alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marx *v.*Manhattan Ry. Co.

*(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.*

November, 1888.)

Practice in Civil Cases—Dismissal—Failure to Prosecute.

Where plaintiff refuses to proceed with the trial.of a case, and submits to a non-suit on the denial of his motion to amend the complaint, made after the trial had commenced, there is not a dismissal for neglect to prosecute within Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 405, providing that where an action is not thus terminated plaintiff may bring another action within one year, after such termination.

Action by Pierce Marx against the Manhattan Railway Company, for personal injuries. The action was formerly tried in the court of common pleas, where, on the denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, he refused to proceed with the case. Defendant now moyes to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the claim is barred by limitation. Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 405, provides that if an action is terminated otherwise than by voluntary discontinuance, dismissal for neglect to prosecute, or final judgment, plaintiff may bring another action within one year after such termination. For other reports, see 3 N. Y. Supp. 113; *ante,*159.

*Aaron Kahn, (Christopher Fine,*of counsel,) for plaintiff. *Davies & Rapadlo, (Edward C. James,*of counsel,) for defendant.

Barrett, J.

The question is whether the effect of what transpired in the court of the common pleas was equivalent to submitting to a nonsuit. .It seems to me it was. It was not a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action within the meaning of section 405 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That refers to an order made on motion to dismiss for such neglect to prosecute, and is a well-understood proceeding. In the ease at bar the trial was actually commenced. A motion was made to amend, which the court denied. The plaintiff then declined to proceed further with the trial, for the reason that success was hopeless because of such denial. It was quite the same as though he had proceeded and given evidence in support of his complaint as originally formulated. He knew that the proofs would have *223failed to establish his cause of action as thus formulated, and, consequently, that a nonsuit must follow. It was simply a saving of time to acknowledge that this must be the result, in view of the inability to amend. The non-suit was inevitable because the proofs would not support the complaint. He had proofs to support the complaint, as it would have read in ease the amendment had been permitted. The moment, however, the amendment was refused, he was necessarily defeated, and it was as well to acknowledge the situation. In effect, he tried the case, and because of a judicial ruling acknowledged defeat, and in substance submitted to a nonsuit. It was not a neglect to prosecute. He prosecuted and failed. That was the gist of the matter. I must therefore deny the motion, and permit the case to proceed.
(8 Misc. Rep. 313.)

#### A. L. & J. J. REYNOLDS CO. v. THIRD AVE. R. CO.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

1. -Negligence—Crossing Street-Car Track without Looking.

A person who is struck by a street car while attempting to cross the track 25 feet in front of the approaching car, without looking to see whether a car is approaching or not, is guilty of contributory negligence.

3. Same—Comparative Negligence.

The doctrine of comparative negligence is not recognized in New York.

Appeal from third district court.

Action by the A. L. & J. J. Reynolds Company against the Third Avenue Railroad Company. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

John Verno Bouvier, Jr., for appellant.

L. B. Bunnell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover damages for injury to respondent’s wagon, resulting from a collision with one of' appellant’s cars. In the case of Hamilton v. Railroad Co., reported in 6 Misc. Rep. 382, 26 N. Y. Supp. 754, this court, at general term,, held that, where the plaintiff undertook to cross the railroad tracks, seeing a trolley car at a distance of some 40 feet, it was negligence on his part to make such an attempt. In this case, while the car-was not moving as rapidly as in the Hamilton Case, yet the distance was only 25 feet ahead of the car; and it affirmatively appears, and is uncontradicted, that the plaintiff did not in any way look out to see whether a car was approaching him or not, or how far distant it was. In our judgment, that constitutes negligence on the-part of the servant, which would preclude a recovery in this action.

It is argued on behalf of the respondent, however, that, notwith*735standing this negligence, appellant’s servants could, by the exercise of greater prudence and care on their part, have prevented the collision. Such an argument brings up the contention of comparative negligence, a doctrine not recognized by the courts of this state. As we understand our law, it is that, where the plaintiff is guilty of any negligence which contributes to the accident or injury sustained by him, there can be no recovery. That he did thus contribute to the accident in this case, in our judgment, is clear, and therefore we feel compelled to reverse the judgment, and order a new trial, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Charles R. Waldron, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
January 1, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.

February 10, 2010

| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                          
| |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    CHARLES R. WALDRON
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Charles R. Waldron       
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Learning Tree International, Inc. and will be retained by Learning Tree International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Unassociated Document










EXHIBIT 10.1(f)







SIXTH AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE LEASE







THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 18th day of September, 2006, by and between TIPPMANN PROPERTIES, INC., as agent for LAURENCE TIPPMANN, SR. FAMILY PARTNERSHIP(hereinafter referred to as “Lessor”), and TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION(hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”), and WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Real Estate Lease dated January 1, 1999, amended on March 8, 1999, August 12, 1999, June 29, 2001, March 24, 2004, and May 5, 2006, currently covering approximately 47,207 usable  square feet of premises commonly known as 116 East Berry Street, Suite 100, Fort Wayne, Indiana;







AND WHEREAS, Lessee and Lessor are desirous of leasing as of December 1, 2006, an additional approximately two thousand fifty (2,050) square feet of office space commonly known as Suite 505;







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
Beginning December 1, 2006, the leased premises shall be increased to reflect approximately two thousand fifty (2,050) square feet of additional office space as depicted on the attached Exhibit “A” for a total of approximately forty nine thousand two hundred fifty-seven (49,257) square feet.













	
  

	
2.

	
Lessor shall contribute Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100th Dollars ($20,500.00) to be used for the tenant improvement expenses in the renovation of Suite 505.  Lessee shall provide receipts for reimbursement after the work is completed.













	
  

	
3.

