alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of O’Connell Machinery Co., Inc., Appellant, v City of Buffalo Zoning Board of Appeals et al., Respondents.

[875 NYS2d 715]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered April 15, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondent City of Buffalo Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granting the application of the remaining respondents (collectively, developers) for a use variance permitting the use of two parcels in an M-l light industrial district for a mixed use development, including student housing and other residential uses, a hotel, and commercial uses. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. The ZBA determined that the developers met the requirements for a use *1354variance *(see*General City Law § 81-b [3]; City of Buffalo Code § 511-125 [C]). The ZBA’s determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, and thus the court was “without power to substitute its judgment for that of [the ZBA]” *(Matter of Dwyer v Polsinello,*160 AD2d 1056, 1057 [1990]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the developers established that the restrictions on the property have caused “unnecessary hardship” (General City Law § 81-b [3] [b]). The developers presented “proof, in dollars and cents form,” that they cannot realize a reasonable return on their investment because the property had been substantially vacant for 30 years, only 10% to 15% of the space was occupied at the time of the application, and the prospects for expanding occupancy and generating sufficient revenue to cover necessary maintenance, repairs and improvements were marginal *(Matter of Village Bd. of Vil. of Fayetteville v Jarrold,*53 NY2d 254, 257 [1981]; *see generally Matter of Center Sq. Assn., Inc. v City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals,*19 AD3d 968, 970 [2005]; *Matter of Allen v Fersh,*1 AD2d 918 [1956]). In addition, the developers established that the hardship results from the unique characteristics of the property *(see Matter of Allen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Kingston,*8 AD3d 810, 811 [2004]; *Dwyer,*160 AD2d at 1058), and that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood inasmuch as the mixed uses proposed by the developers currently exist in proximity to the property *(see Matter of West Vil. Houses Tenants’ Assn. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals,*302 AD2d 230, 231 [2003], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*100 NY2d 533 [2003]). Finally, we conclude that “there is no basis to disturb the [ZBA’s] finding that the hardship was not self-created” *(Matter of Sullivan v City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals,*20 AD3d 665, 667 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 701 [2005]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Butler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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:  May 13, 2011
By: /s/ Randy ButlerRandy ButlerChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MINDY J. ZIED-CAMPBELL, DENNIS J. 

CAMPBELL,

Petitioners

v.

PA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES, PA BUREA OF HEARINGS 

AND APPEALS, ET AL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 547 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

Application for Relief are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
Tanknology-NDE International, Inc. financial statements as of and for the period
ended June 30, 1999.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1


<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                           128,117
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                 13,923,244
<ALLOWANCES>                   1,514,928
<INVENTORY>                    1,237,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              14,321,133
<PP&E>                        22,543,022
<DEPRECIATION>                14,714,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                25,892,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          8,876,903
<BONDS>                       15,565,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          1,500,000
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                           1,677
<OTHER-SE>                      (191,435)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  25,892,077
<SALES>                       24,401,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              24,401,420
<CGS>                         22,357,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 26,359,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               861,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,723,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                     290,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,432,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,432,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.15)




</TABLE>
Paul M. GORDON, petitioner, v. Leca LEDBETTER.

No. 16-6151.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Barnes, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 807]—

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 17, 2006 *(People v Barnes,*33 AD3d 811 [2006]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 13, 2004.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Spolzino and Ritter, JJ., concur.
In re Roy J. DIXON, petitioner.

No. 16-6270.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Exhibit 12.1

Certification

Pursuant
to Section 302

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James Garner, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 (Report) of Kazia Therapeutics Limited (formerly known as Novogen Limited) (the Company);
and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ James Garner                    
|James Garner Chief Executive
Officer

Date: December 18, 2017
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: FRED D. GUTH 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 87 

DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: FRED D. GUTH 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 87 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Fred D. Guth has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) and 

the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 CFR, 

Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and 

the said Fred D. Guth is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a 

stipulation of compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, the said 

Fred D. Guth stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Fred D. Guth an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was on August 13, 1965, a registered floor 

broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the Board of Trade of 

the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

(2) On August 13, 1965, Fred D. Guth executed 122 transactions in regulated 

commodity futures on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. However, with 

respect to 113 of such transactions, in each instance he failed to prepare a 

trading card or other record 

clearly identifying the opposite floor broker or other trader with whom such 

transaction was executed. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Fred D. Guth that his failure to 

keep full and complete records of futures transactions, as described above, was 

in violation of section 4g of the Commodity Exchange Act and section 1.35 of the 

regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said Fred D. Guth agrees to desist from such acts and practices in the 

future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon acts or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 

1 day of October 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
<PAGE>
                                                                       FORM 10-Q



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                       CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Encore Wire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Vincent A. Rego, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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, as
                  amended; 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: August 8, 2003






                                                /s/ VINCENT A. REGO
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                  Vincent A. Rego
                                             Chairman of the Board and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
Charles MONTAGUE, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 16-5929.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Eastern Division denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000934666
<NAME>                        North Jersey Energy Associates
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.000
<CASH>                                           61,203
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    34,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       4,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                103,043
<PP&E>                                          504,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                  154,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  541,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39,328
<BONDS>                                         468,724
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (197,186)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    541,431
<SALES>                                         312,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                312,154
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   202,157<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 18,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               65,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  36,673
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              36,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     36,673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        
<FN>
<F1> Includes depreciation of $24,992
</FN>

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


First Amendment to the
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.
Annual Incentive Plan 
As Amended and Restated (effective December 10, 2015)
This First Amendment is made to the Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective December 10, 2015 (the “Plan”).  


