alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter Athineos et al., Appellants, v Carol Thayer, Respondent.

In a holdover proceeding against the occupant of a rent-controlled apartment, the petitioners appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated January 26, 1988, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 31, 1986, granting the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denying the petitioners’ cross motion for summary judgment.

*826Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1943 the then 14-year-old respondent, an orphan who had been living in a foster home, was taken into the home of Peter and Zoebada Boutross. In 1951 the Boutross family, including the respondent, moved into the rent-controlled apartment from which the petitioners now seek to evict her, where, as the evidence established, they lived as a family until 1985, when Mrs. Boutross died. Her husband had died 12 years earlier. Shortly thereafter the petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking to evict the respondent, alleging that since the Boutrosses never formally adopted the respondent she was not a member of their family and therefore was not entitled to continue to reside in the rent-controlled apartment under New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations (9 NYCRR) § 2204.6 (d). The Civil Court granted the respondent summary judgment, alternatively finding that the respondent was entitled to possession of the apartment as a cotenant and as a family member of the deceased tenant. The Appellate Term unanimously affirmed, finding that the respondent "was so assimilated into this family as to be the equivalent of the Boutross’ daughter”. We granted leave to appeal, and now affirm the Appellate Term’s determination.

The evidence adduced here clearly established that all the parties involved, the Boutrosses, their children, and the respondent, considered themselves to be a family, and presented themselves as such. Thus the fact that their relationship had never been formalized by means of an adoption order should not result in their exclusion from the protections afforded by New York City’s Rent Control Law *(see, Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co.,*74 NY2d 201). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### ROWELL et al., Appellants, v. LAMBERT, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term. First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by George P. Rowell and others against Edward W. Lambert.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 20 N. Y. Supp. 822.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



     DATE                                                  WARRANT          NUMBER OF   EXERCISE PRICE/
    ISSUED       WARRANT HOLDER                            NO.               SHARES     EXPIRATION DATE

<S>                                                        <C>              <C>         <C>
   1/19/2000     Gulfstream Financial Partners, LLC        99-1               700,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Blake Capital Partners, LLC               99-2               250,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Wayne W. Mills                            99-3               500,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Continental Holdings, Ltd.                99-4               350,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Ralph H. Grills, Jr.                      99-5               100,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Barry Hollander                           99-6               100,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     McCandish Partners, Inc.                  99-7                50,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     Falconberg Corporation                    99-8               250,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     US Bank Trust, NA, Trustee FBO            99-9                25,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                 William M. Mower IRA                                                   Expires:  1/19/2005

   1/19/2000     William M. Mower                          99-10               25,000   Exercise Price:  $2.00
                                                                                        Expires:  1/19/2005

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Misc. No. 05-18

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1) of the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice, 

that the following individuals have been appointed by the Chief Judge, with the concurrence of the 

Court, to serve as members of the Committee on Admission and Practice:

Brent Bowker, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 15, 2018, for a term expiring on 

April 15, 2021;

Michael A. Carr, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 17, 2018, for a term expiring on 

April 17, 2021;

Stephen E. Castlen, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 17, 2018, for a term expiring 

on April 17, 2021;

Christine Khalili-Borna Clemens, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 17, 2018, for a 

term expiring on April 17, 2021;

Amy Richardson, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 17, 2018, for a term expiring on 

April 17, 2021;

Leslie C. Rogall, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 10, 2018, for a term expiring on 

May 10, 2021;

Margaret E. Sorrenti, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 14, 2018, for a term expiring 

on May 14, 2021; and

Todd M. Wesche, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 14, 2018, for a term expiring on 

May 14, 2021.

DATED: May 14, 2018 FOR THE COURT:

Gregory O. Block

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 13.2

Certification pursuant to Section 906 Sarbanes Oxley Act by the Chief Executive Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A (the Report) for the period ending December 31, 2005 of Telecom Italia
Media S.p.A. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2006 for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Paolo Serra, the Chief Executive Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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 Telecom Italia Media S.p.A

|                                 |     |                 |                        
|-------------------------------- | --- | --------------- | -----------------------
|                                 |     |                 |                        
|                                 | By: | /s/ Paolo Serra
|                                 |     |                
|                                 |     | Name:           | Paolo Serra            
|                                 |     | Title:          | Chief Financial Officer
|Date: September 28,
        2006 |     |                 |                        

