alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Morris Norman, Petitioner, against Roosevelt Democratic Club Regular Democratic Organization, 19th Assembly District, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

April 14, 1959.

*Bernard Klieger*for petitioner.

*Newman, Aronson <& Neumann*for respondent.

Walter B. Hart, J.

Petitioner has instituted this article 78 proceeding for an order directing the respondent to restore him as a member of the board of directors and rescinding the resolution which expelled him.

Bespondent has served no answer but instead, by cross notice of motion, has applied to the court to dismiss the petition for insufficiency. This motion is predicated on the contention that petitioner failed to establish that his removal was in violation of the constitution or any by-law of the organization; and in fact the by-laws of the corporation were not presented to the court. While the by-laws are not incorporated in the petition, *220either in detail or substance, the portions pertinent to the instant proceeding are set forth in respondent’s brief and purport to permit the board of directors to remove a member thereof with or without cause.

The court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to determine at this time whether the by-law, insofar as it authorizes the board of directors to remove a member without cause, contravenes section 20 of the Membership Corporations Law which empowers a membership corporation to make by-laws “not inconsistent with law * * * regulating * * * suspension * * * of members ”. Suffice it to say that if the expulsion is alleged to be for cause it may only be “ had after fair notice to the offending member and full opportunity to be heard in his own behalf. In other words, the law insures to every member of such an association a fair trial * **** in accordance with * * * the demands of fair play, which in the final analysis is the spirit of the law ” (cases cited). *(Bricklayers’, Plasterers’ & Stonemasons’ Union*v. *Bowen,*183 N. Y. S. 855, 859.) From the petition it appears that at the time of the meeting called to hear the charges against him, petitioner made certain requests in writing which were refused. These requests included *inter alia*that he be granted the right of confrontation of the witnesses against him; that he be permitted to cross-examine these witnesses, and that he be afforded the right to produce witnesses on his behalf. If these facts are established upon a trial, a court may well conclude a petitioner was deprived of substantial rights without due process of law.

Accordingly there would be thus presented for review by this court, the question as to whether in making its determination respondent “violated a rule of law” to the prejudice of the petitioner. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5.)

Accordingly respondent’s motion is denied and respondent is directed to answer the petition within 10 days after the service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry.

Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             2,355,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      4,333,000
<ALLOWANCES>                         685,000
<INVENTORY>                          141,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 124,253,000
<PP&E>                             1,011,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       744,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   133,824,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            102,359,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              78,000
<OTHER-SE>                        31,387,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     133,824,000
<SALES>                           36,657,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  36,657,000
<CGS>                             33,348,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     33,348,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    3,309,000
<INCOME-TAX>                       1,390,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,919,000
<EPS-BASIC>                            .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .25



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0542

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

FRANK WEBB,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Kelley A. Barstad 

is granted an extension of time to and including January 20, 2023, 

within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on 

appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2022

12/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0542
February 2, 2004

25724

#### Smith v. State

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of Judy Rouse, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Kimberly Rouse, an Infant, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated September 27, 1989, which granted the petition, and deemed served the petitioner’s amended notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record reveals that the Supreme Court weighed and considered the relevant factors under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) in exercising its broad discretion to permit the service of a late notice of claim in this case. We discern no improvident exercise of that discretion herein, as the record establishes that the delay in serving the notice of claim was occasioned by the petitioner Judy Rouse’s medically documented incapacity *(see generally, Barnes v County of Onondaga,*65 NY2d 664), and there is no evidence that the New York City Housing Authority will suffer any substantial prejudice as a result of the service of the late notice *(see, e.g., Williams v New York City Hous. Auth.,*125 AD2d 258; *cf., Zarrello v City of New York,*61 NY2d 628; *Matter of Perry v City of New York,*133 AD2d 692). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
AgEAgle, Neodesha, KS 66757 www.AgEagle.com 620-332-9264

APPENDIX	__		

SUMMARY	OF	SECTION	333	EXEMPTION	REQUEST

Becks provides	a	summary	of	its	exemption	application	to	allow	commercial	operation	of	

its	UASs precision	agriculture,	crop	scouting,	land	inspection,	agricultural	mapping,	and	

agricultural	data	collection.	An	exemption	is	requested	from	the	following	regulations:		

14	CFR	part	21

14	CFR	part	27

14	CFR	§ 43.7

14	CFR	§ 45.23

14	CFR	§ 45.25

14	CFR	§ 45.27

14	CFR	§ 45.29

14	CFR	§ 61.113

14	CFR	§ 61.315

14	CFR	§ 91.7

14	CFR	§ 91.9

14	CFR	§ 91.103

14 CFR	§ 91.105

14	CFR	§ 91.109

14	CFR	§ 91.119

14	CFR	§ 91.121

14	CFR	§ 91.151

14	CFR	§ 91.203

14	CFR	§ 91.215

14	CFR	§§	91.401	– 91.417
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 CampusThe Art Collection
Cannon House Office Building Plaque
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Bronze

