alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. Cheney et al., Respondents, v William J. Walsh et al., Appellants.

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject defendants’ arguments that Supreme Court improperly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, fourth and sixth causes of action in the complaint. We agree with Supreme Court that there are questions of fact whether the idea allegedly transmitted by plaintiffs to defendants was novel and original, whether a promise was made to plaintiffs to induce them to transmit their idea to defendants, and whether plaintiff Cheney, as an employee, was duty bound to transmit his idea to his employer. Defendants’ argument that the causes of action are barred by the Statute of Frauds lacks merit. The alleged agreement did not, by its express terms, provide that it was to endure for more than one year, and it *1043was capable of being performed within one year *(see, North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons,*22 NY2d 171, 175-176). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Wesley, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01011901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/119 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/119

---

Article 161

(ex Article 145 TEC)

(ex Article 145 TEC)

The Commission shall include a separate chapter on social developments within the Union in its annual report to the European Parliament.

The European Parliament may invite the Commission to draw up reports on any particular problems concerning social conditions.

---
- Pages from nutrientsp1.pdf
- nutrientsp1
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                          
<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
                                
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                               374
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                        439
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                        7,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  10,912
<PP&E>                            13,964
<DEPRECIATION>                     3,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    22,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              6,905
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                          18,632
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      22,715
<SALES>                           19,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  20,049
<CGS>                             10,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     23,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (3,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                          20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (3,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      (3,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.46)
        
 

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 the Form 10-Q of Autocam Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as delivered on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John C. Kennedy, President 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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 15, 2005                   /s/ John C. Kennedy
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John C. Kennedy
                                        President
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Gregory J. Flanagan, Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report 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
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |                                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory J. Flanagan                    
|                       |  |  |  | Gregory J. Flanagan Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99
<PAGE>


Goff
         Ellenbogen
                  Backa & Alfera, LLC
         ----------------------------
         Certified Public Accountants


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
                          ----------------------------


To the Board of Trustees
Carnegie Savings Bank
Carnegie, Pennsylvania

We have audited the  accompanying  statements  of condition of Carnegie  Savings
Bank as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
changes in retained  earnings,  and cash flows for the years then  ended.  These
financial  statements  are the  representation  of the  Bank's  management.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on these financial  statements based on
our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material  respects,  the financial  position of Carnegie  Savings Bank as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the years  then  ended in  conformity  with  generally  accepted  accounting
principles.


/s/GOFF ELLENBOGEN BACKA & ALFERA, LLC.
GOFF ELLENBOGEN BACKA & ALFERA, LLC.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
February 17, 1998
                                                                    [LOGO]
                                                                             
 
                                                             South Hills Office:
                                                         3325 Saw Mill Run Blvd.
                                                     Pittsburgh, PA  15227-27361

                                                                    412/885-5045
                                                                412/885-4870 Fax

                                                                Edgewood Office:
                                                              640 Allenby Avenue
                                                      Pittsburgh, PA  15218-1363

                                                                    412/731-1500
                                                                412/731-9620 Fax

                         
Member:  American and Pennsylvania  Institutes of Certified Public  Accountants,
AICPA  Private  Companies  and SEC  Practice  Sections.  
An  affiliate of INPACT International.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 

(1)        Registration Statements  (Form S-8 Nos. 333-123037 and 333-113277) pertaining to the Cantel Medical Corp. 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan,

(2)        Registration Statement (From S-8 No. 333-20819) pertaining to the Cantel Medical Corp. 1996 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Cantel Medical Corp. 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan and the Cantel Medical Corp. 1998 Directors’ Stock Option Plan,

(3)          Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-57232) pertaining to the Cantel Medical Corp. 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan and the Cantel Medical Corp. 1998 Directors’ Stock Option Plan, and

(4)          Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-140388, 333-157033 and 333-163806) pertaining to the Cantel Medical Corp. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended,

 

of our reports dated October 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cantel Medical Corp., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cantel Medical Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31, 2011.

 

 
|                    | /s/   Ernst & Young LLP |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                    |                             |
|                    |                             |
| MetroPark,   New Jersey |                             |
| October 14,   2011 |                             |

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants second fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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.
  /s/ Joseph F. Furlong, IIIJoseph F. Furlong, IIIChief Executive Officer
#### Salvatore Messina et al., Appellants, v Abraham Biderman, as Commissioner of Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

—In an action for specific performance of a purported contract for the sale of real property, and to recover damages for breach thereof, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated November 30, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and canceling the notice of pendency and, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to a Request for Proposals circulated by the City of New York through its Department of Housing Preservation *615and Development as part of a "Shopsteading Program” aimed at offering small businesses the opportunity to purchase and renovate City-owned property, the plaintiffs submitted a proposal and were selected to exclusively negotiate with the City to purchase a site pursuant to a "Land Disposition Agreement”. The letter of acceptance dated August 29, 1984, specified the property, described the plaintiffs’ rights to exclusively negotiate with the City, and requested that the plaintiffs pay a "nonrefundable” deposit of $230, representing 2% of the proposed sales price of $11,500, which would be applied to the purchase price in the event the parties proceeded to closing.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs, in compliance with the terms of the Request for Proposals, made the necessary preparations for closing.

