alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2925-2926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force; Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath 
River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the authority of 
the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
460ss et seq.). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will 
meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on February 8, 2001, and from 8 a.m. to 3:45 
p.m. on February 9, 2001.

[[Page 2926]]


PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Best Western Brookings Inn, 1143 
Chetco Avenue, Brookings, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, California 
96097, telephone (530) 842-5763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For background information on the Task 
Force, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that 
appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25639).

    Dated: January 5, 2001.
Mary Elle Mueller,
Acting California/Nevada Operations Manager, California/Nevada Office, 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-1022 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10275]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Missouri Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10 
a.m. and adjourn at 1 p.m. on May 8, 2001, at the Embassy Suites, 901 
North First Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63131. The purpose of the 
meeting is to plan future activities and receive civil rights 
monitoring issues from Committee members.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, April 17, 2001.
Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-10275 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Cindy B. Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of Oil States International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| |  |  |                              | 
| |  |  | ---------------------------- | 
| |  |  | /s/ Cindy B. Taylor          | 
| |  |  | Name:     Cindy B. Taylor    | 
| |  |  | Date:       October 31, 2013 |
#### Nancy DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-2479-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 5, 2011.

Scott M. Riemer, Riemer & Associates, LLC, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & Brown LLP, Westport, CT, for Appellee.

*25Present: ROGER J. MINER, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Nancy Douglas appeals from a summary judgment entered June 22, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, *J.)*in favor First Unum Life Insurance Company (“Unum”), dismissing Douglas’s complaint. The complaint alleged that Unum unreasonably denied her request for long term disability benefits. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment in an ERISA action. *Hobson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,*574 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir.2009). “Although generally an administrator’s decision to deny benefits is reviewed *de novo,*where, as here, written plan documents confer upon a plan administrator the discretionary authority to determine eligibility, we will not disturb the administrator’s ultimate conclusion unless it is arbitrary and capricious.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted).

As the Supreme Court has noted, “[o]f-ten the entity that administers the [ERISA] plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket.” *Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn,*554 U.S. 105, 108, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008). Because “this dual role creates a conflict of interest,” “a reviewing court should consider that conflict as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator has abused its discretion in denying benefits” and “the significance of [that] factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.” *Id.*

The district court carefully examined the circumstances of Douglas’s late filing, considered the dual role of Unum as a factor in its decision, and determined that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of benefits. We agree with that determination. Accordingly, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court, that the district court properly granted Unum’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2015 106266 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM WALKER,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 26, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Danielle

Scarduzio of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered August 22, 2013, which resentenced

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of possessing a

sexual performance by a child.

Defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of possessing

a sexual performance by a child and, at the time of the plea,

County Court (Bruhn, J.) admonished defendant that it would not

be bound by the sentencing agreement if he "commit[ted] any new

crimes" or was "arrested again for any reason." He allegedly

violated the admonishments and received an enhanced sentence of

1a to 4 years in prison. Upon appeal, we vacated the sentence

and remitted the matter so that County Court could conduct an

inquiry into the scope of the admonishments "and whether
-2- 106266 

defendant was entitled to a hearing to establish any violation

of" them (101 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2012]). County Court (Williams,

J.) conducted a hearing and determined that defendant had indeed

violated the admonishments. As such, the court resentenced

defendant to a prison term of 1a to 4 years. Defendant now

appeals.

We affirm. Inasmuch as defendant has served the enhanced

sentence in full, his contention that County Court improperly

imposed it is academic (see People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468, 469

[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 850 [2006]). In any event, our review

of the hearing transcript reveals that County Court complied with

the mandates set out in People v Outley (80 NY2d 702, 713

[1993]), and we find no basis to disturb the determination that

defendant violated the admonishments. Defendant further asserts

that the admonishments were not a proper part of his guilty plea. 

That argument, to the extent that it may properly be advanced

upon this appeal from a resentence (cf. CPL 450.30), is

unpreserved because defendant failed to advance it before County

Court (see People v Radek, 202 AD2d 847, 848-849 [1994], lv

denied 83 NY2d 914 [1994]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  Tekgraf, Inc.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                                      FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       2000             1999
                                                       ----             ----
Net loss                                           $      (671)     $    (6,916)
Basic and diluted weighted average number of
  common shares                                      6,161,664        6,161,664

Basic and diluted net loss per share               $     (0.10)     $     (1.12)
                                                   ===========      ===========
----

**EXHIBIT      32-2**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350)**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                 Harel Goldstein                                                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Harel                Goldstein Director                and Chief Financial OfficerMay                31, 2006 |   |

----
#### In the Matter of Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, v Lorrange Spenningsby, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration under an uninsured motorist endorsement of an insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered May 27, 1986, which granted the application.

