alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Steven Lashway, Petitioner, v William D. Brown, as Acting Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[721 NYS2d 572]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from possessing contraband, counterfeiting a document and making a threat. Initially, we note that the Attorney General concedes, and our review of the record confirms, that there is insufficient evidence to support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of pos*736sessing contraband and counterfeiting. Accordingly, these charges must be annulled and expunged from petitioner’s institutional record *(see, Matter of Diaz v Goord,*263 AD2d 630; *Matter of Smythe v McClellan,*226 AD2d 840, 842).

Turning to the remaining charges, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the information provided by a confidential informant, constitute substantial evidence to support the charge of threatening a correction officer *(see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann,*85 NY2d 113, 119). Moreover, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the hearing was untimely. Notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion, the seven-day rule is inapplicable *(see,*7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]) because the record discloses that at the time of the incident, petitioner was already in restrictive confinement on an unrelated matter *(see, Matter of Headley v Goord,*274 AD2d 714; *Matter of Nelson v Selsky,*239 AD2d 795). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review and, in any event, are lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, on the law, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of the charges of possessing contraband and counterfeiting; petition granted to that extent, respondents are directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.
251 La. 590

#### Mrs. Frances Tucker OWEN, Administratrix, v. ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 48551.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1967.

Reheai’ing Denied Jan. 15, 1968.

Charles W. Wilson, Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thibaut, Baton Rouge, for applicant.

H. Alva Brumfield, Sylvia Roberts, Emile M. Weber, Baton Rouge, Normann & Normann, Frank S. Normann, New Orleans, Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Wallace A. Hunter, Robert L. Kleinpeter, Baton Rouge, for respondents.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The facts and issues in this case are identical with those in Webb v. Zurich Insurance Co., 251 La. 558, 205 So.2d 398, with which it was consolidated for trial and appeal.

For the reasons therein assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit against the Zurich Insurance Company are reversed; the exceptions of no cause and no right of action filed by the company are overruled; and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment against the Zurich Insurance Company and in fav- or of Mrs. Frances Tucker Owen, individually and in her representative capacity, in the amount of $208,698, apportioned $156,198 to her individually and $17,500 each to her three minor children, Sally Tucker Owen, James Kimbrough Owen, Jr., and John Ludwell Owen, with legal interest *411from judicial demand until paid. All costs are to be paid by the Zurich Insurance Company.

HAMITER, J., concurs in the result.

McCALEB and HAMLIN, JJ., dissent.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  First Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    First     First    Standard
                                   quarter   quarter   error on  Standard     2002
Type                                 2002      2001      2002    error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  122,885   121,148       230        326       100

  Occupied........................  108,120   106,794       243        344        88
    Owner occupied................   73,327    72,131       245        346        60
    Renter occupied...............   34,793    34,663       197        279        28

  Vacant..........................   14,765    14,354       137        193        12
    Year-round vacant.............   11,259    10,813       121        170         9
      For rent....................    3,539     3,135        69         95         3
      For sale only...............    1,253     1,141        42         57         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      792       794        33         47         1
      Held off market.............    5,675     5,743        87        124         5
        For occasional use........    1,865     1,853        51         71         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.    1,119     1,163        39         56         1
        For other reasons.........    2,691     2,727        61         86         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,506     3,541        69         98         3
#### Ruth Lipton, Individually and as Executrix of Conrad Lipton, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Lockheed Aircraft Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 22, 1953.

*Gravath, Swaine & Moore*for Curtiss-Wright Corporation, defendant.

*William A. Hyman*for plaintiffs.

Hofstadter, J.

Motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. The plaintiffs are residents of this State who sued to recover damages for wrongful death of their decedent, who was killed in an airplane crash in Egypt. The plaintiffs charge the defendants with negligence in the manufacture of the airplane. The complaint pleads the law of Egypt, its substance and legal effect. Therefore the action is founded upon Egyptian law and the substantive rights of the parties are governed by the law of Egypt, the place of the wrong.

The death of the plaintiffs’ decedent occurred on August 31, 1950. The action was commenced on December 23, 1952. Defendant Curtiss-Wright Corporation contends that the action is barred by the two-year limitation of section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law. This contention has already been rejected by Mr. Justice Benvenga on a motion made in the action by the other defendant *(Lipton*v. *Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,*204 Misc. 692). The court there held that section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law applies only to deaths resulting from wrongs committed within the State.

*694The two-year limitation in section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law cannot be removed from its context and applied as a bar to actions brought under the statute of another State or foreign country *(Janes*v. *Sackman Bros.,*177 F. 2d 928). The limitation in section 130 is a specific Statute of Limitations applying only to actions brought pursuant to that section for deaths resulting from wrongs committed within the State of New York.

