alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sylvester C. Vanderbilt, Claimant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 23855)

Court of Claims,

May 29, 1936.

*Johnson & Searle,*for the claimant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General [Paul Muscarella, Assistant Attorney-General,*of counsel], for the defendant.

Barrett, P. J.

In the construction of the State highway adjoining a portion of claimant’s land, a well was rendered unfit for use and damages therefor are sought in this claim upon the grounds stated in claimant’s 17th requested finding of fact: *“*That the excavation made by the State of New York, cut the subterranean stream of water to the claimant’s well, and the well was destroyed.”

None of claimant’s property was appropriated.

*587In *County of Erie*v. *Fridenberg*(221 N. Y. 389), where a well supplied by subterranean water was damaged by blasting on defendant’s appropriated land, the court said (on p. 393): *“*Just compensation is reasonable and adequate compensation and the equivalent for the actual loss that the owner sustains by reason of the public taking his private property. The rights of the parties in this case are not controlled by the rule relating to the rights of adjoining owners in the legitimate use of their respective properties. In such case if percolating water is intercepted by such use, an adjoining owner may be without remedy.”

In that case it was held that a part of defendant’s land having been taken for a public use, he was entitled to recover the value of the premises taken, and damages to the residue, including those which were sustained by the use to which the appropriated portion was put, and that damages to the well were consequent to said use.

That case was regarded as controlling in *Easton*v. *State of New York*(245 App. Div. 439; affd., 271 N. Y. 507) where a portion of claimant’s property was taken and a well was made unfit for use. No such facts exist in this claim and in the absence of negligence and knowledge of the existence of the subterranean stream there can be no recovery. *(Dillon*v. *Acme Oil Co.,*49 Hun, 565.)

The State’s negligence has not been established. It appears that the highway was constructed in conformity with the usual plans and specifications and the accepted engineering methods, and there is no proof of knowledge of the existence of the subterranean stream. Even if the State’s negligence had been established, there could be no recovery as no copy of the claim was served on the Superintendent of Public Works, as required by section 12-a of the Court of Claims Act. (See amendment by Laws of 1936, chap. 775, in effect May 28, 1936.)

The claim must be dismissed.

Ryan, J., concurs.
#### Morris Emsig, Appellant, *v.*Sarah Fuchs, Also Known as Sadie Fuchs, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 12, 1936.

*Jackson & Lester [Irwin D. Lester*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Max Fuchs,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

An action on a bond secured by a mortgage on realty is maintainable under sections 1077-b and 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act when an action to foreclose a mortgage would be main-*804tamable. Moreover, the defendant, where the action is on a bond, must prove reasonable market value of the property by way of set-off.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31998R0845

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 845/98 of 22 April 1998 fixing, for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 411/97, the ceiling for Community financial assistance granted to producer organisations setting up operational funds for 1997***Official Journal L 120 , 23/04/1998 P. 0012 - 0012*

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 845/98 of 22 April 1998 fixing, for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 411/97, the ceiling for Community financial assistance granted to producer organisations setting up operational funds for 1997

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/97 of 3 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 214/98 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2520/97 (4), provides for the granting of Community financial assistance to producer organisations setting up operational funds; whereas paragraph 5 of that Article provides that up to 1999, that financial assistance is to be capped at 4 % of the value of the marketed production of each producer organisation, provided that the total financial assistance represents less than 2 % of the total turnover of all producer organisations; whereas, as from 1999, that 4 % will be increased to 4,5 % and the percentage of the total turnover will rise from 2 % to 2,5 %;

Whereas, according to information forwarded to the Commission by the Member States pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 411/97, the financial assistance applied for in respect of 1997 by producer organisations amounts to ECU 199,20 million against a total turnover of all producer organisations of ECU 10 921 million; whereas the ceiling for the abovementioned Community financial assistance should therefore be set at 4 % of the value of marketed production of each producer organisation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1 

The Community financial assistance provided for in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 shall be capped at 4 % of the value of marketed production of each producer organisation for aid applications in respect of 1997.

