alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 403.

#### Jones *v.*Louisiana.

Jurisdictional statement distributed October 10, 1936.

Decided October 19, 1936.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) *Pim*v. *St. Louis,*165 U. S. 673; *Wall*v. *Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.,*256 U. S. 125; *Herndon*v. *Georgia,*295 U. S. 441, 443. (2) *Enterprise Irrigation Dist.*v. *Canal Co.,*243 U. S. 157, 166; *Hebert*v. *Louisiana,*272 U. S. 312, 316; *Ham, Commissioner,*v. *Equitable Life Assurance Society, ante,*p. 505. In so far as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek a review of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Louisiana upon questions of the asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution not involving the validity of any statute of the State, such *512papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, § 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 *(43*Stat. 936, 938), and certiorari is denied. The motion for leave to proceed further herein *in forma pauperis*is denied.

*Mr. Alex W. Swords*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.
Page 1 of 1 

secretary 

COMMENT 

From: Dan Coyle [djc0485@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:10 PM 

To: secretary 

Subject: proposed rules for trading off centralized market 

This message has been modified by removing a potentially harmful program. Only the appearance, not 

the content, should have been affected. If you are having a problem with this modified version, please 

contact your local OITS Customer Service Center for assistance. To whom it may concern: 

I am writing in response to "proposed rules for trading off the centralized market". It seems 

quite extraordinary that in this economic environment, in which many of the ills have their 

genesis in lack of transparency, a government regulatory agency is considering allowing 

off-market pre-arranged trading. This strikes me as counter productive to the basic tenets of 

the CFTC mandate of having markets open and competitive to all participants. If nothing 

else,block trading or off market trading leads to a decrease not an increase of market 

integrity.In small niche markets such as exist in the "softs" the impact will be much more 

significant since liquidity is always a concern. 

I have been involved in the futures markets for thirty years. I have been a compliance 

officer for the New York Cotton Exchange, a Member of two exchanges, floor broker and 

am currently a fund manager. It has never been in the long term interest of the exchanges, 

trading community or public to have pre-arranged or non-competitive trading. As a matter of 

record it was one of the most egregious violations while I was a compliance officer 

and long time member of the Business conduct committee. I am at a loss to understand who 

this modification of long standing regulation helps except a very small exclusive 

group. Electronic trading has increased speed and access to all markets for all participants---

why would we want to eliminate a level playing field. Any trading can still be done on 

screen where all can see in real time in an open to all environment. 

[ [!] [ Best Regards, 

Dan Coyle 

Get a free MP3 every day with the Spinner.com Tool bar. Get it Now. 

. ·-'· .... ·-. 

115/2009 

' • ' - ,··; 2 !'• 

'··· ..:_, '~-
No. 620, Misc.

#### Nottebaum *v.*Mayo, State Prison Custodian.

C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied:
pwx-ex41_12.htm



EXHIBIT 4.1

 

May 12, 2016

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

 


	
 
	
Re:
	
Providence and Worcester Railroad Company – Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2016 




Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Providence and Worcester Railroad Company, a Rhode Island corporation (the “Registrant”), is today filing its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2016 (the “Form 10-Q”). 

Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, copies of certain instruments defining the rights of holders of certain long-term debt obligations of the Registrant under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis are not filed with the 10-Q. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, the Registrant hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each such instrument or agreement. 

 


	
 

	
Very truly yours,

	
 

	
PROVIDENCE AND WORCESTER RAILROAD COMPANY

	
 

	
/s/ Daniel T. Noreck

	
Name: Daniel T. Noreck

	
Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-021]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

June 12, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 4, 2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing and approval four Service Agreements between ANR 
and General Motors Corporation (GM) pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule 
FTS-1 (together referred to as the GM Agreements).
    ANR states that the GM Agreements contain negotiated rate 
arrangements between ANR and GM. ANR requests that the Commission 
accept and approve the GM Agreements to be effective June 1, 2001.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15229 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**
I, P. Douglas Richard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community FinancialCorporation (the "Registrant");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report; and
c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004
/s/ P. Douglas Richard
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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



In connection with the Quarterly Encore Wire Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Frank
J. Bilban, Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 13, 2002


