alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 765 East 166th Street Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*Boysland Realty Corporation, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

March 3, 1959.

*567
      *Benjamin Burrows*for plaintiff.

*Emanuel Brachfeld*for defendant.

Morris E. Spector, J.

Plaintiff corporation is owner of a five-story apartment house contiguous to a taxpayer owned by defendant corporation. On the roof of the taxpayer is a long metal chimney which extends about five feet above the roof of the apartment house. This chimney is attached by brackets bolted into the wall of the apartment house and by a rod attached to the roof of the apartment house. The chimney was erected in December, 1931.

Defendant did not receive the consent of plaintiff or its predecessor owner to attach the chimney to the side of its wall or roof. When the chimney was erected, a permit was received from the Department of Buildings to erect a chimney four feet high.

Plaintiff claims this is a nuisance and seeks to have it abated. If it is a nuisance, it is solely because no permit was secured from the authorities to build the chimney to its present height. It is not a nuisance because of its operation.

Defendant contends that it has a right to continue using plaintiff’s property for support of its chimney by adverse possession, and that lack of permit or violation of permit is not pertinent to plaintiff.

Although plaintiff has no right to commence an action to enforce penal provisions of any ordinance *(City of New Rochelle*v. *Beckwith,*268 N. Y. 315, 318), nevertheless it may maintain a civil suit to enjoin a use in violation of an ordinance where such use injures its property *(McCarter*v. *Beckwith,*247 App. Div. 289, affd. 272 N. Y. 488). However, where the use in violation of an ordinance causes no harm to plaintiff’s property, and in fact a prescriptive right to such use exists, no action maybe maintained *(Carbone*v. *Wenner,*98 N. Y. S. 2d 596, 601).

In the instant case the uninterrupted use for over 25 years gives rise to an easement which clearly bars plaintiff from maintaining this action. Mere violation of an ordinance does not create a private nuisance.

Settle judgment and findings.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 18 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 18

  A resolution making certain majority appointments to certain Senate 
                   committees for the 106th Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 14, 1999

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  A resolution making certain majority appointments to certain Senate 
                   committees for the 106th Congress.

    Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S. Res. 400 of the 
95th Congress, or the provisions of rule XXV, the following shall 
constitute the majority membership on those Senate committees listed 
below for the 106th Congress, or until their successors are appointed:
    Budget: Mr. Domenici (Chairman), Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of Oregon.
    Special Committee on Aging: Mr. Grassley (Chairman), Mr. Jeffords, 
Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Collins, 
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Hutchinson.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated May 19, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of New Frontier Media Inc., and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of New Frontier Media Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-102694).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York May 19, 2006

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7342]



[[Page 18206]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From 
Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3586 or (202) 482-1396, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated the administrative review regarding the antidumping duty 
order on PET Film from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2010 through 
June 30, 2011. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 
(August 26, 2011). This review covers two producers and/or exporters of 
the subject merchandise to the United States: Nan Ya Plastics 
Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), and Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation 
(Shinkong). The current deadline for the preliminary results of review 
is April 1, 2012.

Extension of Time for Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary 
determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date 
of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that 
the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
foregoing time period.
    The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of PET Film from 
Taiwan within this time limit. The Department requires additional time 
to evaluate the questionnaire responses from Nan Ya and Shinkong in 
order to conduct a thorough analysis of all information on the record, 
including possible cost and affiliation issues. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is 
extending the time period for the completion of the preliminary results 
of this review from 245 days to 365 days; i.e., from April 1, 2012, 
until July 30, 2012.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-7342 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 23

- 3071 LT Case No. 2023

- SC

- 005309

- X

_____________________________
R ICHARD R OBERT K OCH and K IMBERL E Y A NN K OCH , Appellant s ,

v.

J ED L INEBERRY and T WILA L INEBERRY , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for D uval County

. R honda Pe oples

- Waters , Judge

.
Richard Robert Ko ch and Kimberley Ann Koch
, Jacksonville , pro se

. Jed Lineberry and Twila Lineberry, Jacksonville, pro se.

February 6, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

E ISNAUGLE , H ARRIS , and S OUD , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (5.58 MB)
 
 Kenya USAirForce AACS DeptofDefense USAF Partnership HQUSAFE AFAFRICA USAfricaCommand StateDept USDOS U.S. EmbassyNairobi AACSKenya Sgt. Craig Jensen AFN-Europe Africa Air Chiefs Symposium AACS 19
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 7

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require

a balanced budget.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ASHCROFT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to require a balanced budget.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the following article is proposed as an amendment

4 to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and

5 purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the

6 legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within

7 seven years after the date of its submission to the States

8 for ratification:
2

SJ 7 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall

3 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three4 fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall

5 provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts

6 by a rollcall vote.

