alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Hiram Johnson et al., Appellants, v Town of Haverstraw et al., Respondents.

In consolidated tax certiorari proceedings, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sullivan, J.), entered May 21, 1985, which dismissed their petitions on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioners’ present contentions, the record reveals that their appraiser, in valuing the subject property, made numerous adjustments to comparable parcels which were not accompanied by the requisite facts, figures and calculations in either the appraisal or the expert testimony *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.59 [g] [2]). This obvious failure to specify *87and quantify the aforementioned adjustments vitiated the probative value of the appraisal *(see, Matter of Rusciano & Son Corp. v Roche,*118 AD2d 861; *Matter of Resort HFA v Finance Admin.,*81 AD2d 617, *appeal withdrawn*54 NY2d 760; *Matter of Stoneleigh Parkway v Assessor of Town of Eastchester,*73 AD2d 918, *lv denied*49 NY2d 705; *see also, Matter of County Dollar Corp. v City of Yonkers,*97 AD2d 469, *lv dismissed*61 NY2d 759, *rearg denied*61 NY2d 905; *Matter of Peck v Obenhoff,*84 AD2d 633). Hence, the petitioners failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating an overassessment *(see generally, Matter of Barnum v Srogi,*54 NY2d 896; *Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Tax Commn. of City of N. Y.*85 AD2d 525, *affd*57 NY2d 964, *rearg denied*58 NY2d 824; *Matter of Rock-Time, Inc. v Finance Adm’r of City of N. Y.,*75 AD2d 626, *appeal dismissed*53 NY2d 704), and the petitions were properly dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# C_2022285EN.01000301.xml

| 26.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/3

---

Opinion 02/2022

(pursuant to Article 322(1), TFEU)

concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union [2022/0125(COD)]

(2022/C 285/03)

The European Court of Auditors has published its opinion 02/2022 (pursuant to Article 322(1), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union [2022/0125(COD)].

The opinion can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61866

---
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00 428

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

EDWARD CASTILLO

, Appellant,

v.

CUAHUTEMOCH COBARRUB IAS

, Appellee.

On appeal from 37 0th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on an agreed motion for revers al and remand to the

t rial court for further proceedings . The parties have reached an agreement with regard

to the disposition of the matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to agreement, the parties

request this Court to reverse the trial court ’ s default judgments and remand this case for

further proceedings in the trial court. We GRANT the motion and REVERSE without2

reference to the merits of the case and REMAND this case to the trial court for further

proceedings

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d).

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party

incurring same. See id. at 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

28th day of May, 2015.
#### Hospital Association of New York State, Inc., et al., Respondents, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Appellants.

— Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered July 25, 1986 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for ancillary relief.

We have previously considered defendants’ contentions concerning Supreme Court’s order to pay the refund and have found them to be without merit *(American Assn. of Bioanalysts v Axelrod,*130 AD2d 889). Further, under the circumstances of this case, we find that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against defendant Commissioner of Health from assessing and/or collecting new fees until the 1983 fees were refunded or credited against new fees. The order should therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIRLatitude: 33.154Longitude: -107.192Elevation: 4343

ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lookout Mountain Site Page...



Lookout Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rice Park Site Page...



Rice Park
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with the Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on March 24, 2000, the United States lodged a 
proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the 
Western Disctrict of Wisconsin, in United States v. Redi-Serve Foods 
Limited Partnership, Case No. 00-C-0166-C (W.D. Wis. 2000), under 
Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b). The proposed 
consent decree resolves certain claims of the United States against 
Redi-Serve Foods Limited Partnership (``Redi-Serve''), arising out of 
Redi-Serve's meat processing facility located at 1200 Industrial Drive 
in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin.
    Under the proposed Consent Decree, Redi-Serve will pay the United 
States a $195,000 civil penalty. The proposed Consent Decree requires 
Redi-Serve to retain a certified opacity observer to perform a daily 
stack inspection and report to the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (``U.S. EPA'') any visible emission readings which 
exceed 20%. The proposed Consent Decree also requires Redi-Serve to 
report to U.S. EPA any temperature excursions (of minus 25 degrees 
Fahrenheit from the last stack test), malfunctions or down times for 
the thermal oxidizer. The proposed Consent Decree will terminate 
eighteen months after its entry by the United States District Court for 
the Western District of Wisconsin.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days after publication of this 
Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of 
Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-
7611, and should refer to United States v. Redi-Serve Foods Limited 
Partnership, Case No. 00-C-0166 C (W.D. Wis. 2000), DOJ No. 90-5-2-1-
2188. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison, 
Wisconsin, and at the Region V Office of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained 
by mail from the U.S. Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library, 
P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please 
enclose a check for reproduction costs (at 25 cents per page) in the 
amount of $3.50 for the Decree, payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-9742 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael S. Liss, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of China BAK Battery, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report). I, Li Xiangqian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operations of the Company.

