alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert V. Cole, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 36060.)

Court of Claims,

August 4, 1959.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Lawrence Wayne*of counsel), for defendant.

*Leonard A. Weiss*for claimant.

Bussell Gr. Hunt, J.

This is an application by the State, pursuant to rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to dismiss the claim herein for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

*590The claim seeks to recover damages for alleged false imprisonment, and, it follows the claimant’s successful writ of error *coram nobis*in the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County wherein a prior judgment of conviction, following a plea of guilty to a felony indictment, was vacated. The history of the case is set forth in *People*v. *Cole*(6 A D 2d 725). Thereafter, and, upon the remission of the case to the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, the claimant entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment, and, subsequently, on August 5, 1958, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the indictment, and, this was granted. There is no disclosure of the District Attorney’s grounds for the motion — presumably, the lapse of some 12 years was the obstacle to a successful prosecution. The memorandum decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department, finds that there was sufficient evidence before the G-rand Jury for claimant’s indictment and that the indictment was valid.

The writ was sustained in the appellate court upon the ground that the sentencing court failed to comply with section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitled: *‘ ‘*Defendant appearing for arraignment without counsel to be informed of his right to counsel ’ ’. It is because of the failure in this respect that damages are sought. No question is raised respecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Justice over person and subject matter in the first instance, and, the validity of the process upon which the Warden at the State prison acted in restraining the claimant is not questioned. The theory upon which claimant proceeds is limited, therefore, to the proposition that the claimant’s imprisonment was consequent upon the failure of the sentencing court to perform the duty enjoined upon it by section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, since the Supreme Court Justice who acted was a State officer (Public Officers Law, § 2), therefore, he was a State agent for whom the State has assumed responsibility for his errors and mistakes (Court of Claims Act, § 8).

The theory is not a valid one because ‘ *‘*the State is not liable for the errors of a judicial officer on the theory of *respondeat superior*or otherwise ” *(Jameison*v. *State of New York,*7 A D 2d 944, 945; *Farrell*v. *State of New York,*204 Misc. 148; *Berger*v. *Village of Seneca Falls,*3 Misc 2d 647).

The motion is granted.

Submit order.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Eugene Olsen, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
September 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 20, 2006


/s/C. Eugene Olsen
------------------------
C. Eugene Olsen
Chief Financial Officer



                                 10-QSB Page 21
bmc_ex107.htm

EXHIBIT 10.7
 
 
 
	 
	1

	

	 


 
 
	 
	2

	

	 


 
 
	 
	3

	

	 


 
 
	 
	4

	

	 


 
 
	 
	5

	

	 


 
 
	 
	6

	

	 


 
 
	 
	7

	

	 


 
 
	 
	8

	

	 


 
 
 
	9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANTEC CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES IN ANTEC CORPORATION'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          14,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,366
<INVENTORY>                                    137,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,093
<PP&E>                                          35,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 509,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,891
<BONDS>                                        117,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           382
<OTHER-SE>                                     281,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   509,821
<SALES>                                        738,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               738,235
<CGS>                                          546,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  546,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               161,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,497
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,802
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 11,
2003 (except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 7 as to which the date
is March 26, 2003), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Landry's Restaurants, Inc. ("the Company") included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 into the following:

I.   The Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-75886) relating
     to the Company's shelf registration statement.

II.  the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-93173) relating
     to the Company's Amended and Restated 1995 Flexible Incentive Plan.

III. The Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-02862) relating
     to the Company's Stock Option Plan.

IV.  the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-02854) relating
     to the 1995 Flexible Spending Plan.

V.   the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 033-81007) relating
     to the 1993 Stock Option Plan.

VI.  the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 033-76500) relating
     to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and Nonqualified Formula Stock Option Plan
     for Non-Employee Directors.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 28, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Winston Dawkins, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered May 14, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was present in an apartment when the police executed a search warrant for that location, which was the purported site of an on-going illicit narcotics operation. When the police first entered the apartment, the defendant was observed in close proximity to scales, strainers, and tinfoil packages. He was immediately arrested and a subsequent search of his person revealed four tinfoil packages, containing what appeared to be cocaine. The police subsequently discovered weapons and narcotics in the apartment. The defendant was acquitted of all of the charges relating to the physical evidence found in the apartment; his conviction was based solely on his possession of the four tinfoil packages of cocaine which were found on his person.