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United

8 States held by the public shall not be increased, unless

9 three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall pro10 vide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

11 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President

12 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the

13 United States Government for that fiscal year, in which

14 total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

15 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become

16 law unless approved by a majority of the whole number

17 of each House by a rollcall vote.

18 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions

19 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration

20 of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be

21 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is

22 engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and

23 serious military threat to national security and is so de24 clared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the

25 whole number of each House, which becomes law.
3

SJ 7 IS

1 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and imple2 ment this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely

3 on estimates of outlays and receipts.

4 ‘‘SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts

5 of the United States Government except those derived

6 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of

7 the United States Government except for those for repay8 ment of debt principal.

9 ‘‘SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning

10 with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year begin11 ning after its ratification, whichever is later.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
E. Carley, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
November 16, 2009





/s/ Stephen E. CarleyStephen
      E. CarleyPresidentEPL
      Intermediate, Inc.





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by
EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit23.1**

 

 

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 Nos. (333-86761, 333-88881, 333-08483,333-08477, 333-81646) of I-Link Incorporated of our report datedMarch 25, 2003, except for Note 2 and paragraph 2 ofNote 3 as to which the date September 8, 2003 andparagraph 3 as of Note 3 as to which date isSeptember 28, 2004 relating to theconsolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/A#3.

 

 

SanDiego, CaliforniaOctober 22, 2004
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jarvis Dale CHAPMAN.

No. 86-KK-2337.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re State of Louisiana, applying for reconsideration of writ denied December 19, 1986, 498 So.2d 756, from the Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District *418Court, No. CR3219-81; Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. K-86-416.

Denied.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### Edward BYRD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-1126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 1, 1986.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Mark J. Ber-kowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Rhode Island v. Innis,*446 U.S. 291, 301-04, n. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-91, n. 10, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); *Cobb v. State,*376 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla.1979).
[No. 37211.

Department Two.

April 9, 1964.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert B. Runnells, *Appellant.****

*Hughes & Jeffers,*for appellant.

E. *R. Whitmore, Jr.*and *Robert*E. *Graham,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 390 P. (2d) 1003.

Weaver, J.

Defendant was convicted of first degree forgery. He took the stand in his own defense, claimed he was an alcoholic, and testified that he had “blanked out” and did not remember forging an endorsement on a check.

Defendant makes three assignments of error: the first and second to the court’s refusal to give two requested instructions, and the third to instruction No. 13-A. All refer to intoxication as a defense.

Instruction No. 13, to which no error is assigned, paraphrases RCW 9.01.114.1 Defendant admits that this instruction is a correct statement of the law, but contends that when it is considered with instruction No. 13-A, to which error is assigned, the latter takes from the jury its right to consider the defense of intoxication. Instruction No. 13-A reads as follows:

“You are instructed that in dealing with the question of intoxication and intent you should use caution not to give immunity to persons who commit crime when they are inflamed by intoxicating drink. You must discriminate between the conditions of mind merely excited by intoxicating drink, and yet capable of forming a specific intent to commit a crime, and such a prostration of the faculties as renders a man incapable of forming the intent. If an intoxicated person has the capacity to form an intent to commit the crime charged herein and conceives and executes such an intent, it is no defense that he was induced to conceive it, or to conceive it more suddenly by reason of his intoxication.”

The language of the instruction does not support this contention.

Instruction No. 13-A was taken nearly verbatim from instructions that were approved in *State v. Miller,*177 Wash. 442, 462, 32 P. (2d) 535 (1934) and *State v. Cogswell,*54 Wn. (2d) 240, 246, 339 P. (2d) *996465 (1959). For the reasons stated in *Miller, supra,*we conclude that the instruction was not erroneous.

The jury having been correctly instructed upon the law applicable to intoxication as a defense, it was not error to refuse to give the requested instructions upon the same subject.

The judgment is affirmed.

Ott, C. J., Donworth and Finley, JJ., and Denney, J. Pro Tem., concur.

June 3,1964. Petition for rehearing denied.

1

RCW 9.01.114. “No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such purpose, motive or intent.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 288 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 289 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILLY LONG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 290 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM[ 288 WAL 2018, 289 WAL 2018 and 290 WAL 2018 ]

- 2

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### AMAL DAS *v.*RUTH RODGERS

*Mark S. Rosenblitt,*in support of the petition.

*David A. Haught,*in opposition.

Decided March 5, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 242 (AC 16434), is denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 6, 2009



/s/ Patrick BrattonPatrick BrattonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2346]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7783]

The Designation of Monir Chouka, also Known as Mounir Chouka, 
Also Known as Abu Adam, Also Known as Abu Adam From Germany, also Known 
as Abu Adam aus Deutschland, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Monir Chouka, 
also known as Mounir Chouka, also known as Abu Adam from Germany, also 
known as Abu Adam aus Deutschland, committed, or poses a significant 
risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of 
U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of 
the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-2346 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```