alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clayton Webster Corp. et al., Respondents, v Bozell & Jacobs, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 26, 1989 (Leonard N. Cohen, J.), which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with costs.

Plaintiffs are two interrelated corporations engaged in the business of selling commercial time in syndicated radio programs as well as other advertising promotions. Defendant-appellant Bozell & Jacobs, Inc. (Bozell) is an advertising agency, and defendant Lee Company is one of its clients. In an amended complaint served in November 1983 plaintiffs alleged that Bozell had entered into three contracts for the purchase of radio time and other services on behalf of Lee which were thereafter breached to plaintiffs’ damage. Trial of the action commenced before Justice Cohen in August 1988, and on August 16 the court granted Bozell’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint against it on the ground that on its face it stated no cause of action against Bozell as agent for a fully *146disclosed principal *(see, Seguros Banvenez v S/S Oliver Drescher,*761 F2d 855, 860). The balance of the action against Lee was severed.

About six months later in February 1989, plaintiffs moved for leave to serve a second amended complaint closely tracking its predecessor pleading, the only significant difference being the removal of all allegations pertaining to Bozell’s agency status, and asserting that Bozell acted as a coprincipal with its client, Lee. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion stating that "[T]he proposed second amended complaint states a viable cause of action”. At that juncture of the case mere facial viability was, as a matter of law, an insufficient test. Plaintiffs’ pursuit of Bozell as a principal in the alleged transactions was devoid of substantive merit and the motion should have been denied on that ground *(East Asiatic Co. v Corash,*34 AD2d 432; *see, Daniels v Empire-Orr, Inc.,*151 AD2d 370, 371). Plaintiffs’ supporting affidavits, consisting entirely of either hearsay or irrelevant matter, were plainly insufficient *(C&K Realty Co. v ISFC Fabrics Corp.,*66 AD2d 697), and the exhibits annexed thereto were contradictory of the theory of liability proposed *(see, 805 Third Ave. Co. v M.W. Realty Assocs.,*58 NY2d 447, 451).

We further find the granting of leave to constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. The totality of the circumstances presented here, including the five-year delay by the plaintiffs in seeking to amend, their sudden change of theory for liability from agent to principal as against defendant Bozell, and the extensive depositions and preparation for trial entirely based upon defendant Bozell’s participation in the contracts solely as agent for defendant Lee, warranted denial of the motion to amend on the basis of substantial prejudice to defendant Bozell *(Williams v New York Univ. Hosp.,*88 AD2d 540; *Conley v Gravitt,*133 AD2d 966). Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Richard Falcone, Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/RICHARD FALCONE          |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Richard Falcone             |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*** |
|   | March 28, 2008              |
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4713 

To suspend temporarily the duty on rubber basketballs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. GUTHRIE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on rubber basketballs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RUBBER BASKETBALLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.09 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 rubber basketballs) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘0.7%’’ and inserting ‘‘Free’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4713 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
July 1, 2015

Mr. Aaron Hatzenbuhler

Motor City Drone Company LLC

1691 Braemar Road

Oakland Township, MI 48363

Dear Mr. Hatzenbuhler :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains

why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of Motor City Drone Company LLC into the

public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1285 ) on April 28, 2015 , but we are unable to process your

requ est any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

fu rther. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B re nda Robeson

P rogram Analy st, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4913 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4913

       To require designated military command responsibility and 
   accountability for the care, handling, and transportation of the 
 remains of a deceased member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine 
 Corps who died overseas, from the place of death, through the defense 
mortuary system, until the remains are accepted by the member's next of 
   kin, in order to ensure that the deceased member is treated with 
                      dignity, honor, and respect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Coffman of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Cooper) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To require designated military command responsibility and 
   accountability for the care, handling, and transportation of the 
 remains of a deceased member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine 
 Corps who died overseas, from the place of death, through the defense 
mortuary system, until the remains are accepted by the member's next of 
   kin, in order to ensure that the deceased member is treated with 
                      dignity, honor, and respect.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUOUS MILITARY CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER TREATMENT AND 
              TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND MARINE CORPS WHO DIED 
              OVERSEAS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Defense shall take such steps as may be necessary to 
ensure that there is continuous, designated military command 
responsibility and accountability for the care, handling, and 
transportation of the remains of each deceased member of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who died overseas, beginning with the 
initial recovery of the remains, through the defense mortuary system, 
until the interment of the remains or the remains are otherwise 
accepted by the person designated as provided by section 1482(c) of 
title 10, United States Code, to direct disposition of the remains.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                                    THIS   SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY
                                            FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
                                            FORM  10-Q  FOR  THE  QUARTER  ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
                                            IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000090045
<NAME>                                      PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000


<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      7,058
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               7,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                78
<INVENTORY>                                 3,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,250
<PP&E>                                      10,300
<DEPRECIATION>                              7,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,208
<BONDS>                                     13,363
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    4,195
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,585
<SALES>                                     48,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,506
<CGS>                                       35,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             3,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,405
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,405
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .56


