alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lizden Industries, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Franco Belli Plumbing and Heating and Sons, Inc., et al., Defendant, and Okanaga U.S.A. Co., Ltd. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 86]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra James, J.), entered August 30, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the jury verdict as to negligence and apportionment, or to order a new trial on damages, and granted plaintiffs motion for an award of rent abatement and for prejudgment interest on the jury award for property damage, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the verdict as to apportionment and order a new trial thereon, unless, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, plaintiff stipulates to apportion liability 10% to defendant Okanaga U.S.A. Co., Ltd. and 90% to settling defendant Franco Belli Plumbing and Heating and Sons, Inc., and to amend the verdict to add prejudgment interest on the award for lost profits of $907,950 for 2005 running from January 1, 2006 and on the award for lost profits of $425,600 for 2006 running from January 1, 2007, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences” *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]) that supports the jury’s finding of some negligence on the part of defendant Okanaga. However, we find that the apportionment of 75% fault *739to Okanaga is contrary to the weight of the evidence, which, fairly assessed, supports a finding that Okanaga was not more than 10% at fault. The trial evidence demonstrates that defendant Belli, a licensed plumber, performed the work at the premises and negligently left the pipes it cut uncapped, and that the leak would not have occurred but for the failure to cap the pipes.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the rent abatement and lost profits awards.

The court properly awarded prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001 (a) on the award for damage to property based on Okanaga’s negligent acts in connection therewith *(see BVE Prods., Inc. v Saar Co., LLC,*40 AD3d 349 [2007]; *De Long Corp. v Morrison-Knudsen Co.,*20 AD2d 104 [1963], *affd*14 NY2d 346 [1964]). Plaintiff is also entitled to prejudgment interest on the award for lost profits *(see BVE Prods.,*40 AD3d at 350), to be calculated, pursuant to CPLR 5001 (b), from the dates on which the jury determined the lost profits were incurred. The court properly awarded prejudgment interest on the verdict after it was reduced by the amount of Belli’s settlement, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 15-108. Concur— Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32335(11).]
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Hamish Malkin, Chief Financial Officer of Argentex Mining
Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Argentex Mining
      Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2007 (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
      operations of Argentex Mining Corporation.                                                                 

|Dated: April 8, 2008 | /s/ Hamish
      Malkin                   
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                     | Hamish Malkin                             
|                     | Chief Financial Officer                   
|                     | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
|                     | Accounting Officer)                       
|                     | Argentex Mining Corporation               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Morano, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered March 16, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although it was error to permit certain testimony concerning defendant’s involvement in other drug sales, the objections ultimately were sustained, and, in the totality of this record, including the strong evidence of defendant’s guilt, we find the error harmless. We also decline to hold that under New York’s statutory scheme every defendant is entitled to a felony hearing or that CPL 180.10 (4) is unconstitutional because it does not so provide.

We find no merit in the balance of defendant’s contentions. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 47 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 655 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2011 

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

MAY 12, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as 

the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPENCER BYRD POWERS, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mismstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 655 RS

1 sissippi, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Spencer 

2 Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, 

7 Jr. Post Office’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 47 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 655 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Mississippi, as the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. al Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, 

MAY 12, 2011 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
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
 Emerging Pests and Pathogens Research: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health
                                    Plant, Soil and Nutrition ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




The Emerging Pests and Pathogens Research Unit is located at the Robert W. Holley Research Center for Agriculture and Health on the Cornell University campus in Ithaca, NY.
 We develop sustainable, economical, and environmentally friendly management strategies
 Researchers are investigating methods to control viral disease of crops. Studies involve improving detection and management for potato virus Y (PVY) and development of potatoes resistant to virus infection.
 Curate the***world’s largest collection***of fungal pathogens of insects; providing fungal germplasm for research and biopesticide development.