                                             /s/ FRANK J. BILBAN
                             --------------------------------------------------
                                               Frank J. Bilban
                             Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Treasurer and Secretary
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARTIN T. DYKE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 168 

DATE: MAY 25, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 168 

Name: Martin T. Dyke 

Effective May 25, 1970 

Effective immediately the respondents shall cease and desist from: (1) 

failing to treat and deal with customers' funds as belonging to such customers 

as required by section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 

1969) and the regulations thereunder; (2) failing to hold customers' funds in 

segregated accounts as required by section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 1969) and the regulations thereunder; (3) failing to 

prepare and maintain (a) an accurate record as of the close of the market on 

each business day of the amount of money, securities and property which must be 

in segregrated account in order to comply with the requirements of section 4d of 

the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 1969) and the regulations 

thereunder, and (b) such other books and records relating to dealing in 

commodity futures in such form and manner and for such period as may be required 

by the Secretary of Agriculture; (4) engaging as futures commission merchant 

within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act without meeting the minimum 

financial requirements prescribed by section 1.17 of the regulations (34 F.R. 

599) issued under the Commodity Exchange Act; and (5) wilfully causing, aiding, 

counseling, commanding or inducing any futures commission merchant to engage in 

any such act or practice. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties and 

on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

MAY 25 1970 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15233]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-020]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

June 12, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 4, 2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing and approval a Service Agreement between ANR and NG 
Energy Trading, L.L.C. (NG Energy) pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule FSS 
(the Agreement).
    ANR states that the Agreement contains a negotiated rate 
arrangement between ANR and NG Energy to be effective June 1, 2001 
through May 31, 2006 and contains a right to extend the term for one 
additional year upon specified circumstances. ANR requests that the 
Commission accept and approve the Agreement to be effective June 1, 
2001.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15233 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1386 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit Members 

from negotiating for a job involving lobbying activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2010 

Mr. FOSTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit Members from negotiating for a job involving 

lobbying activities. 

1 Resolved, That (a) clause 1 of rule XXVII of the 

2 Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by in3 serting ‘‘(a)’’ after ‘‘1.’’ and by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(b) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 

6 shall not negotiate or have any arrangement concerning 

7 prospective employment for a job involving lobbying activi8 ties as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.’’. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1386 IH 

1 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only 

2 apply to negotiations or arrangements entered into after 

3 the date of adoption of this resolution. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-3674EM

_____________

Alfonso Reyes-Lechuga, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

* On Appeal from the United

Janet Reno, as Attorney General of * States District Court

the United States; Doris Meissner, * for the Eastern District

as Commissioner of the Immigration * of Missouri.

and Naturalization Service; and *

Chester S. Moyer, as Eastern District *

of Missouri Officer in Charge, *

Immigration and Naturalization Service, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 23, 1999

Filed: July 19, 1999

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Alphoso Reyes-Lechuga appeals from the dismissal of his petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus. Relying on Section 306(a) of the Illegal
-2-

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub L. No. 104-302,

110 Stat. 3009-546 (IIRIRA), which amended Section 242 of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the District Court concluded that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s decision to deny the

petitioner discretionary relief under INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). While this case

was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court held that amended Section 242 does not

refer to deportation orders, but instead only to certain separate and discrete actions in

the deportation process which are not at issue here. Reno v. American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee, 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999). Therefore, this section cannot

serve as a basis for denying jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Furthermore, this

Court has recently held that habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 has survived

the enactment of IIRIRA and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act with

respect to aliens governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. See Shah v. Reno, __

F.3d __, No. 98-2636 (July 1, 1999). 

The judgment is reversed. The District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions

to reconsider the petition in light of Shah v. Reno, __ F.3d __, No. 98-2636 (July 1,

1999).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Thomas DeKenipp, Respondent, v Rockefeller Center, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[876 NYS2d 364]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 16, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for renewal and reargument of an order dated November 14, 2007 granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and, upon reargument, vacated said dismissal and granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a window washer employed by a private contractor that defendants hired, was instructed by his supervisor to clean the interior windows of defendants’ building. Plaintiff had previously cleaned these windows, and requested that his supervisor provide a pole extension that allowed him to reach their upper portions. This request was denied and thus, plaintiff had to stand atop three-to-four-foot-high, wall-mounted, heating convector covers to reach the windows’ upper areas. While plaintiff worked on one window, the convector cover he stood on suddenly came loose from the wall and he fell, injuring himself.

