alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Military

This section of our website contains immigration information and links to resources specifically for members of the military and their families.

## Topics

Naturalization Through Military Service

Citizenship and Adjustment of Status for Family Members

Family Based Survivor Benefits

Discretionary Options

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Dorothy D. White, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Scott A. White, Deceased, and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Neil White, an Infant, and as Executrix of Edward P. White, Deceased, Appellant, v Mid-Town Oil Company, Inc., Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries and the wrongful death of Scott A. White, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated May 23, 1988, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to add a cause of action for the wrongful death of Edward P. White and to deem service of the amended complaint to have been made on the 29th day of April 1988, when the amended complaint was personally served upon the attorneys for the defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion is granted, and the defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court, the affidavit of Edward P. White’s treating psychiatrist provided an adequate basis linking the 1983 accident and injury with Edward P. White’s death on April 30, 1986 *(see, Douglas v New York City Tr. Auth.,*91 AD2d 1057, 1058; *Palmer v New York City Tr. Auth.,*33 AD2d 119; *Vastola v Maer,*48 AD2d 561, 567, *affd*39 NY2d 1019). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit *(see, Brewster v City of New York,*78 AD2d 667). Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
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 Administration for  Children and Families
 Proposed Projects: Title: Financial Status Reporting (SF-269) with  Supplemental ADD-02 for State Councils on Dev. Disabilities OMB No. 0980-0212 *Description:*
                     For the program of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, funds are awarded to State Agencies contingent on fiscal requirements in Subtitle B of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. The SF-269, mandated in the revised OMB Circular A-102, provides no accounting breakouts necessary for proper stewardship. The proposed supplement will allow compliance monitoring and proactive compliance maintenance and technical assistance. *Respondents:*
                     State and Tribal Governments. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of respondents
Number of responses per respondent
Average burden hours per response
Total burden hoursADD02
55
2
9
990Estimated total annual burden hours



990
 In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. *The Department specifically requests comments on:*
                     (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: April 24, 2001. Bob Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 01-10504  Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3254

___________ L. David Ormerod, M.D., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Curators of the University of Missouri, * Richard L. Wallace, * [UNPUBLISHED] Jack M. Colwill, M.D., and * John W. Cowden, M.D., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 12, 2004 Filed: May 21, 2004

___________ Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- L. David Ormerod (Dr. Ormerod) appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action. The district court 2found that his claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Treleven v. Univ. of Minn. , 73 F.3d 816, 817 (8th Cir. 1996). We will affirm if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (quoting Maitland v. Univ. of Minn. , 43 F.3d 357, 360 (8th Cir. 1994)). The University of Missouri hired Dr. Ormerod in 1996 as an associate professor of opthalmology. When the university terminated his employment, he brought a section 1983 suit against the university, Richard Wallace, Jack Colwill, and John Cowden. Wallace is the chancellor for the University of Missouri’s Columbia campus, Colwill was the interim dean for the school of medicine, and Cowden chairs the medical school’s department of opthalmology. Dr. Ormerod alleged that his due process rights were violated when the university failed to review his grievances and the university denied him consideration for tenure. Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution granted them immunity from this suit seeking monetary damages. The district court noted that previous decisions had established that the University of Missouri-Columbia was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court stated that it was unnecessary to evaluate whether the university was still entitled to immunity because Dr. Ormerod had not shown any change in the university’s circumstances. The court therefore granted the motion for summary judgment as to the university.-3- The court also granted summary judgment as to the defendants Wallace, Colwill, and Cowden. The parties agreed that these three defendants were acting at all relevant times as agents of the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Ormerod did not clearly specify in his complaint that he was suing them in their individual capacities. Therefore, these defendants were also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. For the reasons given in the district court’s opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Shawn Patrick Regan 

Richard Soto 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10166 

(212) 309-1000 

sregan@hunton.com 

rsoto@hunton.com 

-andDouglas W. Kenyon 

(to be admitted pro hac vice) 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

One Bank of America Plaza, Suite 1400 

421 Fayetteville Street 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 

(919) 899-3000 

dkenyon@hunton.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 

: 

GEORGE EDWARD McCAIN, an 

individual, 

Plaintiff, 

-againstRAHAL LETTERMAN RACING, LLC, 

an Ohio limited liability co.; et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 

 

Case No.: 07 CIV 5729 (JSR) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 48 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 3
2 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, subject to any and all defenses to be raised pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, the undersigned counsel hereby appear on behalf of Defendant TIMES 

PUBLISHING COMPANY in the above-captioned action. 

 All papers in this action shall be served upon the undersigned at the addresses set forth 

below. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 August 20, 2007 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

By: /s/ Richard Soto________ 

Shawn Patrick Regan 

Richard Soto 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

200 Park Avenue, 52nd Floor 

New York, New York 10166-0136 

(212) 309-1000 

sregan@hunton.com 

-andDouglas W. Kenyon 

(to be admitted pro hac vice) 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

One Bank of America Plaza, Suite 1400 

421 Fayetteville Street 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 

(919) 899-3000 

dkenyon@hunton.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 

TO: All counsel of record. 

Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 48 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
DECLARATION OF SERVICE

Raymond E. Galbraith, hereby declares under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1746, that: 

 I am a Litigation Paralegal at the law firm of Hunton & Williams LLP, attorneys 

for Defendant Time Publishing Company. 