Article 2 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 62, 4. 3. 1997, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 214, 29. 1. 1998, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 346, 17. 12. 1997, p. 41.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.4

                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Bull Run Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-91296, 33-91298 and 333-56125) on Form S-8 of Bull Run Corporation and
in the Registration Statement (No. 333-84833) on Form S-4 of BR Holding, Inc. of
our report dated October 11, 1996 with respect to the consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows of Host Communications, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended June 30, 1996, which report appears in the June
30, 1999 transition report on Form 10-K of Bull Run Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for license fee
revenues and rights fee expenses.



                                             /s/  KPMG LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
November 8, 1999
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below: 

*License Number:*                     002238N.                 

*Name:*                     CSI Cargo System Air and Sea Inc.                 

*Address:*                     150-40 183rd Street, Room 106, Jamaica, NY 11413.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     January 8, 2005.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

*License Number:*                     000344F.                 

*Name:*                     Godwin Shipping Company Inc.                 

*Address:*                     317 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36603.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     January 15, 2005.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

*License Number:*                     017952N.                 

*Name:*                     Uniworld Cargo Shipping Lines, LLC.                 

*Address:*                     4000 West Side Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     January 13, 2005.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

*License Number:*                     004393F.                 

*Name:*                     Worldserv Transport Corporation.                 

*Address:*                     12282 Gamma Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     March 17, 2000.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

Sandra L. Kusumoto, 

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. 

[FR Doc. 05-2148 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5122 

To authorize appropriations for the Housing Assistance Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. WATERS, Mr. 

PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. WILSON

of Ohio, and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the Housing Assistance 

Council. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Assistance 

5 Council Program Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE COUNCIL. 

7 (a) USE.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban De8 velopment may provide financial assistance to the Housing 

9 Assistance Council for use by such Council to develop the 

10 ability and capacity of community-based housing developVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:15 Apr 23, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5122.IH H5122

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5122 IH

1 ment organizations to undertake community development 

2 and affordable housing projects and programs in rural 

3 areas. Assistance provided by the Secretary under this sec4 tion may be used by the Housing Assistance Council for— 

5 (1) technical assistance, training, support, and 

6 advice to develop the business and administrative ca7 pabilities of rural community-based housing develop8 ment organizations; 

9 (2) loans, grants, or other financial assistance 

10 to rural community-based housing development orga11 nizations to carry out community development and 

12 affordable housing activities for low- and moderate13 income families; and 

14 (3) such other activities as may be determined 

15 by the Housing Assistance Council. 

16 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

17 authorized to be appropriated for financial assistance 

18 under this section for the Housing Assistance Council— 

19 (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and 

20 (2) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013, 

21 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



                            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 Accredo Health, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joel R. Kimbrough, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Joel R. Kimbrough


Joel R. Kimbrough
Chief Financial Officer
September 29, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Year End Report of Michigan Community Bancorp Limited
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, J. William Sumner, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/      J. William Sumner
   --------------------------------------------------
         J. William Sumner
         Chief Executive Officer
         April 9, 2003
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7085** 

NATHANIEL SINGLETON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

WARDEN RIVERA; ASSOCIATE WARDEN WEIR; ASSIST WITTMAN; DR. PHILLIPES; COMMANDER GLENN; COMMANDER BRADY; MR. AGRLINE; D. COUICK; OFFICER MS. VENTON; OFFICER MS. JOHNSON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 01909

- RBH )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Nathaniel Singleton , Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Singleton appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Singleto n v. Warden Rivera , No. 1:10

- cv
- 01909

- RBH
(D.S.C. June 12, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRME D
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Century FinancialCorporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert K. Cole, Chairman of theBoard of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ Robert K. Cole       Robert K. Cole     Chairman of the Board     August 9, 2006A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’sForm 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350. It is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of the Company
  State of Other

Other Name, if Any,Jurisdiction of

the Subsidiary DoesName

Incorporation

Business UnderBowSteel Corporation

Delaware

RTI ConnecticutBowSteel of Texas Corporation

Delaware

RTI TexasExtrusion Technology Corporation of America

Ohio

RTI FabricationNati Gas Company

OhioNew Century Metals, Inc.

