alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Martin S. Kera et al., Appellants, v Margaret DeFilippo, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 340]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 30, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their first cause of action seeking a return of their down payment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including calculation of damages on such cause of action.

In this action seeking, inter alia, a return of plaintiffs’ down payment, it was asserted that title to the property was unmarketable and uninsurable. Supporting this assertion, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that two surveyors who examined the subject property determined that wooden decks encroached almost 10 feet onto the adjacent property and that the boundary line on the north side of the subject property was eight feet south of where it should have been. In addition, because of the encroachment, the decks violated the side yard and setback zoning ordinances of the Village of *288Hastings-on-Hudson. Supreme Court, finding that questions of fact precluded summary judgment, denied the motion. We reverse.

It is well established that a purchaser of real property is entitled to marketable title *(see, Regan v Lanze,*40 NY2d 475; *Loba v Carey,*29 NY2d 302). Here, as the encroachments noted by two surveyors plainly demonstrated that title was unmarketable, plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment and a return of their contract deposit. To the extent that defendant sought to rely on an earlier survey to controvert the opinions of plaintiffs’ surveyors, this did not raise a question of fact precluding summary judgment. We note in this regard that plaintiffs’ title insurer refused to insure the property without an exception to the encroachments, and defendant failed to demonstrate that any reputable title insurer would insure the property as was required by the terms of the contract of sale *(see, Gundel*v *Grady,*184 AD2d 548). Nor did any of the remaining evidence submitted by defendant raise an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion should have been granted. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.
# C_2012016EN.01000501.xml

| 19.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6380 — Bridgepoint/Infront Sports & Media)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 16/02

On 20 December 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6380. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6380. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906CERTIFICATION

 

I,James L. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of Eye Care International, Inc. certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB  for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") which this statementaccompanies  fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |  the information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofEye Care International, Inc.                                                                              |

Dated: November 14, 2003

|  | /s/ *James L. Koenig     *            James L. KoenigChief Financial Officer |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2012142EN.01000601.xml

| 22.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 May 2012

2012/C 142/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2721 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 100,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4329 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,8042 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0996 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2012 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5975 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,333 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6973 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,336 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4435 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,327 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2879 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2939 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8782 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6741 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6195 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 487,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5295 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0465 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,559 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 909,1 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,988 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,833 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,6685 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,855 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5376 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4891 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,288 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2721

JPY

Japanese yen

100,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4329

GBP

Pound sterling

0,8042

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0996

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2012

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5975

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,333

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6973

PLN

Polish zloty

4,336

RON

Romanian leu

4,4435

TRY

Turkish lira

2,327

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2879

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2939

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8782

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6741

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6195

KRW

South Korean won

1 487,92

ZAR

South African rand

10,5295

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0465

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,559

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 909,1

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,988

PHP

Philippine peso

54,833

RUB

Russian rouble

39,6685

THB

Thai baht

39,855

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5376

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4891

INR

Indian rupee

69,288

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2012052EN.01000101.xml

| 22.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6474 — GE/Microsoft/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 52/01

On 10 February 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6474. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6474. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50227

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH MORRIS THOMPSON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-94-CR-89-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

November 29, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Morris Thompson challenges his conviction on four

counts -- conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine base,

distribution of cocaine base on September 2, 1994, possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base on September 2, 1994, and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base on September 5,

1994. 
The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling

Thompson's objection to the striking of potential jurors pursuant

to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) because the government

articulated race-neutral explanations for each challenged strike.

See Purkett v. Elem, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1771 (1995); United States v.

Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1428 (5th Cir. 1995). Also, we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion when limiting

Thompson's cross-examination of Dodionne Watson. See United States

v. Restivo, 8 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115

S.Ct. 54 (1994); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1085 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 201 (1995). 

The district court did not err in denying Thompson's motion to

suppress. Thompson lacks standing to challenge evidence seized

from a search of his girlfriend's person and the officers had

probable cause to search the red Hyundai. See, United States v.