 That on August 20, 2007, I served a true copy of the attached Notice of 

Appearance on counsel of record via the Court’s ECF System and via First Class Mail to 

any party not listed on the Court’s ECF System, by depositing the same in a duly 

enclosed and sealed wrapper, with the correct postage thereon, in an official letter box 

duly maintained by the Government of the United States of America within the State of 

New York. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on August 20, 2007. 

 /s/ Raymond E. Galbraith

 Raymond E. Galbraith 

TO: All counsel of record. 

Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 48 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               3,648
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                            41
<INVENTORY>                                             17
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    39,157
<PP&E>                                              20,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                      11,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      71,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               20,381
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,051
<OTHER-SE>                                          26,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        71,263
<SALES>                                            130,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   130,927
<CGS>                                              110,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      110,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (1,866)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7,166
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                         758
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.13
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3
(No. 333-148758) and S-8 (Nos. 333-138631, 333-145232, 333-155115 and 333-157869) of Metabolix, Inc. of our
report dated March 11, 2010 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 11, 2010

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE> 1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Graybar Electric Company, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2001,
included in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Graybar Electric
Company, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Graybar Electric
Company, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.


St. Louis, Missouri
February 20, 2001


                                       /s/  Ernst & Young LLP
Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 1 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 2 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 3 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 4 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 5 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 6 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 7 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 8 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 9 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 10 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 11 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 12 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 13 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 14 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 15 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 16 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 17 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 18 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 19 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 20 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 21 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 22 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 23 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 24 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 25 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 26 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 27 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 28 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 29 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 30 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 31 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 32 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-05732-GBD     Document 6      Filed 08/29/2007     Page 33 of 33
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert P.
van der Merwe, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Raymond D.
Andrews, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge, respectively,
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.


Dated: February 28, 2008

                                            By:  /s/   ROBERT P. VAN DER MERWE
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 28, 2008

                                            By:   /s/    RAYMOND D. ANDREWS
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language
in such filing.
(8 Misc. Rep. 331.)

#### FOSTER et al. v. OLDHAM.

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

May 7, 1894.)

Landlord and Tenant—Assignment of Lease—Presumption.

Possession of demised premises by a person other than the lessee raises a presumption that the lease was assigned to the person in possession.

On reargument. For decision on appeal, see 23 N. T. Supp. 1024.

Argued before BISCHOFF and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Wilber & Oldham, for appellant

Summer B. Stiles, for respondents.

GIEGERICH, J.

This is a reargument of the appeal taken herein by the defendant. It is now claimed by the appellant, for the first time, that the final order granted by default in summary proceedings instituted by the respondents against John Pearce, Jr., tenant, and Henry M. Leverich and Edward T. Oldham, assignees, undertenants, to recover possession of the premises in question, is an adjudication binding upon the respondents, which creates an estoppel, on the theory that the appellant was an undertenant. Assuming that the final order in such summary proceedings was an adjudication that the appellant was an undertenant, still that would have no bearing upon the decision of this appeal, as the appellant promised to pay the rent, which was an independent agreement, made upon sufficient consideration, and was binding upon him.

Appellant also claims that a lease was outstanding in another tenant for the very period rent for which is demanded. This claim is based upon the fact that the lease of the premises in question was made to one John Pearce, Jr., and as Pearce & Co., a firm, occupied the premises at the time of their assignment to the appellant for the benefit of creditors, and no assignment of the lease by John Pearce, Jr., having been proven, the appellant argues that the lease was in *560John Pearce, Jr., and that he alone is liable for the rent. The authorities, however, do not favor this contention. When a person other than the lessee is shown to be in possession of leasehold premises, the law presumes that the lease has been assigned to him. Bedford v. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 453; Frank v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Y. 197, 219, 25 N. E. 332, and cases cited. There was, therefore, a direct privity of estate between the respondents and the general assignee of the assignors of the lease. The justice determined, upon a conflict of evidence, that the appellant occupied the premises for the months of July, August, September, and October, 1891, for which period respondents demanded rent, and we think such determination of that question of fact is amply supported by the evidence. The fact that the appellant acknowledged his liability and promised to pay the rent only tends to make a stronger case against him. This disposes of all the questions raised by the appellant. We have re-examined the record, and, after again carefully considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the decision of the justice was in all respects correct. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
#### NEW ORLEANS FLOUR INSPECTORS v. GLOVER.

APPEAL. PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 88.

Argued November 22 and submitted December 2, 1895.

Decided December 9, 1895.

*Mills*v. *Greent*159 TJ. S. 651, affirmed to the point that when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the defendant, an event'occurs which renders it impossible for the appellate court, if it should decide the case in fav.or of the plaintiff, to grant him • any effectual relief, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss-the appeal.

The case is sufficiently stated in the short opinion of the court.

*Mr. J. B. Beckwith*argued for appellant on the 22d day of November, 1895. At the close of his argument the court adjourned until the 2d day of December following. *Mr. William, Wirt Howe*on that day presented himself to argue for appellees, but the court declined to hear further argument in the case.

The Chief Justice :

The decree below enjoined appellants from enforcing against appellees act No. 71 of the extra session of the general assembly of Louisiana of 1870, (Session Laws La. Ex. Sess. 1870, 156)'. This act was repealed June 28, 1892, (No. 23 of 1892, Acts La. 1892, 34,) and the appeal is dismissed on the authority of *Mills*v. *Green,*159 U. S. 651.

*Appeal dismissed.*