alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10/30/13 Courthouse News Service

www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/38325.htm 1/1

Environmentalists Say Oil-Drilling Sewage Is Polluting Pittsburgh's

Drinking Water

By ERIN MCAULEY

Like 14 Tweet ShareThis

PITTSBURGH (CN) - Environmentalists say sewage from McKeesport is polluting

Pittsburgh's drinking water with waste from oil and gas drilling, giving people

heart attacks, high blood pressure, cancer and other health problems, and making

water drawn from the Monongahela River unsafe to drink, cook with or even bathe

in.

Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper sued the Municipal

Authority of the City of McKeesport in Federal Court.

Plaintiffs say they get drinking water from a point downstream from the

Municipal Authority 's discharge and use the Monongahela for recreation. Members

of the groups say they "suffer from and are at an increased risk of adverse health

effects from exposure to oil and gas wastewaters" that are not properly treated

before McKeesport dumps it into the Monongahela.

The environmentalists say that the Municipal Authority 's treatment sy stem "is

designed to treat sewage, but does not and cannot remove pollutants commonly

found in oil and gas wastewater."

They also claim the Municipal Authority "failed to disclose the oil and gas

related pollutants and their concentrations in its discharge" in its renewal

application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem permit.

Samples McKeesport's effluent and of the Monongahela River taken by the

Center for Healthy Environments and Communities and analy zed by a certified,

independent laboratory showed pollutants that included "barium, calcium,

magnesium, moly bdenum, strontium, copper, bromide, chloride, and total

dissolved solids," according to the complaint.

McKeesport's neighbors, the Allegheny Valley Joint Sewer Authority and

Franklin Township Sewer Authority , stopped accepting oil and gas wastewater

after the Pennsy lv ania Department of Environmental Protection "requested that

drilling companies refrain from disposing oil and gas wastewater in municipal

treatment works" in an order issued on April 1 9 this y ear, the environmental

groups say .

Despite that order, McKeesport continues to violate the Clean Water Act and the

Pennsy lv ania Clean Streams Law, and violates its permit by failing to properly

monitor, limit and treat its oil and gas wastewater, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering McKeesport

to comply with Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law.

McKeesport is southeast of Pittsburgh.

The plaintiffs are represented by Emily Collins with the University of Pittsburgh

Environmental Law Clinic and Three Rivers Waterkeeper's legal director Patrick

Grenter, of Homestead.

Home Back to Top

Courthouse New s Service Privacy Policy Search RSS About Us

HOME PAGE ABOUT US BACK ISSUES COLUMNS DARKROOM ALMANAC ENTERTAINMENT LAW REPORTS APPELLATE OPINIONS MASTHEAD Subscribers

Thursday, July 21, 2011 Last Update: 5:23 AM PT
EX-10.1



 








EXHIBIT 10.1




THIRD AMENDMENT

TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Third Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement (this “Third Amendment”) is made to be
effective as of May 30, 2006, by and between Daniel D. Viren (“Executive”) and R. G. Barry
Corporation (the “Company”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement dated June
5, 2000, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement dated June 5,
2003, and that certain Second Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement dated May 16, 2005 (the
“Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement expires on June 5, 2007;




     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to extend the term of the Agreement; and




     WHEREAS, such extension of the term of the Agreement has been approved by the Board of
Directors of the Company;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable
consideration, the Company and Executive agree as follows:



     1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:




	 	 	Section 2. Term of Employment. The term of employment of Executive
by the Company under this Agreement shall commence on June 5, 2000 (the
“Agreement Date”) and end on June 5, 2008 (the “Term of Employment”).





     2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement, as amended by this Third Amendment,
shall remain in full force and effect.



     3. This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each of such
counterparts, when so executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall
together constitute but one and the same instrument.



[Remained of page intentionally blank; signatures to follow]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment, to be effective as
of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	COMPANY:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	R. G. BARRY CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Greg A. Tunney
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Greg A. Tunney

President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Daniel D. Viren
	 	 	 
	 	 	Daniel D. Viren
# Aging technology that never fails

/ Published Feb. 27, 2019
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va., *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base Langley-Eustis website.*
#### Swartz, In re Estate of; Mackerchar, In re 33

03/23/2016

886 MAL (2015)

33

. Reconsideration Denied April 29, 2016.