Mission


People Asselin, Jo Ann Bao, Zhongmeng Biazzo, Jeromy Bushley, Kathryn Coradetti, Samuel Deblasio, Stacy Filiatrault, Melanie Green, Emily Hansen, Zachariah Heck, Michelle Howe, Kevin Ingram, Jason Karp, Mary Ann Lovett, Brian Milbrath, Lindsey Ramsey, John
                                            *- John* Stodghill, Paul Swingle, Bryan Wang, Xiaohong Wheeler, Micheal Yang, Huijun


Northeast Area   melanie.filiatrault@usda.gov


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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50931 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE JURADO-ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-389-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Jurado-Enriquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jurado-Enriquez has not filed a response. Ou r independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40407 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HECTOR HUGO ESPINOZA-LEON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-943-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hector Hugo Espinoza-Leon raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32 (i)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldA. Walko, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Ronald A. Walko     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Ronald  A. Walko         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |
| May 9,  2008        |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

               CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                        FISCAL YEARS ENDED
                                                             ----------------------------------------
                                                             AUGUST 30,   AUGUST 31,     AUGUST 25,
                                                                2003         2002           2001
                                                             ----------   ----------   --------------
                                                                                       (AS RESTATED)
                                                                      (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income (loss) before income taxes......................   $10,898      $(6,713)       $(3,929)
Fixed charges:(1)
  Interest charges.........................................    28,940       26,026         22,846
  Interest portion of lease expense........................       983          833            735
                                                              -------      -------        -------
Total fixed charges........................................    29,923       26,859         23,581
Net income from operations before income taxes and fixed
  charges..................................................   $40,821      $20,146        $19,652
                                                              =======      =======        =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)......................       1.4x          --             --
</Table>

---------------

(1) During the periods presented the Company had no preferred stock outstanding
    that required a cash payment. Therefore, the ratio of earnings to combined
    fixed charges and preference dividends was the same as the ratio of earnings
    to fixed charges for each of the periods presented.

(2) For purposes of computing this ratio, earnings consist of income (loss)
    before taxes on income and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest
    expense, amortization of deferred debt issuance costs and the portion of
    rental expense that includes an interest factor. For the fiscal years ended
    August 31, 2002 and August 25, 2001, earnings before fixed charges were
    insufficient to cover fixed charges by approximately $6.7 million and $3.9
    million, respectively.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00319-CV

BRENDA F. PRICE APPELLANT

V.

MICHAEL D. PRICE APPELLEE 

------------

FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 233-524121-12

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On November 4, 2014, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk 

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that 

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

unless appellant, within ten days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record and provided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s 

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 4, 2014
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/30/96 TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 95-7132 v. (D.C. No. CV-94-666-C) PAULINE W. CODY, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We affirm for the reasons given by the district court.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.2 Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001029850
<NAME>                        Loral Orion, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                               44,082 
<SECURITIES>                                              0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        12,953 
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    113,773 
<PP&E>                                              292,835 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (12,936)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,427,715 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                50,128 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                                  1 
<OTHER-SE>                                          (19,755)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,427,715 
<SALES>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     39,033 
<CGS>                                                     0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        77,968 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     28,756 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (67,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          8,245 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (59,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        (59,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0 
        


</TABLE>
#### The People ex rel. Dilworth Choate, Appellant, *v.*George C. Barrett, a Justice, etc., and the Court of Oyer and Terminer for the City and County of New York, Respondent.

(Submitted April 28, 1890;

decided May 9, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made April 22, 1890, which affirmed the proceedings, findings and order of the Court of Oyer and Terminer adjudging the relator guilty o£ criminal contempt, and imposing punishment therefor.

' *F. B. Goudert*and *Albert Beynaud*for appellant.

*John B. Fellows*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur except Earl and Pinch, JJ., who dissent upon the ground that the misconduct of the appellant was not within “the immediate view and presence of the court,” as stated in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order affirmed.
#### BAKER et al. v. TURNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Howard M. Baker and others against George W. Turner, as receiver.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 46 N. Y. Supp. 25.