alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### National Screen Service Corp., Appellant, *v.*Hayes Printing Co., Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 30, 1959.

*Phillips, Niser, Benjamin, Krim S Ballon (Herbert N. Bobrow*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cabell, Medinger, Forsyth <& Declcer (Samuel J. Murray*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant subtenant was under no liability either at common law or by reason of its status as a statutory subtenant to remove plaintiff sublessor’s abandoned property from the premises. The removal of the equipment, moreover, was unnecessary for the protection of the subtenant’s possession. In the circumstances any expense incurred by the subtenant in removing the property may not be offset against the plaintiff’s claim for rent.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
#### SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN et al., Appellees.

No. 20090.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1963.

Marvin E. Frankel, New York City, Charles J. Bloch, Ellsworth Hall, Jr., Macon, Ga., Burton A. Zorn, Saul G. Kramer, New York City (Bloch, Hall, Groover & Hawkins, Macon, Ga., Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

David L. Mincey, Macon, Ga., Milton Kramer, Washington, D. C., Lester P. Schoene, Washington, D. C. (Schoene & *504Kramer, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellees.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and MORGAN,* District Judge.

*

 Of the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully read the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court in this case. These findings of fact and conclusions of law are to be published and will appear in the Federal Supplement at 223 F.Supp. 296 We find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusions reached by the trial court, and we affirm the judgment of that Court on the basis of the opinion of that Court.

Affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 25, 2019

NO. 03

- 17

- 00523

- CV

Walter Zawislak, MD, Appellant

v.

Texas Medical Board, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROS E, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND KELLY
AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the distric t court on July 12, 2017

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s order . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the district court’s order

. The appellant shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
January 8, 2008

27126

#### State v. Heyer

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply592Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Matthew Irish ... (not verified)PermalinkMarch 14, 2018 - 8:32amWhat a place to work! Thanks for all that you do to preserve our country's history.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         532
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                   769
<INVENTORY>                                 38,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            83,678
<PP&E>                                      76,558
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             180,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      114,596
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       153
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               180,201
<SALES>                                    167,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           167,115
<CGS>                                      132,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              132,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            33,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,550)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,550)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.32)


</TABLE>
28547

#### State v. Westbrook

Reversed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000879437
<NAME> INFOUSA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,199
<SECURITIES>                                    10,279
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,586
<PP&E>                                          56,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,023
<BONDS>                                        117,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,335
<SALES>                                        117,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,287
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.3



FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



AGREEMENT made as of the 23rd day of September, 2003, between BENTHOS, INC. a Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business situated at 49 Edgerton
Drive, North Falmouth, Massachusetts 02556 (the Company) and SAMUEL O. RAYMOND, of One Point De Chene Avenue, Rockport, Massachusetts 01966 (the Executive).



WITNESSETH:



WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to a certain Employment Agreement, dated September 24, 1990, as amended on November 30, 1993, December 16, 1996
and January 24, 1997 (the Employment Agreement); and



WHEREAS, in connection with the Employment Agreement, Benthos and the Executive entered into a certain Collateral Assignment Split-Dollar Life Insurance Agreement, effective as of December 17, 1996 (the Split-Dollar Agreement);
and



WHEREAS, the Split-Dollar Agreement was terminated pursuant to a
certain Agreement, dated July 24, 2003, among the Company, the Executive and Nixie Raymond, Trustee of the Samuel O. Raymond 1996 Irrevocable Insurance Trust, the owner of the life insurance policy that was governed by the Split-Dollar Agreement;
and



WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive want to amend the Employment
Agreement to reflect the termination of the Split-Dollar Agreement.



NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive, intending to be legally bound, hereby mutually agree as follows:



1. Paragraph 20 of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety.



2. The Company and the Executive hereby ratify, approve and confirm the
Employment Agreement as amended hereby.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
and the Executive have executed this instrument as an instrument under seal as of the day and year first above written.



|Company:   |  | BENTHOS, INC.        
|---------- |  | ---------------------
|           |  |                      
|           |  | By:                  
|           |  |                      
|           | 
|Executive: |  | \s\ Samuel O. Raymond
|           |  | Samuel O. Raymond
**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
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of infoUSA Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that to thebest of my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Date: May 10, 2005 */s/ Raj Das*   Raj Das,   Chief Financial Officer   
28
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of ATEL  Financial  Services,  LLC,
General  Partner of ATEL Cash  Distribution  Fund IV, L.P. (the  "Partnership"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended
September  30, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Date:        November 11, 2004



/s/ Dean L. Cash
-------------------
Dean L. Cash
President and Chief Executive
Officer of General Partner


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  Partnership  and  will  be  retained  by the  Partnership  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
September 19, 1996

16451

#### State v. Boucher

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Liberty Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Tulip

Year
    1978

Location
      
Capitol Square, N.E.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text of the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Commemorative Tree

*Liriodendron tulipfera*
(Tulip Tree)

Sponsored by
Senator Charles C. McMathias

To Honor the Maryland Liberty Tree Seedling

Planted on March 27, 1978
Replanted on December 4, 2001

Tree Details

'Liberty Trees' were trees that witnessed important historical events and speeches leading up to the Revolutionary War. This particular tree is a seedling of the 'Liberty Tree' that used to grow at St. Johns College in Annapolis and was reputed to be the oldest surviving in the country.