---
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11

                                LOGILITY, INC.
            Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                               Three Months Ended
                                                     July 31,
                                              --------------------
                                                1998         1997
                                              -------      -------
Common Stock:
  Weighted average common
   shares outstanding                          13,563       11,300

Dilutive effect of outstanding
  stock options *                                   -            -
                                              -------      -------
      Total                                    13,563       11,300
                                              -------      -------
Net earnings (loss)                           $(3,420)     $   224
                                              =======      =======
Earnings (loss) per common
   and common equivalent share                $ (0.25)     $  0.02
                                              =======      =======


* Stock options are not included in the three months ended July 31, 1998
  calculation due to the anti-dilution to the net loss.


                                      18
Exhibit
4.4


 


	
   399, Montée du Sourire, Rouyn-Noranda, Qc,
  J9X 5L2

  



 


April 13, 2010


 


Consent of Elzéar Belzile, Eng.


Board of Directors, Osisko Mining Corporation


United States Securities and Exchange Commission


 


To the Board of Directors of Osisko Mining Corporation


 


I, Elzéar Belzile, Eng., of BBA Inc., consent to:


 


1.             The incorporation by
reference in the Offer and Circular of Osisko Mining Corporation (the “Company”),
included as part of the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-8 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, of the description of the
reports titled “Feasibility Study — Canadian Malartic Project (Malartic,
Quebec)” dated December, 2008 and “Updated resource and reserve estimates for
the  — Canadian Malartic Project
(Malartic, Quebec)” dated March 22, 2010.


 


2.             The information that forms
the summary of the reports of the description of project and to the use of my
name under the Offer and Circular and Registration Statement as a named expert.


 


	
  Dated
  as of the 13th day of April, 2010

  
	
   

  
	
  SIGNED

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Elzéar Belzile

  	
   

  
	
  Elzéar
  Belzile
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


SUBSIDIARY                                                    JURISDICTION
----------                                                    ------------

SYBRON DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.                                Delaware

LRS ACQUISITION CORP.                                         Delaware
Ormco Corporation                                             Delaware
Allesee Orthodontic Appliances, Inc.                          Wisconsin
Maquiladora Aci-Mex, S.A. de C.V.                             Mexico
Ormco B.V.                                                    The Netherlands
Ormco Europe B.V.                                             The Netherlands
Ormco de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                 Mexico
Ormco (Europe) AG                                             Switzerland
Ormco GmbH                                                    Germany
Ormco Pty. Limited                                            Australia
Ormex S.A. de C.V.                                            Mexico
Socodent S.A.                                                 France
Aida International                                            France
Ormodent Belgique, S.A.                                       Belgium
Ormodent L.D.A.                                               Portugal
Ormodent S.A.                                                 France
SDS de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                   Mexico

KERR CORPORATION                                              Delaware
belle de st. claire, inc.                                     Wisconsin
Kerr Australia Pty. Limited                                   Australia
Kerr (Europe) A.G.                                            Switzerland
Kerr GmbH                                                     Germany
Kerr Italia, S.p.A.                                           Italy
Metrex Research Corporation                                   Wisconsin
Sybron Dental Specialties Japan, Inc.                         Japan

KERR U.K. LIMITED                                             England
Analytic Endodontics U.K. Limited                             England

PINNACLE PRODUCTS, INC.                                       Wisconsin

SYBRON CANADA LIMITED                                         Canada
#### In the Matter of Joan MacDougall, Appellant, v Board of Elections of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Barbara A. Murphy as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the party position of Female Member of the Republican State Committee from the 37th Assembly District, Queens County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le Vine, J.), dated August 7, 1987, which denied the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