WHEREAS, the purpose of this First Amendment is to enable the Committee to determine target award percentages based on a measure other than annual base salary for participating officers who are not receiving a base salary or who are receiving only a de minimis base salary.


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:


1.    Section VII(1)(a) of the Plan is amended in its entirety as set forth below:


		
	(a)
	Target award percentage—Each Participant’s target award percentage is established annually and is a percentage of an amount (typically annual aggregate salary, or, for any Participant who does not receive an annual salary or who receives only a de minimis annual salary, such other amount as the Committee may determine) that reflects the varying impact of the Participant’s positions on business results. Generally Officers will have higher target award percentages than senior middle managers and so forth.




2.    In all other respects, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.


The undersigned has caused this First Amendment to the Plan to be executed as of the date below. 




HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.




By:  _____________________________________    
            William R. Ermatinger
            Vice President and Chief Human Resources 
Officer


Date:  _________________________, 2016


1
John STANCU, petitioner, v. PACE REALTY CORPORATION.

No. 16-374.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
DEERE & COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

No. 15-1213.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.
Victor ROJAS, petitioner, v. Ginnie KIRKPATRICK, et al.

No. 16-319.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: PACIFIC TRADING COMPANY, STEPHEN J. KLEMEN JR., AND RAYMOND S. BUCK 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-1; 226 

DATE: MARCH 3, 1976 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 226 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of PACIFIC TRADING COMPANY, STEPHEN J. KLEMEN, JR., AND RAYMOND 

S. BUCK 

CFTC Docket No. 75-1 

ORDER STAYING SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION AND PROHIBITION FROM TRADING 

FINAL ORDER 

On February 23, 1976, Pacific Trading Co., Stephen J. Klemen, Jr. and Raymond 

S. Buck filed a Motion for a stay of the Commission's Order, pending review of 

their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 

where a Petition for Review was filed on February 19, 1976 

The Commission, on February 9, 1976, affirmed the decision and order of an 

Administrative Law Judge ordering that the respondents cease and desist from 

filing incomplete or inaccurate series '01 or '03 reports with the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, suspending their registration for a period of seven 

days and prohibiting them from trading on or subject to the rules of any 

contract market for a period of seven days. The sanctions imposed are to become 

effective on March 10, 1976, the 30th day after the final date of the 

Administrative Law Judge's order. However, the cease and desist provisions of 

the Administrative Law Judge's order became effective on February 9, 1976. 

On the facts of this case, it does not appear that the public interest would 

be adversely affected by the granting of a stay, deferring the suspension and 

prohibition from trading, pending review by the Court of 

Appeals. As to the cease and desist provision of the Administrative Law 

Judges's order, it is presumed that the respondents will comply with the law and 

accordingly will suffer no detriment by having to comply with that aspect of the 

order. Therefore, the Motion for a stay of the provision of the Administrative 

Law Judge's order, directing that the respondents cease and desist from filing 

incomplete or inaccurate series '01 or '03 reports with the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the provisions of the Administrative Law 

Judge's order suspending the respondent's registration for a period of seven 

days and prohibiting them from trading on or subject to the rules of any 

contract market for a period of seven days, is hereby stayed pending the 

decision of the United States Court of Appeals. In all other respects, the 

motion for a stay is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order, dated March 3, 1976, be 

served upon each contract market. 
Page 2 

By the Commission (Chairman BAGLEY, Vice-Chairman PAINBOLT, and Commissioners 

DUNN and SERVERS). Commissioner MARTIN not participating. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

William T. Bagley 

Chairman 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: March 3, 1976 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 3
CFTC Staff Roundtable 

Swap Data Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements

June 8, 2011, 1:00 p.m. 

Panel 1 

Discussion about the existing systems of swap product classification and identification currently available 

Participants: 

1. Michael Atkin (EDM) 

2. Karel Engelen (FpML) 

3. Jim Northey (Lasalletech) 

4. Eric Cohen (PWC) 

5. Anthony Coates (Londata) – by phone 

Panel 2 

Coordination among various industry product classification and identification work-streams for the 

purpose of achieving a universal method to describe and classify swap products 

Participants: 

1. Richard Soley (OMG) 

2. Frank Demaria (ISDA) 

3. Matt Simpson (CME) 

4. Robert Green (DTCC) 

5. Karla McKenna (ISO) 

Panel 3 

Implementation of a universal system of swap product classification and identification for the purpose of 

meeting various CFTC requirements 

Participants: 

1. Ed Dasso (NFA) 

2. Sue Cochran (Cargill) 

3. Simon Winn (BNP Paribas) 

4. Bruce Tupper (ICE) 

5. Neil Chinai (Barclays) 

6. Robert Green (DTCC) 

7. Brian Okupski (Markit)