alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Naomi M. McLeod, Appellant, v Alltha A. Lovelace, Respondent.

—Order unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Based on the facts and circumstances of this case we conclude that Special Term, in the exercise of sound discretion, properly dismissed this personal injury action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The one-car, unwitnessed accident occurred in New York State, but that is the only important factor connected to this forum. The parties and the occupants of the car, the only witnesses to the accident, reside in the Province of Ontario, Canada, where the car was registered and the trip began and was scheduled to end. Plaintiff was treated in the emergency room at Mercy Hospital in Watertown but was discharged after a few hours. Thereafter she was treated for her injuries *990in Canada where she was also examined in behalf of defendant. The courts in the Province of Ontario are available as a forum to determine the issues between the parties. Although the accident was investigated by the New York State Police, and hospital personnel observed plaintiffs condition, the testimony of New York witnesses does not appear crucial to plaintiffs claim and, in any event, procedural devices are available in Ontario to obtain their testimony, if needed. The fact that the accident occurred in New York State "does not constitute a substantial nexus so as to mandate the retention of jurisdiction” *(Martin v Mieth,*35 NY2d 414, 418). After considering the relevant factors *(see, H & J Blits v Blits,*65 NY2d 1014, 1015; *Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 478-479, *cert denied*469 US 1108; *Belachew v Michael,*59 NY2d 1004, 1007), it is evident that New York is an inconvenient forum and another forum is available which will best serve the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties *(see, Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co.,*29 NY2d 356, 361). To assure the availability of such forum the dismissal is affirmed on condition that defendant stipulates to accept service of process in Canada, to appear in an action commenced there for the same relief demanded in the complaint here and to waive any defense of the Statute of Limitations therein. If defendant fails to so stipulate within 30 days after service of the order entered herein with notice of entry, the order is reversed, with costs to plaintiff *(see, Martin v Mieth,*35 NY2d 414, 418, *supra; Wienke v Wienke,*96 AD2d 1136; *see also,*Siegel, NY Prac § 28, at 28). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Aloi, J.—forum non conveniens.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton

BUFFALO SHOOK COMPANY, INC., WOOD PRODUCTS OF VIRGINIA GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND TRIGON ADMINISTRATORS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2593-97-2 PER CURIAM MARCH 31, 1998 JAMES A. PRYOR, SR.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (R. Temple Mayo; Taylor & Walker, on brief), for appellants. (Robert L. Flax, on brief), for appellee.

Buffalo Shook Co., Inc. and its insurers (hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding that employer failed to prove that James A. Pryor, Sr. ("claimant") unjustifiably refused employer's offer of selective employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "To support a finding of refusal of selective employment 'the record must disclose (1) a bona fide job offer suitable to the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 employee's capacity; (2) [a job offer that was] procured for the employee by the employer; and (3) an unjustified refusal by the employee to accept the job.'" James v. Capitol Steel Constr.

Co. , 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989) (quoting Ellerson v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection Co. , 1 Va. App. 97, 98, 335 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1985)). In holding that employer's evidence failed to prove that its offer of selective employment was suitable to claimant's residual capacity, the commission found as follows: Dr. [Douglas A.] Wayne specifically recommended against bending. The claimant credibly testified that the small wood parts processor job required bending, and Mr. [G. Nelson] Wilson [, employer's production manager,] conceded that some bending is required to perform the job. As the pile of wood on the pallet got lower, the claimant had to bend to pick up the next piece of wood. Thus, the claimant did not unjustifiably refuse a light duty job that was within his physical capabilities. Moreover, the claimant demonstrated a good faith effort to perform the job but his pain worsened. The best proof of whether or not a job is within the employee's capabilities is a good faith effort to perform the job. Dr. Wayne has observed that the claimant is not a symptom magnifier.

The commission's findings are amply supported by the record. Based upon Dr. Wayne's restriction against bending, the testimony of claimant and Wilson, which established that the job required bending, and claimant's unsuccessful good faith attempt to perform the light duty job, we cannot say as a matter of law

that3 employer proved that claimant unjustifiably refused selective employment. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed

.
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60003 Summary Calendar

MANOHAR BISTA Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 212 449
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manohar Bista, a native and citizen ofNepal, petitions this court to review the order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal ofthe Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Bista’s asylum application as timebarred, and finding Bista ineligible for withholding ofremoval or reliefunder the Convention Against Torture. Bista challenges only the determination that he is ineligible for withholding ofremoval. SeeCalderon-Ontiverosv. INS , 809 F.2d United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60003

2 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Bista maintains: the BIA’s and IJ’s rejection of his claim–that, if he returned to Nepal, he had a well -founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions–was not supported by substantial evidence; the Maoists are known generally for “dealing harshly” with individuals who publish critical articles; the Maoists have persecuted his family members because of Bista’s political opinions; and the IJ focused incorrectly on Bista’s family’s lack ofproblems tosupport finding Bista failed toshowthe requisite clear probability of future persecution. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings, except to find that Bista had published articles since the initiation of removal proceedings, we review the decision of the IJ. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Bista failed to show a clear probability of future persecution if he returned to Nepal. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); Ozdemir v. INS , 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994). Bista also seeks to have this court take judicial notice of the current political situation in Nepal, as documented in a series of internet articles listed by Bista. The means for seeking further fact-finding is through a motion to reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Bista has failed to establish a clear probability of persecution upon return to Nepal, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Bista’s fear of persecution is well-founded. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 138. Accordingly, the conclusion ofthe BIA is substantially reasonable. SeeCarbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). DENIED.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10493 Conference Calendar