While, as a general rule, a candidate’s designating petition will be invalidated on the ground that some signatures have been obtained by fraud only if there is a showing that the entire designating petition is "permeated with fraud” *(Matter of Ferraro v McNab,*60 NY2d 601, 603; *see, Matter of Proskin v May,*40 NY2d 829, 830; *Matter of Aronson v Power,*22 NY2d 759, 760), when the candidate herself has participated in the fraud, the petition should be invalidated even if there is a sufficient number of valid signatures independent of those fraudulently procured *(see, Matter of Flower v D'Apice,*104 AD2d 578; *Matter of Layden v Gargiulio,*77 AD2d 933, 934). In this case, Julie Apollo and Antonia Carlone testified that the person before whom they signed the designating petition was a man who said he was procuring signatures on behalf of his wife. However, the page of the designating petition bearing their signatures lists "Barbara A. Murphy” as the subscribing witness. Under these circumstances, the court should have permitted the petitioner to call as witnesses candidate Murphy and her husband, who were both readily available outside the courtroom to inquire as to their alleged participation in the obtaining of these signatures *(see, Howson v Marlene Blouse Corp.,*200 Misc 242), or, alternatively, should have allowed the petitioner a brief continuance to secure the attendance of these witnesses by subpoena *(see, Murphy v City of New York,*273 App Div 492; *cf., Cuevas v Cuevas,*110 AD2d 873, 877). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings at which the petitioner shall be permitted to call candidate Murphy and *199her husband as witnesses. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            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 Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2008, as amended by the
Form 10-K/A filed on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Powers, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                                                         /s/ John P. Powers
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         John P. Powers
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                         Date: May 29, 2009

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop
Medical Corporation 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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB). This action is undertaken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4). The Commission's PRB will be comprised of the following members: 

Thomas R. Herlihy

Daniel L. Larcamp

Cynthia A. Marlette

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10781  Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Name                                                                | State or Country of      Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|

| Panhandle      Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP | Delaware |
|----------------------------------------------|----------|
| Trunkline      Gas Company, LLC              | Delaware |
| Trunkline      LNG Company, LLC              | Delaware |
| Pan      Gas Storage, LLC                    | Delaware |
| CCE      Acquisition LLC                     | Delaware |
| CCE      Holdings, LLC                       | Delaware |
| CrossCountry      Citrus, LLC                | Delaware |
| SUG      Energy, LLC                         | Texas    |
| Southern      Union Gas Services, Ltd.       | Texas    |

| Note:           Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of Southern Union Company are not named      above. Considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, these unnamed      entities would not constitute a "significant subsidiary" at the end of the      year covered by this report. Additionally, the Company has other      subsidiaries that conduct no business except to the extent necessary to      maintain their corporate name orexistence. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(86 South. 19)

#### LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS MUT. LIFE & ACCIDENT ASS’N v. HUGHES.

(6 Div. 1.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1920.)

Appeal and error &wkey;s 1005 (3) — Approved findings .of fact, based on conflicting evidence, not disturbed.

Findings of fact by jury, based on conflicting evidence.and approved by the court on a motion to set aside the verdict, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Jennie B. Hughes against the Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life & Accident Association upon a benefit certificate issued upon the life of L. D. Ponda, in which she was named as beneficiary. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Frank S. White & Sons, and Weakley.& Rice, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

It appears that the father, brother,' and wife of insured all knew at the time they paid the assessment that Ponda.was being taken to the «hospital for a dangerous operation, and it cannot be presumed and is not shown that May or his wife knew these facts when they accepted the check and signed the receipt; therefore no waiver can be claimed. 160 Ala. 334, 49 South. 354.

Stokely, Scrivner & Dominick, of Birmingham, for appellee.

The question here presented was one for the jury under the evidence. 160 Ala. 334, 49 South. 354; 185 Ala. 301, 64 South. 362; 126 Ala. 568, 28 South. 646; 202 Ala. 466, 80 South. 850; 104 Ala. 176, 16 South. 46.

SAYRE, J.

This third appeal (201 Ala. 58, 77 South. 352; Id.,202 Ala. 466, 80 South. 850) reduces the contention between the parties to a single issue which will bring the cause to a period. The contention on behalf of appellant is that the issue raised by plaintiff’s fourth replication was erroneously submitted to the jury over defendant’s exception, and again erroneously decided by the court on the motion to set aside the verdict, for that, it is alleged, there was no evidence fairly going to sustain the allegation of the replication, viz. “the defeiidant was informed that deceased was confined in the hospital, and that he had been operated on for some trouble in his side, either for appendicitis or for flesh tumor.” This question has had,due consideration, and the court is of opinion that the issue thus raised was properly submitted to the jury as being a question upon which the evidence was in conflict; and that the court’s ruling on the motion should not be disturbed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BROWN, JJ., concur.