I find no merit in the defendant’s argument that unless section 130 is applied to this action there will be discrimination in favor of actions based on deaths occurring in another jurisdiction over actions for deaths occurring in this jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Civil Practice Act was designed to give a resident of this State the benefit of this State’s limitations statute if more favorable than the statute prevailing in the jurisdiction where the cause arose, while restricting a nonresident to the shorter limitation. It was not designed “ to drive residents of this State into other States for the purpose of preserving and enforcing their claims as against a Statute of Limitations.” *(National Surety Co.*v. *Ruffin,*242 N. Y. 413, 418.)

In this case it does not appear, and the defendant makes no claim that the action was barred in Egypt, where the cause of action arose. The limitation of section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law should not be applied to a case clearly outside its provisions. It should not be extended by construction to apply to deaths resulting from wrongs committed in a foreign jurisdiction.
### {In Archive} ExxonMobil McElmo Creek Unit Shaheerah Kelly to: christopherjlee, mohanrasthana, morrismuskett 07/18/2005 08:33 AM Cc: Gerardo Rios
From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US To: christopherjlee@navajo.org, mohanrasthana@navajo.org, morrismuskett@navajo.org, Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive. Per our last phone call, I will be faxing you a letter sent to our office from ExxonMobil and the PSD permit issued to the company by the EPA Region 8 office. I will be forwarding emails to you containing information and other documents that I received electronically from Exxonmobil. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks.
Shaheerah Kelly Air Division, Permits Office U S EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579
#### PLASTI-KRAFT CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation; and Campbell C. Koehn, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Arthur W. STILLWAGON, Individually and on behalf of Plasti-Kraft Corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 14, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### OHIO REALTY INVESTMENT CORP., an Ohio corporation, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BANK OF WEST PALM BEACH, etc., et al., Appellees. OHIO REALTY INVESTMENT CORP., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BANK OF WEST PALM BEACH, etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 71-776, 71-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50179

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCTAVIO MORALES-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CR-847-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Octavio Morales-Ortiz (“Morales”) has appealed the sentence

imposed following his conviction for attempting to reenter the

United States illegally following deportation. Morales contends

that his state-court marijuana-possession conviction was not a

“drug trafficking crime,” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) and did not

constitute an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, Morales argues, the district

court erred in adjusting his offense level upward by 16 levels

pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Morales concedes that the court 
No. 

-2-

resolved this issue to the contrary in United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2014352EN.01001401.xml

| 7.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/14

---

Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

2014/C 352/07

Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the July round of 2015.

1

The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission’s thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).

2

Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 16 December 2014 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.

Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status of the requests.

More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

1

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en

2

---
250 La. 537

#### Willie Ray COMEAUX v. ASHY ENTERPRISES, INC.

No. 48645.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 14, 1967.

In re: Ashy Enterprises, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 195 So.2d 752.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
EXHIBIT 32



       CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C.SS.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the annual report of Decorator Industries, Inc.
("the Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 29, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, William A. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Michael K. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.




           Date: March 25, 2008                By: /s/ William A. Johnson
                 --------------                    -----------------------------
                                                       William A. Johnson,
                                                       Chief Executive Officer


           Date: March 25, 2008                By: /s/ Michael K. Solomon
                 --------------                    -----------------------------
                                                       Michael K. Solomon,
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Steven R. Springsteel, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Verity, Inc.;



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 officer 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 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: January 9, 2004



|/s/ STEVEN R. SPRINGSTEEL                                                      
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Steven R. Springsteel                                                          
|Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
#### Samuel BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-33.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 27, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7641
FRANK BLAKESLEE COX, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; W. WILSON, Sergeant; LIEUTENANT JOHNSON, Watch Commander; LINDA HAGAMAN, Chief Secretary, Defendants - Appellees, and V. FITZGERALD, Nurse; B. ARCHER, Nurse; SERGEANT TAYLOR; NURSE CLAIRMOUNT; LEVESTER THOMPSON, Head Doctor, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-549-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Blakeslee Cox, III, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Frank Blakeslee Cox, III, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of some of the Defendants and denying the motion to dismiss claims against other Defendants in this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.We deny Cox’s motion for an immediate transfer to the protective custody unit at Keen Mountain Correctional Center and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

38 39 40 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/07 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
260 La. 134

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. W. W. POUNDERS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51971.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1971.

In re: W. W. Pounders applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, cer-tiorari and prohibition.

Application granted. The ruling below is reversed; the case is remanded and the trial Judge is ordered to hold forthwith an evidentiary hearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated February 2, 2000,
except for Note 18, which is as of February 14, 2000, relating to the
financial statements, which appears on page 24 of Corning Incorporated's
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1999. We also
consent to the application of such report to the financial statement schedule
appearing on page 54 of the Form 10-K/A when such schedule is read in
conjunction with the financial statements referred to in our report. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


New York, New York
August 23, 2000
#### Quincy BURKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         225,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,488,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                   321,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,542,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,108,300
<PP&E>                                       4,155,350
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,333,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,251,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,694,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,476,543
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,251,661
<SALES>                                     14,867,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,867,332
<CGS>                                       11,971,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,713,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,010,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (482,570)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,528,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,528,197)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.97)


</TABLE>