Year
    1962 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
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 941 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 941

To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to 
 extend the requirement of the Secretary to furnish hospital care and 
medical services through non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities to 
                veterans residing in certain locations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2015

 Ms. Kuster (for herself, Mr. Guinta, and Ms. Gabbard) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to 
 extend the requirement of the Secretary to furnish hospital care and 
medical services through non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities to 
                veterans residing in certain locations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NON-DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS CARE TO VETERANS RESIDING IN CERTAIN 
              LOCATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (p)(1) of section 101 of the Veterans 
Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 
U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking ``care and services'' and 
inserting ``care or services to an eligible veteran described in 
subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of subsection (b)(2)''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (p), in the subsection heading, by 
        inserting ``to Certain Veterans'' after ``Services''; and
            (2) in subsection (q)(2)(F), by striking ``termination''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Child-Fit Mfg. Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Pillow Express, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 26, 1958.

*148
      *Joseph Haskell*and *Emmet L. Holbrook*for appellant.

*Abel Just*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant failed to show adequate excuse for its original default and for the delay of approximately seven months in moving to set aside the inquest of which it had direct knowledge. It failed to show facts indicating a meritorious defense to the action and neglected to submit a proposed answer on the application to open its default.

It exhibited a callous and deliberate disregard of court process and proceedings, until its bank account was tied up by the service of a third-party subpoena and one of its customers served in an attempt to collect the judgment.

It was not entitled to the exercise of the court’s discretion in its favor and its application should have been denied. (See *White Lbr. & Millwork Corp.*v. *Andreola,*3 A D 2d 945.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion denied and judgment reinstated.

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

Order reversed, etc.
1 The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3155

___________ Wanda J. Strickland, *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]
* Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 5, 2005 Filed: August 9, 2005

___________ Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Wanda Strickland, who alleged she had been disabled since March 1999 from asthma, emphysema, and back pain related to her lungs, appeals the district court’s 1 order upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal, Strickland argues-2- the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly consider the effect of her obesity on her residual functional capacity (RFC). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Following a December 2002 hearing, the ALJ found that Strickland, who was born in January 1965, suffered from chronic obstructive asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, morbid obesity, allergic rhinitis, situational depression, andobstructive sleep apnea, but her impairments alone or combined were not of listinglevel severity; that it was reasonable to assume Strickland’s obesity caused some limitation of motion in bending, stooping, and lifting; that these limitations would be considered in evaluating her RFC; that she failed to follow her doctors’ repeated admonitions to quit smoking; that her subjective allegations were not entirely credible; and that her RFC did not prevent her from performing either her past relevant work as a cashier, or a wide range of light jobs, as confirmed by the vocational expert’s testimony.
We conclude the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Lewis v. Barnhart , 353 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). In particular, when Strickland applied for benefits and when she testified at the hearing, she focused on her asthma, emphysema, and continuous coughing as the conditions that prevented her from working. Nevertheless, she continued to smoke a pack or two of cigarettes daily, despite being advised by her doctors to quit, and the ALJ properly considered this in discounting her subjective allegations. See Wheeler v. Apfel , 224 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2000); Kisling v. Chater , 105 F.3d 1255, 1257 (8th Cir. 1997). In addition, none of Strickland’s physicians imposed any work-related limitations related to her obesity. SeeForte v. Barnhart , 377 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir. 2004); Stormo v. Barnhart , 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ must consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s description of her limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CIK>           0000016343
<NAME>          PATRIOT AMERICAN HOSPITALITY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          89,885                  20,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,589                  14,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   1,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       5,176,977               2,083,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,548                  67,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,749,206               2,321,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         54                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,135                     733
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,466,670                 908,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,749,206               2,321,105
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               595,410                 185,554
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               390,335                 136,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             245,205                  51,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,404)                   3,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,742)                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (30,560)                 (2,534)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,888)                 (2,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.52)                   (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.73)                   (.03)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XIX

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

Article 181

(ex Article 165 TEC)

(ex Article 165 TEC)

1.   The Union and the Member States shall coordinate their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Union policy are mutually consistent.

2.   In close cooperation with the Member State, the Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to in paragraph 1, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The European Parliament shall be kept fully informed.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Pecker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K of American Media Operations, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 34-47986 and 33-8618];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ DAVID J. PECKERDavid J. PeckerChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)


Date: March 23, 2007
EXHIBIT  99.2

                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 the Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust D (the "Trust"),
on  Form  10-Q  for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer  of the Trust's Managing Trustee,
hereby  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:
(1)     the Report of the Trust filed today 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 Trust.

                    /s/  Richard  K  Brock
                    ----------------------
                    Richard  K  Brock
Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Treasurer  of  AFG  ASIT  Corp.,
the  Managing  Trustee  of  the  Trust
(Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer)
                                               November  19,  2002