The species is one of the largest growing in the mid-Atlantic area and was chosen by Frederick Law Olmsted for this reason to line the East Capitol Street entrance to the Capitol. Named because of the tulip shaped flower, the tree is not recommended for residential properties because of a large eventual size and somewhat messy habit.
          
    
      Image Gallery
    
    The Liberty Tree on Capitol Grounds.

      Previous Image
        Next Image

          The Liberty Tree on Capitol Grounds. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
In response to Docket No. FAA-2015-2546

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

Recreational Quad Copter – Used for Aerial Photography

Aircraft Weight (Including Battery And Propellers)

1280 g

Diagonal Size (Including Propellers)

590 mm

Max Ascent Speed

5 m/s

Max Descent Speed

3 m/s

Hover Accuracy

• Vertical: +/- 0.1 m (when Vision Positioning is active) or +/- 0.5 m

• Horizontal: +/- 1.5 m

Max Speed

16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

Max Altitude Above Sea Level

6000 m

Operating Temperature

0°C to 40°C

Gps Mode

GPS/GLONASS
April 29, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Changes to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Resulting from OMB Comments 

FROM: Marc Thomas 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

The attached document is a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking –Identification of 

Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste, which illustrates the changes EPA 

made to the document as a result of the review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Changes made pursuant to OMB comments are identified by comment boxes. Additional 

changes throughout the document were made based on internal discussion. This 

redlined/strikeout copy resulted from a comparison of the final version with the version EPA 

originally sent to OMB for review. 

Attachment
April 16, 2008

27222

#### Shimabukuro v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

Affirmed
Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Meeting on October 21, 2013 between EPA, DOI, and SRP on Navajo Generating Station

Date: October 21, 2013

Location: Washington, DC

Attendees: Janet McCabe, Tamara Saltman (EPA OAR)

Deborah Jordan, Colleen McKaughan, Anita Lee (EPA Region 9, by telephone)

Letty Belin (Department of the Interior)

Kelly Barr (Salt River Project)

Purpose: SRP requested this meeting to check in on next steps for EPA’s rulemaking related to the Best

Available Retrofit Technology requirement for the Navajo Generating Station

Materials: None
21325

#### Cunningham v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dept. of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Affirmed
#### Kaopua v. Manuel

24976

04/19/2004

Vacated & remanded
#### Ni PILKINTON, Appellant, v. The CIRCUIT COURT OF HOWELL COUNTY, MISSOURI, Appellee.

No. 17485.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 4, 1963.

Ni Pilkinton, in pro. per.

Thomas Eagleton, Atty. Gen. of State of Missouri, Jefferson City, Mo., represented the respondent in the District Court.

Before JOPINSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus to have the District Court for the Western District of Missouri order release to be made of him on his own recognizance by the Circuit *46Court of Howell County, Missouri, where he was being held on two state criminal charges, as to each of which the Court had fixed bail in the sum of $500.00, but had refused to accept appellant’s own recognizance. The District Court dismissed the petition on the ground that no federal constitutional violation was shown to be involved. An appeal has been taken from the order of dismissal.

We take it for granted that, contrary to earlier cases such as Ex parte Watkins, 7 Pet. 568, 574, 32 U.S. 568, 574, 8 L.Ed. 786 and Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502, 510, 35 S.Ct. 649, 59 L.Ed. 1071, the prohibition in the Eighth Amendment against requiring excessive bail must now be regarded as applying to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 It is to be borne in mind, however, that the prohibition is only against requiring excessive bail. It does not afford a basis for one accused of crime to insist that he is entitled to be released entirely without bail or wholly on his own recognizance. The language of the Amendment is not subject to being construed as providing such a guarantee. A State may properly require bail in some amount, and the mere fact that an accused is unable to furnish it in any sum, and so wants to be released on his own recognizance, does not present a federal question.

The extent of an accused’s ability to furnish bail is, of course, a factor which may be duly weighed, but it is not the measure of the court’s power of discretion. That power is exercisable in relation to all the considerations and objects which have traditionally underlain the concept of bail.

Excessiveness of bail as a question of abuse of discretion and constitutional violation is accordingly one which must have more basis of circumstance than that an accused is without accumulation, standing, or responsibility sufficient to enable him to furnish any bail, and more substance of contention than that he therefore is entitled to liberty on his own recognizance.

On the concepts and elements within which a court may traditionally exercise its power of discretion as to bail, the State’s requirement of $500.00 on each of the two criminal charges pending against appellant was on its face without sufficient substance to be able to involve a constitutional question of excessiveness, and the District Court was therefore not called upon to make intrusion into the situation.

Appeal dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants third 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/ Stephen L. ClantonStephen L. ClantonChief Financial Officer