alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of Walt’s Submarine Sandwiches, Inc., Appellant. Joseph N. Basile, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Prior Jr., J.), entered April 5, 1990 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law article 11, determined the fair market value of petitioner’s stock.

Petitioner and his brother, Dominic Basile (hereinafter Basile), are the sole owners of respondent, a business corporation consisting of eight Big Dorn’s Submarine Sandwich Shops. Petitioner owns 65 shares of common stock amounting to a 32.5% interest in respondent, with Basile owning the balance. Basile was president of respondent until June 1986, when petitioner was appointed president due to Basile’s health problems. A disagreement arose between petitioner and Basile in February 1988 and petitioner was removed as president. Petitioner thereafter sought dissolution of respondent pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a with respondent serving a notice of election to purchase petitioner’s shares at their fair market value *(see,*Business Corporation Law § 1118). After a nonjury trial to determine the value of respondent’s stock, Supreme Court determined the fair market value of petitioner’s percentage thereof to be $200,000. Respondent now appeals.

We affirm. Although Business Corporation Law § 1118 offers no specific methodology for valuation, a corporation’s value should be what a willing buyer would offer for it, as á viable enterprise, in an arm’s length transaction *(see, Matter of Pace Photographers [Rosen],*71 NY2d 737, 748). The valuation process is fact specific with an emphasis on the particular circumstances of the case, including such pertinent evidence as prior attempts to sell the business, offers to purchase and other expert testimony *(see, supra).*Here, Supreme Court relied on a number of variables, including the testimony of petitioner’s two experts who valued petitioner’s shares at $217,000 and $172,000. In doing so, Supreme Court properly rejected the valuation submitted by respondent’s expert as it failed to account for excessive executive compensation *(see, Matter of Raskin v Walter Karl, Inc.,*129 AD2d 642; *Matter of Blake v Blake Agency,*107 AD2d 139, *lv denied*65 NY2d 609), a factor which in our view was clearly established at trial. We likewise reject respondent’s contention that a discount for lack of marketability must be added to reduce its fair market value *981
      *(see, Matter of Raskin v Walter Karl, Inc., supra).*The record, including testimony of increased profits, expansion and 120 responses to a "for sale” advertisement in *The Wall Street Journal,*amply supports a finding of respondent’s marketability. In sum, given the unique position of Supreme Court in assessing the evidence *(see, D. C. Leathers v Gelmart Indus.,*125 AD2d 738) as well as the extensive factual support found in the record for its conclusions, we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,193
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,409
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 9,221
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    109,600
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,801
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,816
<LOANS>                                        291,388
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,158
<DEPOSITS>                                     298,191
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,241
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,763
<LONG-TERM>                                     47,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,707
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 451,158
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,772
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,896
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   717
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,385
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,682
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,704
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      390
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 282
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,780
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,780
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,213
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                        933
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,240
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,414
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      177
<RECOVERIES>                                        24
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,651
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,608
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,043






</TABLE>
# L_2006047EN.01004701.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 47/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 47/47

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 287/2006

of 16 February 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1809/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1809/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1809/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 February 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1809/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 291, 5.11.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
Ms. Holly D. Nehls Owner/General Manager Konect Aviation Oregon LLC. 4040 S.E. Cirrus Ave., Ste. 3 McMinnville, OR 97128

Dear: Ms. Nehls :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 135 of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow pilots trained and employed Konect Aviation Oregon LLC (Konect) to remove
and re

- install aircraft doors and secondary flight controls on the Robinson R44 Raven II.

Bel ow you will find the reasons why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your August 4, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Konect into the public

docket ( Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3625 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason s why you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments ava ilable to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days from the date of this letter . We will consider the docket on
your request open during this period

. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days from the dat e of this letter , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ James M. Crotty Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure : § 11. 813

Project No.: AXX

- xx

- xxx

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM

- 1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[ Insert Stylewriter Score Here ]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 08-801V

Filed: September 16, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

TRACY ROSE, *

Parent of CARTER ROSE, a Minor, *

*

 Petitioner, * Final attorneys’ fees and costs decision based 

 * on stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Althea W. Davis, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING FINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

The undersigned awarded interim attorneys’ fees and costs in this case on July 25, 2013. 

On September 16, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for final attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

Petitioner filed her application for final attorneys’ fees and costs on September 3, 2014.

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that she did not incur any 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

final costs. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in

petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends her application for final 

attorneys’ fees and costs to $11,600.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The 

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $11,600.00, 

representing reimbursement for final attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of 

a check payable jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. in the amount of 

$11,600.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2014 /s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of ASPA GOLD CORP. (the "Company") for the period ended November 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald Yadin Lowenthal, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: January 24, 2011



By: /s/ Ronald Yadin Lowenthal



-------------------------------------



Ronald Yadin Lowenthal



Chief Executive Officer



Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AFS-12-515-E October 23, 2012 Exemption No. 10169A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-1061

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452-1159

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10169, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (AIM) (operating under Air Agency Certificat e X88T58K) for an extension of Exemption No. 10169. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows AIM students enrolled in its part 147 aviation maintenance technician school to take the aviation mechanic written tests (aviation mechanic general (AMG), aviation mechanic airframe (AMA), and aviation mech anic powerplant (AMP) after completing the corresponding portion of the curriculum, prior to meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AIM.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10169 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10169, as amended, to November 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10169 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10169.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 194 

To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to help offset the costs of intrastate transportation, 

storage, and distribution of bonus commodities provided to States and 

food assistance agencies under the emergency food assistance program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to 

require the Secretary of Agriculture to help offset the 

costs of intrastate transportation, storage, and distribution of bonus commodities provided to States and food 

assistance agencies under the emergency food assistance 

program. 

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 ‘‘Bonus TEFAP Assist5 ance Act of 2009’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 194 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS 

2 COMMODITIES. 

3 (a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

4 (1) to encourage States and food assistance 

5 agencies to accept commodities acquired by the Sec6 retary of Agriculture for farm support and surplus 

7 removal activities; and 

8 (2) to offset the costs of the States and food as9 sistance agencies for the intrastate transportation, 

10 storage, and distribution of the commodities. 

11 (b) COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS COMMOD12 ITIES.—Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance 

13 Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7502) is amended by inserting after 

14 subsection (a) the following: 

15 ‘‘(b) COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS COMMOD16 ITIES.— 

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall use 

18 funds made available under section 32 of the Act of 

19 August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide fund20 ing described in paragraph (2) to eligible recipient 

21 agencies to offset the costs of the agencies for intra22 state transportation, storage, and distribution of 

23 commodities described in subsection (a). 

24 ‘‘(2) FUNDING.—The Secretary shall provide 

25 funding described in paragraph (1) to an eligible re26 cipient agency at a rate equal to the lower of $0.05 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 194 IS

1 per pound or $0.05 per dollar value of commodities 

2 described in subsection (a) that are made available 

3 under this Act to, and accepted by, the eligible re4 cipient agency.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:32 AM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; Linder, Steven; Pallarino, 

Bob; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; 

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; 

Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - February 24, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of February 24, 2015.  In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan  

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2  ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.   

No change.   

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.   

No change.  

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.   

d.(1)  Groundwater Monitoring Wells

No change.

d.(2)  Site Characterization  
2

No change.   

d.(3)  AOC/SOW  

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4)  Request for Additional Information  

No change.

d.(5)  BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

No change.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron