stock  Refunding" to the financial statements in Item 8 of the
   Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, David H. Roche, certify that:



1.

        I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;




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 flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.

        The Company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.




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 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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.






Date:

        July 15, 2008

        

        /s/ David H. RochePresident and Chief Executive Officer




---
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135781 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan RACHEL SHAFFER, Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135781 

 COA: 275299 

Macomb CC: 04-002993-NH 

ST. JOSEPH’S MERCY HOSPITALS OF 

MACOMB and ST. JOSEPH’S MERCY OF 

MACOMB, a/k/a MERCY MOUNT CLEMENS

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, 

a/k/a TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, PAUL

MOCZARSKI, D.O., and MACOMB 

EMERGENCY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 28, 2008, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 

2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Stone v Williamson (Docket No. 133986). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 24, 2008, 482 Mich 144 (2008), the application is again considered, and 

it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be 

reviewed by this Court. 

MARKMAN, J. (concurring). 

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and the Court 

of Appeals affirmed. MCL 600.2912a(2) provides, in pertinent part, “In an action 

alleging medical malpractice, the plaintiff cannot recover for loss of an opportunity to 

survive or an opportunity to achieve a better result unless the opportunity was greater 

than 50%.” We recently addressed this provision with some considerable lack of 

consensus in Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144 (2008). Given their decisions in Stone, I 

believe it is clear that my six colleagues would either conclude that this is not a lost 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

opportunity cause of action, or, if it is, that plaintiff has satisfied the § 2912a(2) 

requirement. For that reason, I concur in the denial order, even though I would reverse 

had my position in Stone prevailed. 

Plaintiff’s expert testified that the decedent’s premalpractice chance of a better 

result was “greater than 50%.” However, there is no testimony regarding the decedent’s 

postmalpractice chance of a better result. I believe that this is a lost opportunity cause of 

action because “it is possible that the bad outcome would have occurred even if the 

patient had received proper treatment.” Stone, supra at 218 (Markman, J., concurring in 

the result only). Further, because plaintiff has presented no testimony regarding her 

postmalpractice chance of a better result, it is impossible to determine whether plaintiff 

satisfies the § 2912a requirement. Because plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that 

the § 2912a requirement is satisfied, and she has not done so here, I would reverse. 

However, because my interpretation of § 2912a did not carry the day in Stone, I accede to 

the denial order. 

d1028 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2008 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Wayne F. Irmiter, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salton Sea Funding Corporation;





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 flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





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: May 4, 2004





/s/ Wayne F. Irmiter


Wayne F. Irmiter


Vice President and Controller


(chief accounting officer)
#### Jefferson F. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-377.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.