OhioNew Century Metals Southeast, Inc.

Delaware

RTI LAPierce-Spafford Metals Company, Inc.

California

RTI Pierce SpaffordReamet, S.A.

FranceRMI Delaware, Inc.

DelawareRMI Metals, Inc.

Utah

Micron MetalsRMI Titanium Company

OhioRTI Claro Inc.

QuebecRTI Finance

OhioRTI Hamilton, Inc.

OhioRTI Hermitage, Inc.

OhioRTI Energy Systems, Inc.

OhioRTI Europe Ltd.

United KingdomRTI Fabrication and Distribution, Inc.

OhioRTI France S.A.S

FranceRTI International Metals Gmbh

GermanyRTI International Metals Ltd.

United KingdomRTI International Metals Srl

ItalyRTI Martinsville, Inc.

OhioRTI St. Louis, Inc.

MissouriTradco, Inc.

Missouri

RTI Tradco
FRANCIS v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF WAKE COUNTY, et al.

305P97-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Egbert Francis, for Francis, Egbert Jr.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of December 2018 by Petitioner for Civil Contempt:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 23.2

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

Roseland Oil and Gas, Inc.
Garland, Texas

We hereby consent to the use in the 10KSB filing of our report dated April
29, 1999, relating to the financial statements of Roseland Oil and Gas, Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 1998, which is contained in that filing.

We also consent to any reference to use under the caption "Experts".


                                     /s/ William Matthews
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                     WILLIAM MATTHEWS, C.P.A., S.C.

Elm Grove, Wisconsin
June 21, 1999
#### Czarnecki Unemployment Compensation Case.

*47Argued November 13, 1957.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (Gunther, J., absent).

*Albert C. Shapira,*for appellant.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Thomas D. McBride,*Attorney General, for appellee.

*Milton W. Lamproplos,*with him Smith, *Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald & Eckert,*for intervening appellees.

January 21, 1958:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was denied benefits under section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS §802 (b), and has appealed.1

*48Claimant was married on July 23, 1955, and thereby terminated her employment with her employer, the Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, because the union-company collective bargaining agreement, negotiated by the union with which she was affiliated, provided: “No married women will be hired, and no single women who subsequently marry shall be retained beyond a period of thirty (30) days from the date of marriage.” Claimant was clearly disqualified. *Means Unemployment Compensation Case,*177 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 110 A. 2d 886; *Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case,*180 Pa. Superior Ct. 542, 119 A. 2d 650, allocatur refused 180 Pa. Superior Ct. xxx.

It is argued on behalf of claimant that this provision in the collective bargaining agreement is illegal under section 701 of the Law, 43 PS §861. The section provides in part: “No agreement by an employe to waive, release, or commute his rights to compensation, or any other rights under this act, shall be valid.” It is obvious that the section proscribes agreements to relinquish rights or benefits which the employe otherwise would be entitled to under the Law. It has no application to legitimate conditions of the employment, such as the instant provision in the collective bargaining agreement, which the employer and the employe (individually or through a collective bargaining agent) agree shall govern the employment status. The collective bargaining agreement was binding on claimant. When she married she thereby terminated her employment and voluntarily elected to place herself in an unemployed status for a reason which the Law does not recognize as necessitous and compelling. *Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case,*supra, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 542, 545, 119 A. 2d 650.

*49Questions not covered in the statement of questions involved will not be considered on this appeal. *Blue Anchor Overall Co. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance*Company, 385 Pa. 394, 402, 123 A. 2d 413.

The decision is affirmed.

1

 It was stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the decision in this ease shall be considered as the decision of the Court in the following appeals: Mildred Pavlick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 117, April Term, 1957; Mary B. Merritts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 126, April Term, 1957; Dorothy Mrena v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 127, April Term, 1957; Margaret Konesky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 146, April Term, 1957.