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

The appellant suffered personal injuries when a rear relief spring from an unidentified truck came loose and struck his windshield, causing him to loose control of his vehicle and strike another automobile. Contending that he was the victim of a hit-and-run accident within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5217, the appellant sought arbitration of his claim under his policy’s uninsured motorist endorsement. Thereafter, the petitioner Utica Mutual Insurance Company sought a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish the statutory requirement of "physical contact” with the alleged hit-and-run vehicle *(see,*Insurance Law § 5217). The court granted the petition and stayed arbitration. We affirm.

Insurance Law § 5217 provides that statutory uninsured motorist benefits are not available in a hit-and-run accident situation "unless the bodily injury to the qualified person arose out of physical contact of the motor vehicle causing the injury with the qualified person or with a motor vehicle which the qualified person was occupying”. The physical contact requirement has as its purpose the deterrence of "fictitious claims, too easily contrived in the absence of physical contact” *766
      *(Matter of Smith [Great Am. Ins. Co.],*29 NY2d 116, 120). Review of the facts at bar reveals that the claim presented by the appellant falls within the exclusion articulated by the Court of Appeals in the *Smith*case regarding detached objects, such as parts of a vehicle or its load which are cast off or fall from the alleged hit-and-run vehicle. In *Matter of Smith (Great Am. Ins. Co.) (supra,*at 120), the Court of Appeals wrote: "In the rare case where negligence may be responsible for the accident, then there is no indemnification under the statute. Good examples of such negligently caused accidents, and yet not covered by the statute, would be those caused by objects cast off or falling from a speeding or insecurely laden hit-and-run vehicle itself, such as parts of the vehicle or its load. And this is hardly surprising, for in requiring physical contact with the offending vehicle to base responsibility under the statute the legislative purpose is evident; some negligently caused accidents are to be excluded or else the requirement of physical contact performs no function whatever”. In light of the foregoing, the judgment must be affirmed *(see, Matter of Diaz v MVAIC,*82 AD2d 749; *Government Employees Ins. Co. v Goldschlager,*44 AD2d 715). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,047,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,440,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,039,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,953,571
<PP&E>                                      17,205,165
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,255,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,511,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,631,628
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,671,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,511,866
<SALES>                                     85,221,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            85,221,217
<CGS>                                       43,774,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,270,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,587,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               464,275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,459,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,129,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,290,291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,839,129
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,839,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Advisory Mental Health Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the 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 Advisory Mental Health Council.
    Date: May 31-June 1, 2001.
    Open: May 31, 2001, 1:00 p.m. to recess.
    Agenda: Presentation of NIMH Director's report and discussion of 
NIMH program and policy issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Conference Room 6, Building 31C, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: June 1, 2001, 8:00 a.m. to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jane A. Steinberg, PhD, Director, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9609, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9609, 301-443-5047.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10361 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
(8 Misc. Rep. 457.)

#### KLIPSTEIN v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

May 9, 1894.)

Jury Trial—Damages por Operation op Elevated Railroad.

In an action against an elevated railroad company for an injunction and damages, plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on the question of past damages, though he obtained the right to such damages by assignment.

Appeal from special term.

Action by August Klipstein against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and the Manhattan Railway Company for an injunction and damages. From an order denying a trial by jury, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before SEDGWICK, O. J., and DUGRO and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

Davies & Rapallo, for appellants.

John E. Parsons, for respondent.

DUGRO, J.

The only question on this appeal is whether it was error to refuse a jury trial of the question of past damages, these damages having been obtained by the plaintiff through assignment. The principles stated in the cases of Shepard v. Railway Co., 117 N. Y. 442, 23 N. E. 30, and Hunter v. Same (N. Y. App.) 36 N. E. 400, when applied to the question, necessarilv lead to an affirmance. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00195

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF C.F. §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 323

- 117087

- 21 )

Septe mb er 29, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SEC OND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
Approved for Public Release by the Capitol Police Board on January 11, 2024
#### MARCHESE SISTERS, EMBROIDERY CORPORATION v. GOTHAM SILK HOSIERY CO., Inc.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 15, 1922.)

No. 239.

Appeal from the' District Court of the United State's for the Southern District of New York.

Suit by the Márchese Sisters Embroidery Corporation against the Gotham Silk Hosiery Company, Inc. From a decree dismissing the hill (282 Fed. 1005), plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*1008Frackman & Robins, of New York City (James H. Griffin, Joseph 'H. Robins, and Mark Frackman, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Darby & Darby, of New York City, for appellee.

Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
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 Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan
Ji, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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:
September 30, 2010





/s/
      Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Cruz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon his a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.40. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.