Wilson, 36 F.3d 1298, 1302 (5th Cir. 1994); Charles v. Smith, 894

F.2d 718, 723 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Charles v. Butler,

498 U.S. 957 (1990).

AFFIRMED.
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  Second Quarter 2000 and 1999

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   Second quarter 2000


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.9       7.7       7.8      11.1       7.4
      For rent...........................      2.5       2.0       2.3       3.2       2.2
      For sale only......................      0.9       0.7       0.8       1.1       0.8
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.7       0.7       0.8       0.8       0.6
      Held off market....................      4.7       4.3       3.9       6.0       3.8
        For occasional use...............      1.7       1.5       0.7       2.4       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.0       0.8       1.2       1.1       0.7
        For other reasons................      2.1       2.1       2.0       2.6       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      3.0       3.9       2.8       2.7       2.7

    Occupied.............................     88.1      88.4      89.4      86.1      89.9




                                                   Second quarter 1999

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.2       8.1       7.8      11.3       8.2
      For rent...........................      2.6       2.5       2.3       3.1       2.3
      For sale only......................      0.9       0.8       0.8       1.1       0.9
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.7       0.8       1.0       0.8
      Held off market....................      4.8       4.2       3.9       6.1       4.2
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.3       0.8       2.3       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.9       0.8       0.8       1.0       0.8
        For other reasons................      2.3       2.1       2.3       2.8       1.8

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.9       2.7       2.6       2.7

    Occupied.............................     87.9      88.0      89.4      86.1      89.1
# C_2012018EN.01000201.xml

| 21.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6425 — Imperial Mobility/Lehnkering)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 18/02

On 22 December 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6425. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6425. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit  32.2.2  Certification Required Under Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (the Company) certify that the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended 
December 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, (the Form
10-K) fully 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 that the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Joan S. FreilichJoan S. FreilichDated:  March 29, 2004
**Exhibit 12.1**

**COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIESEXHIBIT 12.1—COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

The followingtable sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges of the Company for theyears ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002, computed by dividingnet fixed charges (interest expense on all debt plus the interest element(one-third) of operating leases) into earnings (earnings before income taxesand fixed charges).

 
| ** **                                       | ** ** | **Years Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| **(dollar amounts in thousands)** | ** ** | **2006**                                    | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** |
| Net earnings                                     |       | $                                           | 2,674,846  |   | $ | 2,528,090 |   | $ | 2,197,574 |   | $ | 2,372,950 |   | $ | 841,779 |   |
| Income tax expense                               |       | 1,659,289                                   |       | 1,619,676 |   | 1,398,299 |   | 1,472,822 |   | 501,244 |   |
| Interest expense                                 |       | 9,133,682                                   |       | 5,616,425 |   | 2,608,338 |   | 1,940,207 |   | 1,461,066 |   |
| Interest portion of  rental expense              |       | 77,055                                      |       | 62,104 |   | 53,562 |   | 36,565 |   | 26,671 |   |
| Earnings available to  cover fixed charges       |       | $                                           | 13,544,872 |   | $ | 9,826,295 |   | $ | 6,257,773 |   | $ | 5,822,544 |   | $ | 2,830,760 |   |
|                                             |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                   |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                 |       | $                                           | 9,133,682  |   | $ | 5,616,425 |   | $ | 2,608,338 |   | $ | 1,940,207 |   | $ | 1,461,066 |   |
| Interest portion  of rental expense              |       | 77,055                                      |       | 62,104 |   | 53,562 |   | 36,565 |   | 26,671 |   |
| Total fixed  charges                             |       | $                                           | 9,210,737  |   | $ | 5,678,529 |   | $ | 2,661,900 |   | $ | 1,976,772 |   | $ | 1,487,737 |   |
|                                             |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               |       | 1.47                                        |       | 1.73 |   | 2.35 |   | 2.95 |   | 1.90 |   |

 

** **

----
# C_2012101EN.01000501.xml

| 4.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/5

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

1,00 % on 1 April 2012

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 April 2012

2012/C 101/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3315 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4404 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83255 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7938 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2035 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5600 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,621 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7007 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1357 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3775 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3677 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2848 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3206 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3386 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6203 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6674 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 496,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,2324 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3781 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4933 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 167,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0607 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,791 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,0237 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,037 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4342 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9593 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,5140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3315

JPY

Japanese yen

109,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4404

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83255

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7938

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2035

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5600

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,621

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7007

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1357

RON

Romanian leu

4,3775

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3677

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2848

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3206

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3386

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6203

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6674

KRW

South Korean won

1 496,77

ZAR

South African rand

10,2324

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3781

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4933

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 167,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0607

PHP

Philippine peso

56,791

RUB

Russian rouble

39,0237

THB

Thai baht

41,037

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4342

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9593

INR

Indian rupee

67,5140

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
#### Lawrence PERRY v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DRIVER’S LICENSE DIVISION.

No. 61499.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Lawrence Perry applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 353 So.2d 318.

Writ denied.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I David F. Holland, Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my
knowledge and belief:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                              
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
Report.

| |                                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ David F. Holland
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003

28
#### UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. J-324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

June *4,*1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.