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 99
#### JD’s Towing & Battery Ctr., Inc., Matter of, v New York State Dept. of Motor Veh.

2d Dept: 147 AD3d 835

denied
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC In the Matter of: 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, 

### INC. FDMS No. FAA-2012-0777 Served: June 3, 2015


### EXTENSION OF TIME Complainant Federal Aviation Administration (Complainant) filed a notice of appeal in this matter from the written initial decision issued on April 22, 2015. Complainant is required to perfect its appeal by filing an appeal briefwithin 55 days from the date ofissuance ofthe initial decision under 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.233(c) and 13.2ll(e). Accordingly, Complainant's appeal briefis due on June 16,2015. Byrequest dated May 7, 2015, Complainant's counsel has requested a 30-day extension oftime in whichto file the appeal brief. Complainant's counsel represents that opposing counsel has agreedto this request. Complainant's request for an extension oftime in whichto file its appeal briefis granted under 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(c)(l). Complainant's appeal briefis now due to be filed on or before July 16, 2015. 1 MICHAEL P. HUERTA ADMINISTRATOR Federal Aviation Administration



### t VICKI S. LEEMON2



# ~ Manager, Adjudication Branch

1The "mailing rule" (14 C.F.R. § 13.2ll(e)), which provides for 5 additional days after service by mail, does not apply to this extension.
2 Issued under authority delegated to the ChiefCounsel and the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigation by Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.202 (see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated bythe Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigationtothe Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
# Agency provides Texas emergency response assets 

/ Published March 7, 2019
Anson, Texas,
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pavette Kellman, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 814]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J., at pretrial motions; Daniel P. Conviser, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 25, 2013, as amended January 13, 2016, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Review of defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury is foreclosed by statute (CPL 210.30 [6]). To the extent defendant is also claiming that the indictment was facially insufficient, that claim is without merit.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the trial evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the evidence amply established that the weapon recovered from defendant met the definition of a stun gun, in that it was a “device designed primarily as a weapon, the purpose of which is to stun, cause mental disorientation, knock out or paralyze a person by passing a high voltage electrical shock to such person” (Penal Law § 265.00 [15-c]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 31, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 31, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0047. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA v. JAMES RAMSEY, JR..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CV0030
#### Curto, Matter of, v State of N.Y. Dept. of Pub. Serv.

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1339

denied
#### OTR Media Group, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.

1st Dept: 141 AD3d 417

denied
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Steven F. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of Mid-State Raceway, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company"), 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-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Date: May 14, 2004


Steven F. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
No. 12-8880.

#### Garcia Cisneros *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Hadid v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

10/07/2015

345 MAL (2015)

Denied
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron Johnson, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 869]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered December 12, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Finnegan,*112 AD3d 847 [2013]; *People v Gil,*109 AD3d 484, 484-485 [2013]).

The defendant contends that the County Court should have suppressed a firearm recovered during a search of his person incident to his arrest. However, the proof at the suppression *546hearing established that when the arresting officer arrested the defendant, he reasonably confused the defendant for his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant. Under these circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to suppression of the firearm recovered during the search of his person *(see Hill v California,*401 US 797, 804 [1971]; *People v Fabian,*126 AD2d 664 [1987]; *People v Nimmons,*60 AD2d 129 [1977]).

Dillon, J.P., Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
159 A.3d 1266

#### IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 034882009)

April 11, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20-15(k) a recommendation (DRB 17-075) that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL of FORT LEE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2010, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since June 14, 2016, by Orders of the Court filed May 13, 2016, June 28, 2016, February 8, 2017, and March 1, 2017, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-2015-0074F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective May 10, 2017, and until respondent complies with the determination of the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-2015-0074F, pays a sanction of $500 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee, and until the further Order of the Court; provided, however, this Order shall be vacated automatically if the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that prior to the effective date of the suspension, respondent has satisfied all obligations under this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, he shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL remain suspended from the practice of law pursuant to the Orders of the Court filed May 13, 2016 (077666; D-1 17-15 and 077667; D-1 18-15), June 28, *192016 (077899; D-148-15 and 077900; D-149-15), February 8, 2017 (078810; D-74-16), and March 1, 2017 (D-90-16; 078938), and pending his compliance with the fee arbitration determinations entered in District Docket Nos. IIB-2014-009F, VC-2013-0591F, and IIB-2015-034F, IIB-2015-0028F, IIB-2015-0025F, and IIB-2016-0004F, and payment of the sanctions of $500 in each matter to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State.
2017-1178.

#### Spann v. Eppinger.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
*April 13, 2017*

2017-Ohio-1355.]

2017-0211.

#### State v. Yuschak.

Medina App. No. 15CA0055-M, 2016-Ohio-8507. On appellee’s motion to strike for lack of service. Motion denied. Appellee may file a memorandum in response within 30 days.
EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-16603 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust I
and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding I, L.P. on Form S-3 of our reports dated
March 22, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust I and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding I, L.P. for the
year ended December 26, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
March 22, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0271. DEION SMITH v. THE STATE.

Deion Smith was convicted of murder, and the trial court denied his motion for

new trial. Smith then appealed to this Court. Under our Constitution, the Supreme

Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was

imposed or could be imposed.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). 

Because a penalty of death can be imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is

proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga.

563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v.

Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to

transfer “all casesin which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been

imposed upon conviction of murder”). Accordingly, Smith’s appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 06, 2017

10/06/2017
EXHIBIT 8.1
  Any other name under which they doCompany
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    businessBHL Networks Technology Co Ltd (BHLHK)
    
    Hong Kong
    
    N/AJingle Technology Co Ltd (Jingle)
    
    BVI
    
    N/ABHL Networks Technology Co Ltd (BHLNet)
    
    Cayman Islands
    
    N/ABeijing BHL Networks Technology Co Ltd (BBHL)
    
    China
    
    N/AChina Green Industry Group Limited (Green Industry)
    
    BVI
    
    N/AChina Green Holdings Limited (Green Holdings)
    
    BVI
    
    N/ASinofield Group Limited (Sinofield)
    
    BVI
    
    N/ASouthwick International Limited (Southwick)
    
    BVI
    
    N/ATrenda International Limited (Trenda)
    
    BVI
    
    N/AShenzhen Innoessen Biotech Inc. (Shenzhen Innoessen)
    
    China
    
    N/AChina Merchants Zhangzhou Development Zone Trendar
Solar Tech Ltd. (Zhangzhou Trendar Tech)
    
    China
    
    N/AChina Merchants Zhangzhou Development Zone Trenda 
Solar Ltd (Zhangzhou Trenda)
    
    China
    
    N/AChina Green Investment Group Limited (Green 
Investment)
    
    BVI
    
    N/AFaster Assets Limited (Faster Assets)
    
    BVI
    
    N/AChina Merchants Zhangzhou Development Zone Broad 
Shine Solar Technology Limited (Broad Shine)
    
    China
    
    N/A
#### Tony Camaj, Respondent, v Collette Plassmann, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 425]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which, upon an order of the same court dated July 31, 2014, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and upon a decision of the same court dated January 16, 2015, made after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the total sum of $36,612.30.

*661Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, determining that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff by publishing false statements about him. After a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages in the principal sum of $25,000 and punitive damages in the sum of $10,000. In light of the nature of the defamatory statements, the fact that they were published to employees of the school district in which the plaintiff was employed and were repeated by students, and the evidence of the emotional distress caused to the plaintiff, the awards for compensatory and punitive damages were proper *(see Yammine v DeVita,*43 AD3d 520 [2007]; *Liker v Weider,*41 AD3d 438 [2007]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2043

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 25 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the 
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, hull 
identification number 3121125, and State of Hawaii registration number 
HA1809E.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose 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 as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.        Date: July 6, 2005 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir        Leonard R. Stein-Sapir        Chairman of the Board,     Chief Executive Officer   
17