We find that the window-washing task here involved an elevation-related risk of the type contemplated by the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see e.g. Swiderska v New York Univ.,*10 NY3d 792, 792-793 [2008]). Plaintiff was effectively instructed to stand on the convector covers to get the job done, a practice established by record evidence as being routinely used by workers to access the building’s windows and ceilings. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
#### OCEAN INNOVATIONS, INC. (Formerly Known As Jet Dock Licensing, Inc.) And Jet Dock Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. GULF COAST FLOATING DOCKS, INC., and Richard Hill (Doing Business as Eco-Dock), Defendants, and Diversified Wholesale Marine, Inc. (Doing Business as Sailorman), Defendant, and Era Marine Products, Inc., Versadock, Roy Ahern, and George Dabrowski (Doing Business as Pic Marine), Defendants-Appellants. *934Ocean Innovations, Inc. (Formerly Known as Jet Dock Licensing, Inc.) and Jet Dock Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. Gulf Coast Floating Docks, Inc., and Richard Hill (Doing Business as Eco-Dock), Defendants, and Diversified Wholesale Marine, Inc. (Doing Business as Sailorman), Defendant-Appellant, and Era Marine Products, Inc., Versadock, Roy Ahern, and George Dabrowski (Doing Business as Pic Marine), Defendants.

Nos. 2011-1582, 2011-1614, 2011-1634, 2011-1548, 2011-1564.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2012.

ORDER

Ocean Innovations, Inc., Jet Dock Systems, Inc. and Diversified Wholesale Marine, Inc. move to voluntarily dismiss their appeal 2011-1548 and their cross-appeal 2011-1564.

Upon consideration thereof,

It is Ordered that:

(1) The motion to dismiss 2011-1548 and 2011-1564 is granted. The revised official caption in 2011-1582, -1614, -1634 is reflected above. The appellants’ opening brief in 2011-1582, -1614, -1634 is due on March 16, 2012.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2011-1548 and 2011-1564.

(2) All other pending motions are moot.
(July 7, 2009)

#### Miro Bacic, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[883 NYS2d 258]

*527In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated November 2, 2007, which, after a jury trial and upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, for judgment as a matter of law for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs decedent was dropped off at the Main Street subway station in Queens at 4:45 p.m. on July 9, 2003. Shortly thereafter, her deceased body was found under two cars of a Manhattan-bound No. 7 train, and one of her shoes was found on the subway platform. There were no witnesses to the incident, but, according to the medical examiner’s report, the decedent’s blood alcohol level was .21%. At the close of the evidence at the trial of this action, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case of negligence. We affirm.

“While ... a deceased or unconscious plaintiff is held to a lesser standard of proof, that does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to provide some proof from which negligence could reasonably be inferred” *(Byrd v New York City Tr. Auth.,*228 AD2d 537 [1996] [citation omitted]; *see Noseworthy v City of New York,*298 NY 76, 80 [1948]; *Horne v Metropolitan Tr. Auth.,*82 AD2d 909, 910 [1981]). Here, the only evidence supporting the negligence claim was the testimony of the plaintiffs expert Nicholas Bellizzi that the train’s conductor should have seen the decedent, or at least her shoe, on the platform. That testimony was entirely speculative, however, and thus did not constitute proof from which negligence could reasonably be inferred *(see e.g. Mirjah v New York City Tr. Auth.,*48 AD3d 764, 765-766 [2008]; *Seong Sil Kim v New York City Tr. Auth.,*27 AD3d 332, 334 [2006]; *cf. Huggins v Figueroa,*305 AD2d 460, 462 [2003]). Accordingly, even after giving the plaintiff “the benefit of every favorable inference which [could] reasonably [be] drawn from the evidence” *(Posner v New York City Tr. Auth.,*27 AD3d 542, 543 [2006]; *see McCummings v New York City Tr. Auth.,*81 NY2d 923, 926 [1993], *cert denied*510 US 991*528[1993]), the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case. Spolzino, J.P, Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.