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUN-30-1999               
<PERIOD-START>                                              JUL-01-1998              
<PERIOD-END>                                                DEC-31-1998              
<CASH>                                                          342,287
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   198,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                     386,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,128,725
<PP&E>                                                        5,195,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                                1,808,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                7,599,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         3,938,583
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                        272,500
<OTHER-SE>                                                    1,730,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  7,599,297
<SALES>                                                         145,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              1,935,373
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 3,666,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              289,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (1,749,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (1,749,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (1,749,114)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (.06)
        



</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5095 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on AC electric motors of an 

output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 85 W. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. GERLACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on AC electric 

motors of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 

85 W. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AC ELECTRIC MOTORS OF AN OUTPUT EXCEED4 ING 74.6 W BUT NOT EXCEEDING 85 W. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.85.10 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 AC electric motors of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not 

8 exceeding 85 W) is amended by striking the date in the 

9 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5095 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Panel Member Roster for the September 15-17, 2015

Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on the Development of a Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM) for 

Pesticide Assessments

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0424

FIFRA SAP Chair

Stephen Klaine, Ph.D. 

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences 

Director, Institute of Environmental Toxicology

Clemson University

Clemson, SC

Designated Federal Official 

Fred Jenkins, Jr., Ph.D. 

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination and Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-3327

jenkins.fred@epa.gov

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members 

Dana Barr, Ph.D. 

Research Professor

Environmental and Occupational Health

Rollins School of Public Health

Atlanta, GA

 

David A. Jett, Ph.D. 

Director, National Institute of Health Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats Program

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, MD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
James McManaman, Ph.D. 

Professor and Chief

Section of Basic Reproductive Sciences

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Physiology

and Biophysics

University of Colorado Denver

Aurora, CO

FQPA Science Review Board Members 

 

Paul Capel, Ph.D.

Research Chemist

Civil Engineering

US Geological Survey/University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Chittaranjan Ray, Ph.D. 

Professor of Civil Engineering and Director

Nebraska Water Center

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, NE

Bernard A. Engel, Ph.D. 

Head, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN

 

Amor V. M. Ines, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor

Department of Plant, Soil, Microbial Sciences/Biosystems 

and Agricultural Engineering

Michigan State University

Okemos, MI

Erica Fleishman, Ph.D. 

Researcher

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

University of California

Davis, CA

Yuzhou Luo, Ph.D. 

Environmental Scientist

Department of Pesticide Regulation

Sacramento, CA

 

 

 
Keith A. Maruya, Ph.D. 

Chemist and Environmental Fate Scientist

Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project

Costa Mesa, CA

 

Thomas Potter, Ph.D. 

Research Chemist

USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station,

Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory

Tifton, GA

Geoffrey Scott, Ph.D. 

Clinical Professor and Chair 

Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Arnold School of Public Health

University of South Carolina
#### VOWELL v. STATE.

No. 25560.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 5, 1951.

Carroll W. Smith, El Paso, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $300.00.

No contention is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

*215Appellant’s two 'bills of exception deal with the failure of the court to grant his motion for a new trial based upon what is alleged to have transpired within the jury room. •

It will be noted that to this motion is attached the affidavit of appellant stating that the matters set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

In Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 10 S.W.2d 83, we held that where the matters complained of in the motion for new trial were necessarily hearsay as to appellant, such as matters transpiring within the jury room, that such a motion should be accompanied by an affidavit of one who has knowledge of such matters, or should name the source of appellant’s information and belief, or should give some reason or excuse for failure to have either of the above.

To require 'less than the above, we said, would permit limitless fishing expeditions by all who have been convicted.

In Toms v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 200 S.W.2d 174, 177, we reaffirmed this rule and said: “The motion shows that the same was verified by the attorney for appellant who states that the facts therein set out are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. No affidavit from any of the jurors is attached to the motion nor is any reason assigned why such affidavit could not be obtained. It is quite obvious that the attorney for the appellant could not of his own knowledge have known what occurred in the jury room. He must necessarily have • obtained such facts, if any, from some other person. Consequently, what is charged in the motion is based purely upon hearsay.”

In Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 232 S.W.2d 711, 713, we held: “The trial court properly declined to permit examination of the jurors as to alleged misconduct in the jury room. The affidavit of appellant to the claimed acts was necessarily hearsay and insufficient to require such examination.”

Recently, in Ramirez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., *240*S.W.2d 322, we had an opportunity to distinguish between jury misconduct which occurred within the jury room and that occurring outside.

In the case at bar, the trial court, irrespective of < the defect in the motion, proceeded to hear evidence from a number of the jurors. The motion before the court was insufficient as a pleading in that it was not supported by the requisite affidavit of a member of the jury, and, therefore, his action in overruling the same at any stage of the proceedings could not be assigned as error.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.