In light of the defendant’s inability to establish a "legitimate expectation of privacy” *(People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 359-360) in the apartment, the hearing court properly determined that he did not have standing to contest the issuance of the search warrant *(see, People v Rodriguez,*69 NY2d 159, 163, 165; *People v Ponder,*54 NY2d 160, 166). Further, the hearing court properly determined that there existed independent probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon his proximity to the drug packaging material *(see,*Penal Law § 220.50 [2]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of the contraband recovered from his person upon his arrest.

In addition, we find that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecution’s use of evidence of alleged uncharged crimes, because that evidence related solely to the *176charges upon which the defendant was acquitted. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2019213EN.01008501.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/85

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Bronckers v Commission

(Case T-746/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/85)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
#### Oliver G. Pratt, Respondent, *v.*Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor in the City of New York, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 28, 1959.

*Carb, Luria, Glassner & Cook (Bernard B. Sumliner*and *David K. Samet*of counsel), for appellant.

*Sol O. Malts*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The tenant affirmed his leases by remaining in possession of his apartment after discovering the alleged fraud and is bound by all the terms of the lease, including the jury waiver provision contained therein. *(Leav*v. *Weitzner,*268 App. Div. 466.) He is therefore not entitled to a jury trial and the *552order denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a trial by jury and striking the action from the Jury Calendar was improperly made.

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

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 13.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
TSX Corporation:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of TSX Corporation and
subsidiary as  of December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the
twelve-month periods ended the last Saturday of October 1996, 1995, and 1994
(not presented herein).  These consolidated financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express 
an opinion on these consolidated 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 consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of TSX Corporation and
subsidiary as of December 31, 1996, and the results of their operations and
their cash flows for each of the years in the twelve-month periods ended the
last Saturday of October 1996, 1995, and 1994, in conformity with generally 
accepted accounting principles.




                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




El Paso, Texas
May 30, 1997
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1379-E1380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             HONORING THE LIFE OF ANIBAL DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI

                             of puerto rico

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a 
great Puerto Rican and a great American, Anibal De Jesus Rodriguez, who 
passed away on June 26, 2012. Army Staff Sergeant De Jesus Rodriguez 
was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. He served with 
distinction from September 1943 until December 1964, retiring after 
more than 20 years of active-duty service to our nation.
   In recognition of his achievements while in uniform, De Jesus 
Rodriguez was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the American Theater 
Service Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.
   In addition to his own extraordinary service, Sergeant De Jesus 
Rodriguez helped cultivate a tradition of service in his family. His 
brothers also served in the U.S. Army, as did his three sons: Anibal, 
Efrain and Juan. Moreover, three of his grandsons have served in the 
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. It is families like his that 
keep our nation safe and strong. And it is families like his that make 
our country great.

[[Page E1380]]

   I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of this proud 
veteran, American patriot, family patriarch and role model, Anibal De 
Jesus Rodriguez. I know he will be greatly missed by those who had the 
privilege to know him. But I also know that he will never be forgotten.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   IN HONOR OF DR. JOHN PETER GROTHE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. SAM FARR