	
The rent shall be amended as of December 1, 2006 based upon approximately 1,190 square feet (of the 2,050 square feet) of additional office space payable incrementally based on the existing rate structure.













	
  

	
4.

	
The rent shall be amended as of March 1, 2007 based upon  approximately 860 square feet (the balance of the 2,050 square feet) of additional office space payable incrementally based on the existing rate structure.













	
  

	
5.








	
Term

	 	
Total Sq. Ft.

	 	 	
Monthly Rent

	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
12/1/06 -   2/28/07

	 	 	48,397	 	 	$	54,446.63	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
3/1/07 -  12/31/13

	 	 	49,257	 	 	$	60,545.06	 











	
  

	
6.

	
Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions contained in the original Real Estate Lease are hereby reaffirmed and left unchanged by the terms of this Sixth Amendment.











  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Sixth Amendment on the day and year first above written.








	
TIPPMANN PROPERTIES INC., Agent

	  	
TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION


	
for Laurence Tippmann, Sr. Family Partnership

	  	  	  	  
	
(“Lessor”)

	  	
(“Lessee”)

	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
BY:

	
/s/ Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
BY:

	
/s/ Michael D. Cahill

	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
PRINTED:

	
Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
PRINTED:

	
Michael D. Cahill
L]NITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

VS

SIMON JOSEPH BRUCE

Respondent

Docket Number 2023 -0064

Enforcement Activity No. 7 523061

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL

On February 16,2023, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) filed a Complaint

seeking to revoke the Simon J. Bruce's (Respondent) Merchant Mariner's Credential[s]. On

March 3 l, 2023, the Coast Guard submitted a Motion for Withdrawal indicating Respondent has

completed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement under 46 C.F.R. $ 5.203.

Upon review of the file, I will GRANT the Coast Guard's Motion to Withdraw and

DISMISS this matter without prejudice.

WI{EREFORE,

1

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this matter is DISMISSED u,ithout prcjudice

SO ORDERJD.

Done and dated this 1Oth day ofApril,2023,

at New Orleans, Louisiana

HON. BRIAN J. CURLEY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

March 27, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Re: Release Nos. 33-8070, 34-45590, 39-2395, IA-2018, IC-25464;
    FR-62; File No. S7-03-02 (the "Release")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the Release, Mpower Holding Corporation has obtained a letter
of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) stating that the December
31, 2001 audit was subject to their quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Very truly yours,

MPOWER HOLDING CORPORATION

/s/  MICHAEL R. DALEY

Michael R. Daley
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
2014. It is therefore not an appealable determination. Accordingly, we

lack jurisdiction over this appeal and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
„LAI,A; Hardesty Douglas 

# qA

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Peter Jason Helfrich Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk J.

In light of this disposition, all pending motions are denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 44Et9 9
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2609 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2609

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal the transportation 
             alternatives program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2015

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself and Mrs. Hartzler) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal the transportation 
             alternatives program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Right-of-Way for American Drivers 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The following provisions of title 23, United 
States Code, are repealed:
            (1) Section 101(a)(29).
            (2) Section 133(b)(11).
            (3) Section 213 (and the item relating to that section in 
        the analysis for chapter 1).
    (b) Applicability.--The repeals made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                                Petsec Energy Ltd
                                  Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
        (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Petsec Energy Ltd, an Australian public limited liability
company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated:     May 24, 2004





Name:      Terrence Norman Fern
Title:     Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Petsec Energy Ltd and will be retained by Petsec Energy Ltd and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Tropical Medicine Research Centers (U01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         October 18-19, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G62A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Eleazar Cohen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G62A, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5081,                         *ecohen@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 15, 2021. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-20370 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Peterson, Appellant, v. Williams *et al.,*Respondents.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, without costs of the appeal, and with leave to amend the complaint, upon the terms given in the interlocutory judgment, within 20 days.
#### Manuel de Jesus LUE-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71968.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Rose Kasusky, Esquire, Kasusky Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*682Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel de Jesus Lue-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the unfulfilled, anonymous threats to Lue-Martinez did not rise to the level of past persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (holding unfulfilled threats and an incident of physical violence did not establish past persecution). Likewise, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Lue-Martinez established a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Khourassany v. INS,*208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (holding similarly situated, unharmed family members undermine future fear); *Nahrvani v. Gonzales,*399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (holding future fear is speculative if petitioner fails to show government is unable or unwilling to protect him).

Because Lue-Martinez has not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” the issue of CAT relief, he has waived that claim. *Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency,*261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.2001); *Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,*409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12
                              FRD ACQUISITION CO.
               COMPUTATIONS OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             FRD                     FRD                          FRI
                                                          Successor              Predecessor                  Predecessor
                                                            Seven        Five
                                                           Months       Months
                                                            Ended        Ended                  Fiscal Year Ended
                                                          Dec. 26,      May 23,                   December (a),
                                                            1996         1996      <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>         1995       1994       1993         1992
($ in thousands)
Earnings (loss) before
  income taxes.........................................    $(5,729)     $ 3,261    $11,394    $20,139    $25,928      $18,634
Add:
  Interest expense (b)(c)..............................     17,680        4,658     16,515      6,934      4,594        4,852
Earnings available for fixed charges...................    $11,951      $ 7,919    $27,909    $27,073    $30,522      $23,486
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense (b)(c)..............................    $17,680      $ 4,658    $16,515    $ 6,934    $ 4,594      $ 4,852
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....................       0.68x        1.70x      1.69x      3.90x      6.64x        4.84x
</TABLE>
(a) The Company's five most recently completed fiscal years ended on December
    26, 1996, December 31, 1995, December 25, 1994, December 26, 1993 and
    December 28, 1992.
(b) Capitalized interest is not considered material to the Company's overall
    financial position.
(c) Interest expense includes the interest portion of rentals.