alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John L. Ray, Respondent, v William E. Kramer et al., Respondents, and Frank J. Ioele, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Memorandum: This is a negligence action by Ray to recover for injuries sustained in an accident in which he was a passenger in an automobile driven by Ioele which collided with one driven by David Kramer and owned by William Kramer. Ioele appeals from Special Term’s denial of his motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against him and to grant his cross claim against the Kramers for indemnification or contribution. Ioele argues that collateral estoppel effect should be given to a jury verdict of no cause of action in a previous action by the Kramers against Ioele arising from the same accident. In that action the jury found in answer to a special question that Ioele was not negligent. Ray cannot be bound by the result in the earlier action. He was not a party thereto nor was he in privity with a party *(see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez,*46 NY2d 481, 486; *Watts v Swiss Bank Corp.,*27 NY2d 270, 277; *Baldwin v Brooks,*83 AD2d 85, 89). Nor did Ray have a “full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling” *(Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx,*24 NY2d 65, 71). There is no basis for summary judgment on Ioele’s cross claim against the Kramers for indemnification or contribution; the issue of Kramer’s negligence was never reached by the jury in the earlier action. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Davis, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11.1


           GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                 (In thousands, except per share data)
                              (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                     SEPTEMBER 30,          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                 ----------------------  ---------------------
                                                   1997        1996        1997       1996
                                                 ---------  ----------   ---------  ----------
<S>                                              <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>    

Net income applicable to common shares           $119,088     $17,247    $198,622    $32,606
                                                =========   ==========   =========  ==========

Shares:
   Average shares issued and outstanding  (after
   giving effect to the Recapitalization)          74,119      65,403      74,036     65,403

   Exercise of certain  stock  options  with the       -        3,949           -      3,949
Offering

   Incremental   shares   applicable   to  stock
   options,    excluding    the   tax   benefit,
   outstanding  after the  exercise  of  certain    4,637       4,624       4,641      4,624
   stock options with the Offering

   Incremental  shares  applicable  to  the  tax  (1,651)           -        (550)         -
   benefit of stock options

   Shares issued pursuant to the Offering              -        4,559           -      4,559
                                                 ---------   ----------  ---------  ----------
                                                             

Weighted average common and common
equivalent shares outstanding                      77,105      78,535      78,127     78,535
                                                 =========   ==========  =========  ==========

Net income per common and common
equivalent share                                 $  1.54      $   .22    $   2.54    $   .42
                                                 =========   ==========  =========  ==========


Note:       Shares and stock  options  issued  prior to  October  16,  1996,  the date of the
     Offering  (see Note 10 to the  consolidated  financial  statements  included in the 1996
     Annual Report to Stockholders), are treated as outstanding for all reported periods.


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Yeshivas Bais Yehudi, Appellant, v Assessor of the Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents.

— In an action to declare certain property exempt from fixation, petitioner Yeshivas Bais Yehudi appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Marbach, J.), dated May 25, 1984, as, after a nonjury trial, denied it a 100% exemption and only granted it a 40% exemption.

Order and judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner, a corporation organized under the Religious Corporations Law, operates a synagogue and religious school on one of its several properties. Petitioner employs a maintenance person, *745who devotes approximately two or slightly more days to his employment with petitioner. In exchange for his maintenance services, the employee is given the property in question, rent free, for use as a residence for him and his family. In addition, the part-time employee is self-employed as a house painter.

The primary use of the property furnished as a convenience for the employee is residential, not religious or educational, and such use is not necessary or incidental to carrying out the purposes for which petitioner was organized. The property, on its face, would clearly be ineligible for an exemption (Real Property Tax Law § 420-a [1] [a]; 2 Opns Counsel SBEA No. 19). However, the respondent town did not cross-appeal from the order and judgment granting the 40% exemption. Consequently, we are constrained to affirm this order and judgment, insofar as appealed from *(see, Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57; *Mertsaris v 73rd Corp.,*105 AD2d 67). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### Annette Karashik, Appellant, v Seymour Brenner et al., Respondents.

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated February 24, 1984, as denied her motion to preclude defendants’ expert doctor from testifying with regard to the etiology of plaintiff’s injuries and physical condition and the causal connection between defendants’ treatment and the injuries sustained by plaintiff.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the report of the physical examination of the plaintiff conducted by defendants’ examining physician does not need to set forth the etiology of plaintiff’s injuries and physical condition and causal connection in order to allow said physician to testify thereto at trial. This examining physician was retained by defendants solely for the purpose of updating their information as to the plaintiff’s condition as of the date *151of the examination. Further, no prior medical history, medical records or recent X rays were made available to the examining physician to enable him to make any such determination at that time. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Abatement Order filed October 24, 2017 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00512-CR

____________

ALBERTO PALACIO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1470978

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement but did not

submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s 

statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires 

the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a 

challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them 

or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 § 6; Urias v. State, 155 

S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper 
procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make 

the required findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 

S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact 

and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this 

court on or before November 27, 2017. If the trial court’s findings were dictated 

into the record, the trial court is directed to include those findings in a supplemental 

clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before November 27, 

2017.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

PER CURIAM
# L_2008157EN.01009501.xml

| 17.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 157/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/95

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 549/2008

of 16 June 2008

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2008 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 979/2007 for pigmeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 979/2007 of 21 August 2007 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for pigmeat originating in Canada (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 979/2007 opened import tariff quotas for pigmeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 979/2007 opened import tariff quotas for pigmeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2008 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2008 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications under quota 09.4204 have not been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 979/2007, to be added to the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2008, are 1 156 000 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 June 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 June 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2). Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 July 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 217, 22.8.2007, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1564/2007 (OJ L 340, 22.12.2007, p. 36).

2

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Crop Condition and Yield Researchheadline bar Research
               Ongoing Projects
               Research Papers
               res01
               links
               Pro01
               pro01fig8
               res02
               Res02table
               Res03
               Res03Tab1
               Res03Tab2
               Res03Tab3
               Res04
               Res05
               Res06
               Res6tab1
               Res6tab2
               Res6tab3
               Res07
               Res7Fig1-7
               Res08
               Res09
               Res10
               Res11
               Res12
               Res13
               Res14
               Res15
               Res16
               Res17
               test


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of First Colonial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify with
respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003 (the "Report") that:

     1.   The Report 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 operation of
          the Company.


         /s/  Scott V. Fainor
         --------------------
         SCOTT V. FAINOR     Chief Executive Officer         Date: Aug. 14, 2003



         /s/  Reid L. Heeren
         --------------------
         REID L. HEEREN      Vice President and Treasurer    Date: Aug. 14, 2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Harland, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 920]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered July 29, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility. Contrary to respondent’s contention, we conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the dispositional hearing that he is a *1559dangerous sex offender requiring confinement *(see*§ 10.03 [e]; § 10.07 [f]). Supreme Court “was ‘in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting psychiatric testimony presented’ ” *(Matter of State of New York v Blair,*87 AD3d 1327, 1327 [2011]; *see Matter of State of New York v Richard VV.,*74 AD3d 1402, 1404 [2010]; *Matter of State of New York v Timothy JJ.,*70 AD3d 1138, 1144-1145 [2010]). We see no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determination to credit the testimony of petitioner’s expert over that of the expert who testified on behalf of respondent *(see Matter of State of New York v Boutelle,*85 AD3d 1607, 1607 [2011]; *see also Matter of State of New York v Flagg*[appeal No. 2], 71 AD3d 1528, 1530 [2010]). Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7481

TIMOTHY LEE COLES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections, sued individually and in official capacity; 

GARY BASS, Chief of operations of Central Classification 

Services, sued individually and in official capacity; WENDY 

HOBBS, Eastern Regional Director, sued individually and in 

official capacity; MARIE VARGO, Warden of Sussex II State 

Prison, sued individually and in official capacity; ROY 

CLARY, Unit Manager of 3 Building of (SXIISP), sued 

individually and in official capacity; ANTON DANIELS, 

Correctional Institutional Rehabilitation Counselor of 

Sussex II State Prison, sued individually and in official 

capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

GAIL JONES, Chair Person, Central Classification Services 

(CCS), sued individually and in official capacity,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00001-REP)

Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
2

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, Lara 

Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lee Coles appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to 

state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Coles v. Clarke, No. 3:12-cv-00001-REP 

(E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

I, Marchand Snyman, Chief Financial Officer of Northern Dynasty
Minerals Ltd. (the Company), 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 40-F of
the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Annual Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| | By:    | /s/ M.
      Snyman    
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Marchand Snyman        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | March 31, 2009         

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### VILLAGE OF SAVONA v. BRINK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 11, 1913.)

Action by the Village of Savona against William H. Brink and others.

No opinion. Defendant’s exceptions overruled, motion for new trial denied, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff upon the verdict, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2282 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2282

       To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxybenzaldehyde.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxybenzaldehyde.

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

SECTION 1. 4-METHOXYBENZALDEHYDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.12      4-                  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Methoxybenzaldehy                                                  31/2008
                         de (CAS No. 123-
                         11-5) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2912.49.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```