LORENZO MENDOZA-MEDINA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ANTHONY MEDELLIN, BSCC Airpark Unit, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-92-C

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Mendoza-Medina (Mendoza), federal prisoner # 85707- 080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Mendoza argues that he should be allowed to challenge alleged sentencing errors in a § 2241 petition because a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion would be barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year limitations period. He also argues that the district court’s refusal to entertain a § 2241 petition is a violation of the SuspensionNo. 00-10493 -2- Clause because it prevents a first-time review on the merits of his claims. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2. The district court properly dismissed Mendoza’s § 2241 petition. He was sentenced in the district court for the Western District of Texas. He filed his § 2241 petition in the district court for the Northern District of Texas. Mendoza attempts to circumvent the AEDPA’s limitations period for § 2255 motions by characterizing his pleading as a § 2241 petition. Nevertheless, § 2255 is the proper remedy for Mendoza’s claims because he alleges errors that occurred at sentencing, not errors in the execution of the sentence. See Ojo v. INS , 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). Only the court that sentenced Mendoza (the district court for the Western District of Texas) would have had jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion. See id. The AEDPA’s one-year limitations period does not render Mendoza’s § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the oneyear limitations period does not violate the Suspension Clause even if it forecloses a first-time movant from review of his claims. See Turner v. Johnson , 177 F.3d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir.) (§ 2254), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 504 (1999). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           498,282
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 498,282
<CASH>                                          54,761
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          11,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 686,088
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 45,491
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             88,490
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        15,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     407,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   686,088<F2>
<PREMIUMS>                                     163,933
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             33,109
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 555
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     188
<BENEFITS>                                      31,199
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     26,018
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            19,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.10
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>

<FN> 
<F1>  Amounts for Securities Act Industry Guide 6 and Exchange Act Industry
      Guide 4 disclosures are not provided because the Company's loss reserves
      do not exceed one-half of consolidated common shareholders' equity.

<F2>  Includes minority interest.
</FN> 
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Hayes, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered May 27, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### COUGHLIN, Respondent, v. SCOTT. Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 19, 1907.)

Action by James J. Coughlin against Jacob D. Scott.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
PATRICK HAWKINS

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3960

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Patrick Hawkins, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, B ILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2

Informational Addendum to Annual Report on Form 10-K

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:

Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this
certification may be applicable to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDecember 10, 2010
#### Albert Hobush, Respondent, v Consolidated Rail Corporation, Also Known as Conrail, Appellant.

—Harvey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Bradley, J.), entered February 7, 1985 in Ulster County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action.

In April 1984, plaintiff was injured when his automobile collided with a locomotive owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries and property damage suffered in the accident. Plaintiff also asserted, as a separate cause of action, a claim for punitive damages. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the separate cause of action for punitive damages was denied. This appeal ensued.

It is well established that punitive damages may not be sought in a separate cause of action *(Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co.,*63 NY2d 827, 831). Here, however, plaintiffs underlying cause of action for compensatory damages has not been dismissed *(cf. Ferrucci v State of New York,*42 AD2d 359, 362, *affd*34 NY2d 881). Therefore, we construe the allegations contained in that part of the complaint denoted as a second cause of action to be part of plaintiffs first cause of action *(see generally,*Siegel, NY Prac § 208, at 245-246).

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by striking from the complaint the caption entitled "as and for a second cause of action” and paragraph nine, and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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
 Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research: Wapato, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Facilities
                        USDA Laboratory in Wapato, WA
                                    USDA Prosser Worksite
                                    USDA Moxee Farm
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Main
               New Technologies and Strategies for Managing Emerging Insect Pests and Insect Transmitted Pathogens of Potatoes
               Integrated Approach to Manage the Pest Complex on Temperate Tree Fruits
               IR4
               USDA Laboratory in Wapato, WA
               Prosser Worksite
               Developing New Potatoes with Improved Quality, Disease Resistance, and Nutritional Content
               USDA Moxee Research Farm
               About TTFVRU


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
# Official Journal C 97/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.097.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 97 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5531 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.097.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 97

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5531 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 097/01 | Commission communication concerning Article 4(3) of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests,which codifies Directive 98/27/EC, concerning the entities qualified to bring an action under Article 2 of this Directive (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 097/01

Commission communication concerning Article 4(3) of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests,which codifies Directive 98/27/EC, concerning the entities qualified to bring an action under Article 2 of this Directive (1)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Janet S. Naugle, Appellant, v Christos Katavolos, Respondent.

—In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Marbach, J.), entered June 20, 1984, as upon a jury verdict, awarded her damages in the principal sum of $10,600.

Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, *589and new trial granted on the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event of the new trial. Prior to the new trial, the defendant may conduct a medical examination of the plaintiff, if he be so advised.

A supplemental medical report furnished by the plaintiff’s doctor in accordance with 22 NYCRR 672.7 diagnosed the plaintiff’s injuries as follows: "It is obvious that we are dealing with a normal uterus. The right tube was removed at the time of the ectopic. The left tube shows the typical appearance of a hydrosalpinx. This is a severely damaged tube and is absolutely compatible with infertility, and, in fact, sterility”. Since these injuries were set forth and put in issue in plaintiff’s supplemental medical report which was duly exchanged prior to trial, we conclude that the trial court erroneously precluded the plaintiff from presenting evidence at trial of her alleged infertility. Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages is required. Additionally, we note that because the defendant’s physician was unable to examine the plaintiff due to medical reasons following the exchange of her supplemental medical report, the defendant is entitled, if he be so advised, to examine the plaintiff in accordance with 22 NYCRR 672.7 prior to the new trial. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.