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Dr. John Peter 
Grothe who passed away on June 16th, 2012 at the age of 81. Dr. Grothe 
was a dedicated public servant who counted among his proudest 
achievements drafting the original Peace Corps legislation and giving 
it the name ``Peace Corps'' when he worked for Senator Hubert Humphrey. 
Dr. Grothe was a dedicated educator, author, and public speaker whose 
passion and work touched countless lives.
  Dr. Grothe was born on May 28, 1931 in San Francisco to Walter and 
Dorothy Grothe and grew up in Hillsborough, California. He earned his 
BA and MA degrees in Journalism from Stanford University and later went 
on to earn his PhD in Political Science from George Washington 
University. After his work with Senator Humphrey, Dr. Grothe was 
appointed Deputy Director of the United Nations Division of the U.S. 
Peace Corps.
  Following this appointment, Dr. Grothe launched a long career in 
academia, serving as an Adjunct Professor at the Graduate School of 
International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International 
Studies in my Congressional District where he was the Director of 
International Student Programs and taught American Politics and Cross-
Cultural Communications. Dr. Grothe also held positions at San Jose 
State University, Odense University in Denmark, and State University of 
New York, Stony Brook. Dr. Grothe brought his knowledge and abilities 
to his work as a visiting research scholar, lecturing in Sweden, 
Norway, and 51 other countries. He also served with the American Field 
Service as an adviser, leader, and volunteer.
  Dr. Grothe was also an accomplished author who wrote To Win the Minds 
of Men--A Study of the Propaganda War in East Germany and penned 
numerous scholarly articles that appeared in The New York Times, 
Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and San Francisco 
Chronicle, among other publications.
  Dr. Grothe was an inspiring mentor, leader and volunteer who served 
as a father figure to many. He was committed to creating opportunity 
for tomorrow's leaders and made a financial contribution that allowed 
145 qualified international and minority students to pursue their 
educational goals. The Peter Grothe Scholarship Fund for Women in 
Developing Countries was created to continue Dr. Grothe's tradition of 
providing educational opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest condolences to Dr. Grothe's sister, 
Ms. Carol Stevens, and half siblings, Mr. Tom Grothe, and Ms. Heidi 
Carman. Dr. Grothe leaves an inspiring legacy and he will be deeply 
missed.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   Pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

      The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of TransCommunity Financial Corporation,
respectively, certify that, to the best of each such individual's knowledge and
belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004,
which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of TransCommunity Financial
Corporation Incorporated at the dates and for the periods indicated. The
foregoing certification is made pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.
The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing
certification except as required by law.


                                            /s/  WILLIAM C. WILEY
                                            ------------------------
                                             William C. Wiley
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                            /s/ BRUCE B. NOLTE
                                            ------------------------
                                             Bruce B. Nolte
                                             Chief Operating Officer

                                            /s/  THOMAS M. CROWDER
                                            ------------------------
                                             Thomas M. Crowder
                                             Chief Financial Officer

      Dated: August 12, 2004
#### In the Matter of Michael S. Adrienne S., Appellant; Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a dispositional order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered September 12, 1988, as, after a hearing, directed her to "involve herself in individual therapy while incarcerated and upon her release * * * to continue in therapy so long as the professional providing the therapy deems [it] necessary”.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the ninth decretal paragraph thereof, and substituting therefor the following language: "ORDERED that the respondent involve herself in individual therapy for a period of eighteen months; upon the expiration of that period, the court may *838upon a hearing and for good cause shown, make successive extensions of such supervision of up to one year each”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the mother should involve herself in individual therapy was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see, Matter of Renee L.,*166 AD2d 448). However, the Family Court erred in failing to place a time limitation on this directive. Family Court Act former § 1057, which was in effect in 1988, provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he duration of any period of supervision shall be for an initial period of no more than eighteen months and the court may at the expiration of that period upon a hearing and for good cause shown, make successive extensions of such supervision of up to one year each” (Family Ct Act § 1057 was amended, eff Nov. 1, 1989 [L 1989, ch 458, § 3], by reducing the initial period of supervision from 18 months to one year). Accordingly, the order is modified to the extent indicated. We note that the initial 18-month period has long expired. If the petitioner deems it appropriate that the respondent mother continue to involve herself in individual therapy, it should petition the Family Court for an extension of the period of supervision.

Finally, we have reviewed the mother’s remaining argument, as well as the law guardian’s argument that the instant appeal is academic, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.