Date: August 22, 2006



CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC.By:

/S/    XIANGQIAN
LIXiangqian Li Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021193EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 193/01)

On 31 October 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9099. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9099. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I,  Theodore E.  Charles,  certify that this report on Form 10-Q fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information  contained in this report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of
Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.


Date:  February 14, 2006

 /S/ THEODORE E. CHARLES
-----------------------------------------
Theodore E. Charles, Chairman, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

58 KA 09-00819 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KAREEM GUILLORY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ROBERT TUCKER, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered March 13, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Guillory ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 18, 2011]).

Entered: February 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### BOWDICK v. PAIGE et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Jackson W. Bowdick against Paige and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground of nonservice of printed papers granted on default.
Honorable James A. Evans Opinion No. c-651 

County Attorney 

Iavaca County Re: Whether a constable who 

Hallettsville, Texas refuses to physically 

appear at the scene of 

traffic accidents is 

neglecting a duty of 

Dear Mr. Evans: his office. 

In your opinion request you state that there is a 

constable who has given public notice that he will no 

longer work any traffic accidents in his jurisdiction, 

Your question: Is the constable neglecting a duty of his 

office? The answer to this question is no. The publication of such a notice Is not a neglect of his duty of office; 

however, Article 6885 of Vernon's Civil Statutes provides: 

"Each constable shall execute and return 

according to law all process, warrants and 

precepts to him directed and delivered by any 

lawful officer. attend unon all .Tustice courts 

held In his precinct and-perform-all such other 

duties as may be required of him by law." 

7Emphasls added.) 

Article 2.13 of the 1966 Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides: 

ful means. He shall in every case where he 

Is authorized by the provisions of this Code, 

interfere without warrant to prevent or.suppress crime. He shall execute all lawful 

nrocess issued to him by any magistrate or 

court. He Ll give nbticb 

-3155- 
-. 

Honorable James A. Evans, Page 2 (c-651) 

, 

taken before the proper magistrate or court 

and be trleo." (Emphasis added.) 

When reading the last part of Article 6885, Vernonrs 

Civil Statutes, together with Article 2.13, 1966 Code of 

Criminal Procedure, It seems clear that the constable does 

have a duty to work traffic accidents, when he has good 

reason to believe that there has been a violation of the 

penal law Involved in such accidents, which occur within 

his jurisdiatlon. Therefore, It Is the opinion of this 

office that while the mere publication of an Intention not 

to work traffic accidents within his jurisdiction would not 

be a neglect of a constable's duty of office, his actual 

refusal to investigate such an accident, when he has good 

reason to believe that there has been a violation of the 

penal law, would be a neglect of his duty of office. 

SUMMARY 

The publication of a notice of Intention 

that a constable will no longer work any 

traffic accidents In his jurisdiction is not 

a neglect of a constable's duty of office. 

A constablets refusal to work a traffic accident where he has good reason to believe there 

has been a violation of the penal law involved 

in such accident is a neglect of a constablers 

duty of office. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

Assistant Attorney General 

REO/er 

APPROVED: 

OPINICN COMMITTEE 

W. V. Genpert, Chairman 

Charles Gwanner 

~Larry ~Craddook 

John Ranks 

Howard-Fender 

-31 ST- 
t . 

4 

Honorable James A. Evans, Page 3 (c-651) 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: T. B. Wright 

-3157-
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2617 

To amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to postpone a scheduled 

increase in the minimum wage applicable to American Samoa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to postpone 

a scheduled increase in the minimum wage applicable 

to American Samoa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE APPLICABLE TO AMERICAN 

4 SAMOA. 

5 Section 8103(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Minimum Wage 

6 Act of 2007 (29 U.S.C. 206(b)(2)(C) note) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘and 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2014, 2015, 2016, 

8 and 2017’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31
 
 Certifications
 SECTION 302
 
 I, Jonathan Ricker, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mass Megawatts Wind Power, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
 
 cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
 
 performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
 
 and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or   other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
 
 internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Mass Megawatts Wind Power, Inc.Date:   August 9,2010
By:
/s/   Jonathan RickerJonathan RickerTitle: Chairman, Chief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer