alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ludnila Sulich, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

[943 NYS2d 453]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Maryann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered April 8, 2011, upon a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff the principal amounts of $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $150,000 for future pain and suffering over 20 years as against defendants New York City Transit Authority and Samuel Davis, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award for future pain and suffering and order a new trial solely as to such damages, unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulates to accept a reduced award for future pain and suffering of $100,000 and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2001. Her injuries included two bulging discs in her neck, which severely restricted her range of motion. As of the time of trial, which was held almost 10 years after the accident, the 53-year-old plaintiff still suffered from pain on a daily basis, which varied in degree, and there was a continued need for cervical *635treatment. Under the circumstances, we find that the award of past pain and suffering was appropriate. However, the award for future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see e.g. Elias v Linder,*4 AD3d 136 [2004]; *Donatiello v City of New York,*301 AD2d 436 [2003]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### WHITAKER, Respondent, v. KILBY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by J. K. Whitaker against A. E. Kilby and others.

No opinion. Order (106 N. Y. Supp. 511) affirmed, without costs.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 414 

Commemorating the 125th anniversary of the University of North Carolina 

at Pembroke. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. HAGAN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 125th anniversary of the University of 

North Carolina at Pembroke. 

Whereas the University of North Carolina at Pembroke (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘the University’’) was 

founded on March 7, 1887, in Robeson County, North 

Carolina by an act of the General Assembly of North 

Carolina; 

Whereas the University, originally named the Croatan Normal School, was created in response to a petition from 

the Indian people of Robeson County; 

Whereas the University was founded for the purpose of training American Indian school teachers; 

Whereas the University opened in the fall of 1887 with 15 

students and 1 teacher; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 414 ATS 

Whereas the University moved to its present location in Pembroke, North Carolina in 1909; 

Whereas a 2-year program beyond high school was added to 

the University in 1926; 

Whereas the length of the program of college studies at the 

University was extended to 4 years in 1939; 

Whereas, in 1941, the General Assembly of North Carolina 

changed the name of the University to Pembroke State 

College for Indians; 

Whereas, until 1953, the University was the only State-supported 4-year college for Indians in the United States; 

Whereas, in 1969, the General Assembly of North Carolina 

changed the name of the University to Pembroke State 

University and made the University a regional State university that provided instruction at both the undergraduate level and the graduate level; 

Whereas, in 1972, the General Assembly of North Carolina 

established the 17-campus University of North Carolina 

system and made Pembroke State University 1 of the 

constituent institutions of the system; 

Whereas, on July 1, 1996, Pembroke State University became the University of North Carolina at Pembroke; 

Whereas, today, approximately 6,000 students from diverse 

backgrounds are enrolled in 41 undergraduate programs 

and 17 graduate programs at the University of North 

Carolina at Pembroke; and 

Whereas March 7, 2012, marks the 125th anniversary of the 

founding of the University of North Carolina at Pembroke: Now, therefore, be it 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 414 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commemorates the 125th 

2 anniversary of the University of North Carolina at Pem3 broke. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Holly Gail Crampton v. Susan Morgan Farris

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00432

- CV

Trial court case number: 183,601

- A

- 1

Trial court: 30th District Court of Wichita County

Date motion filed: J anuary 27, 2020

Party filing motion: appellant, Holly Gail Crampton

It is so ordered that Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing and Motion for Reconsideration

En Banc is DENIED

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Richard Highto wer

___________________ _________________ Acting for the Court

The p anel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Co untiss.

The en banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Good man,

L andau, Hightower, and Countiss.

Date: __ March 2 4

, 2020

____________________
* 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 October 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10594 Summary Calendar

UDOM PUCKDEESRI, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARCUS LOPEZ, Correctional Officer III; STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CV-31

-------------------- Before SMITH, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Udom Puckdeesri, Sr., Texas prisoner #732749, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. His complaint alleged that the defendants had illegally confiscated and destroyed legal papers and court records in retaliation for complaining about a correctional officer. His only requested relief was $5,000 per day for mental suffering.No. 04-10594 -2- Puckdeesri reiterates on appeal that he was retaliated against when he was illegally deprived of his legal documents and trial court transcripts, which, he argues, impeded his access to the court and the grievance system and violated his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The district court determined that, even assuming that Puckdeesri’s property was wrongfully confiscated, Puckdeesri had failed to allege any physical injury to support his request for $5,000 per day for mental suffering as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that Puckdeesri failed to establish causation, which is required for a retaliation claim. See Sojourner T v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). Because Puckdeesri has not shown that his property was not seized and destroyed for the legitimate reasons given in the confiscated property form, i.e. , that the property was improperly stored in excessive amounts and because the property had to be given to a visitor within 60 days or it would be destroyed, Puckdeesri cannot show that, but for the alleged retaliatory motive, his property would not have been seized and destroyed.
See McDonald v. Steward , 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, his retaliation claim must fail. See id. In his brief, Puckdeesri requests that he be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal. His request is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. CLARKE v. ROOSEVELT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April, 1896.)

Certiorari by Francis J. Clarke against Theodore Roosevelt and others, as police commissioners. Proceedings affirmed, and writ dismissed, with costs.

PER CURIAM.

We are all of the opinion that the evidence fully justified the board’s finding of fact. We are equally clear that the relator’s record could not have prejudiced him. He was justly convicted, and the proceedings should be affirmed. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<PAGE>



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       State of
                                                                     Percentage      Incorporation
                                                                         of               or
         Parent                          Subsidiary                   Ownership      Organization
         ------                          ----------                   ---------      ------------
<S>                        <C>                                          <C>            <C>
Classic Bancshares, Inc.                Classic Bank                    100%           Federal
Classic Bancshares, Inc.   The First National Bank of Paintsville       100%           Federal
      Classic Bank                 AFS Service Corporation              100%           Kentucky
                                      (Dissolved during
                                        Fiscal 1998)
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETER ROGAN,

Defendant,

 and

410 MONTGOMERY, LLC, JERRY

WHITLOW, individually and as Registered

Agent of 410 MONTGOMERY, LLC,

McCORKLE PEDIGO & JOHNSON, LLP,

and DARBY BANK, 

 Garnishees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 02 C 3310

Judge John W. Darrah

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GARNISHMENT ORDER

The United States, by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District

of Illinois, moves for summary judgment against defendant Peter Rogan and garnishee 410

Montgomery, LLC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on the grounds that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the

following reasons: (1) over half the approximately $4 million held in escrow is destined to be repaid

to Rogan’s trust; and (2) the balance escrow is destined for trusts in the names of Rogan’s children.

As a matter of law and equity, these are invalid trusts that should be disregarded and the entire $4

million escrow should be subjected to a garnishment order.

The United States further moves for a garnishment order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205 of the

Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, requiring escrow agent Darby Bank to submit to the United

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 326 Filed: 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4033
States $4,004,243.21 plus accrued interest, which represents defendant’s nonexempt interest in the

410 Montgomery, LLC proceeds held in escrow at Darby Bank. 

In support of its motion, the United States submits a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts with

attached exhibits and Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. The

United States seeks a judgment against 410 Montgomery, LLC regarding its claim to funds held in

escrow at Darby Bank.

WHEREFORE, the United States moves for summary judgment and entry of a garnishment

order directing the escrow agent, Darby Bank, to submit to the United States $4,004,243.21 plus

accrued interest, which represents the defendant’s nonexempt interest in the funds held in escrow.

 Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

United States Attorney

By: s/Melissa A. Childs

 MELISSA A. CHILDS

 Assistant United States Attorney

 219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 (312) 353-5331

 melissa.childs@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 326 Filed: 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4034
#### Maria de los Angeles MEJIA DE ZAMORA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70081.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Maria De Los Angeles Mejia Dé Zamora, La Puente, CA, pro se.

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria de los Angeles Mejia de Zamora and her family, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ordér dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have *934jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish the extortion demands and threats from gang members were on account of their membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); *Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”); *see also Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were persecuted or fear persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case: 1:03-cv-02702 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:100
Case: 1:03-cv-02702 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:101
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


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

[941 NYS2d 498]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John P Collins, J), entered on or about April 23, 2009, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is ineligible for resentencing because of his prior violent felony conviction, even though it did not serve as the basis for his adjudication as a second felony offender on the drug conviction upon which he seeks resentencing *(see People v Steward,*18 NY3d 493 [2012]).

Defendant did not preserve his argument that he was entitled *to*a hearing on his resentencing motion *(see People v Alaouie,*86 AD3d 462 [2011]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. There was no dispute as to the facts that led the court to make a purely legal determination that defendant was ineligible to apply for resentencing based on the uncontested facts relating to prior convictions. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
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
 Grain Legume Genetics Physiology Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Grain Legume Genetics Physiology Research People & Locations







Chris  Raver
                        Grain Legume Genetics Physiology Research

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Helper
                        Phone: (509) 786-9383
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 786-9277(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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 32.1

Informational Addendum to 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 Executive Officer 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 Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certifies that this 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
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Gary D. OwensName: Gary D. OwensTitle:   Chief Executive OfficerDecember 6, 2006
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
 Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit: Riverside, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    US Salinity Lab
                        FAQ about salinity
                                    Publications
                                    History
                                    Scientific ModelsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Riverside, California Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit Docs





- Home Page
- USSL Publications
- Special Publications
- Models
- Research Databases

USSL Research DatabasesYou may experience problems viewing our databases using Internet Explorer. If so, please try Google Chrome (or other browser). We are sorry for any inconvenience.
**Some databases are currently unavailable due to organizational structure changes. Sorry for the inconvenience ***Salt Tolerance Databases:Fiber, Grain and Special Crops
Grasses and Forage Crops
Vegetables and Fruit Crops
Woody Crops
Ornamental Shrubs, Trees,and Ground CoverBoron Tolerance Databases:Boron Tolerance of Crops
Boron Tolerance of OrnamentalsChloride Tolerance Database:Chloride Tolerance of CropsBoron Adsorption DataArsenic and Selenium Adsorption Data


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