In June 1986 the plaintiffs, fearing that they would be "drop[ped]” from the program commenced an action to restrain the defendants from so doing. The matter was settled, and the terms of the settlement memorialized in a letter dated August 13, 1986.

Eventually the plaintiffs were dropped from the program as a result of their failure to comply with the terms of a letter from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development indicating, *inter alia,*that a nonextinguishing perpetual lien was to be placed on the subject property.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the August 29, 1984, and August 13, 1986, letters gave them an enforceable contractual right to have their plan for development for the property submitted to the Board of Estimate and further, that they were entitled to recover damages based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the money expended in preparation for closing and additional "nonrefundable” deposits.

We disagree. It is well settled "in the common law of contracts in this State that a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” *(Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher,*52 NY2d 105, 109). Review of the record in this case establishes that the defendants merely agreed to negotiate with the plaintiffs and that the negotiations never resulted in a binding contract.

Further, we find that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable to the facts of this case *(see, Matter of Daleview Nursing Home v Axelrod,*62 NY2d 30). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# Federal Employee Pay Schedules and Rates That Are Set by Administrative Discretion

# Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

On December 22, 2010, I issued a memorandum stating that the heads of executive departments and agencies should suspend any increases to any pay systems or pay schedules covering executive branch employees, and should forgo any general increases in covered employees' rates of pay, that could otherwise take effect as a result of the exercise of administrative discretion during the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2012. In light of section 114 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 112-175), I am hereby instructing the heads of executive departments and agencies that they should continue to adhere to this policy through March 27, 2013, the date after which statutory pay adjustments may be made pursuant to section 114 of Public Law 112-175.

This memorandum shall be carried out to the extent permitted by law and consistent with executive departments' and agencies' legal authorities. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                        The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall issue any necessary guidance on implementing this memorandum, and is also hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                    

[FR Doc. 2013-00001

Billing code 6325-01
10K/A






Exhibit
      23.1


Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 The
        Board
        of Directors
 The
        Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.:
  We
          consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
          (No.
          333-87450) on Form S-8 of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. of our
          reportsdated March 14, 2006, except as to Note 1B to the
          consolidated financial statements, which is as of December 20, 2006, with
          respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The Bureau of National Affairs,
          Inc. and subsidiaries ("the Company") as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
          and the
          related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and
          comprehensive income, cash flows and the consolidated financial statement
          schedule included as Item 15(a)(2) on the Company's Form 10-K/A for each
          of the
          years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, management’s assessment
          of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
          December
          31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
          as
          of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual
          report on Form 10-K/A of the Company.
   Our
          report dated March 14, 2006, except as to the third through fifth paragraphs
          of
          Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (as Restated),
          which are as of December 20, 2006 on management’s assessment of the
          effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
          of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, expresses
          our opinion that the Company did not maintain effective internal control
          over
          financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 because of the effect of a
          material
          weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and
          contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the following material
          weaknesses have been identified and included in management's restated assessment
          as of December 31, 2005: (a) the Company’s policies and procedures did not
          provide for a sufficiently detailed, periodic review by the Company’s accounting
          group of the software division’s operations to provide adequate knowledge of the
          extent of post-sale support in order to account for revenues in accordance
          with
          generally accepted accounting principles, and (b) the Company lacked adequate
          personnel with technical expertise to identify complex sales transactions
          that
          require an in-depth technical accounting analysis to ensure that revenues
          are
          accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting
          principles.
  /s/
        KPMG
        LLP
  McLean,
        Virginia
 December
        20, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daryl D. Schutt, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the trial court improperly admitted testimony of an expert psychologist concerning intrafamilial child abuse syndrome. Without objection, the expert witness explained the nature of intrafamilial child abuse syndrome and its effect upon a child. When asked whether she used that information in her work with the victim, defendant objected. The stated basis of the objection was that it "goes to the truthfulness of what [the victim] will testify to.” When the witness was asked whether, in her work with the victim, she was able to form an opinion concerning the intrafamilial child abuse syndrome, defense counsel did not object. When the *1036witness testified that, in her opinion, the child was a victim of intrafamilial child abuse syndrome, defendant raised no objection and did not move to strike the answer. Defendant’s counsel did object to the next question, posed to the expert witness: "What did you base that [opinion] on?” The basis of his objection was not, as he now argues on appeal, that opinion evidence of child abuse syndrome was not admissible to prove that the victim was abused; the basis of his objection was "hearsay”. Defense counsel stated: "I am going to object, your Honor, if she is going to testify in any manner as to what [the victim] might have told her during any of those counseling or validation sessions as being hearsay.” In overruling the objection, the court stated: "We haven’t gotten to that yet.” In deference to defense counsel’s hearsay objection, the prosecution cautioned the witness not to recite "the specifics of things that [the victim] said” to the witness. Since the objection of defense counsel did not adequately alert the Trial Judge to defendant’s present argument, that issue is not preserved for our review as a matter of law. We decline to review the issue in the interest of justice because defendant, in his own testimony, admitted that he sexually abused the child, although not in the manner alleged in the indictment, and also because of the strength of the People’s case.

Further, we reject defendant’s contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01039401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/394 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/394

---

Article 2

Right to life

1.   Everyone has the right to life.

2.   No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

---