alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Estate of Barnett Kadin, Deceased, Petitioner, v Roger Bennett et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, dated November 15, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s appeal from a stop-work order issued by the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, for a new determination consistent herewith.

The Commissioner of the Department of Buildings of the respondent City of New York issued a stop-work order on the construction of a building owned by the petitioner on the ground that its building permit had been revoked. The petitioner appealed this determination claiming that it had acquired a vested right to continue the construction. The respon*309dent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) determined, in relevant part, that the issue of whether the petitioner had acquired a vested right was to be decided by the Supreme Court. However, "[s]ubject to court review of their decisions, administrative officers and boards charged with the duty of enforcing zoning regulations may properly determine claims of vested rights” in the first instance *(Matter of G. M. L. Land Corp. v Foley,*20 AD2d 645, 646, *affd*14 NY2d 823).

Contrary to the respondents’ further contention, New York City Zoning Resolution § 11-331 does not codify or abolish the common-law doctrine of vested rights. The common-law doctrine is a broader consideration than that posited in that section of the resolution, which confines itself to whether or not certain physical stages of construction relating to excavation and the foundation have been completed. While the general standard in determining vested rights is substantial construction and substantial expenditure made prior to the effective date of the zoning amendment *(see, Matter of Putnam Armonk v Town of Southeast, 52*AD2d 10, 14-15), unlike New York City Zoning Resolution § 11-331, ”[t]here is no fixed formula which measures the content of all the circumstances whereby a party is said to possess 'a vested right’ ”. Rather, it is a term which sums up a determination that the facts of the case render it inequitable that the State impede the individual from taking certain action *(Matter of Lefrak Forest Hills Corp. v Galvin,*40 AD2d 211, 218, *affd*32 NY2d 796, *cert denied sub nom. Baum v Lefrak Forest Hills Corp.,*414 US 1004). Each case must be determined according to its own circumstances. We therefore remit the matter to the Board for a new determination.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before us. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

804 CA 11-02005 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

DONOVAN HUMPHREY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
EDWARD CAMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND BEN PENNETTA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
SLIWA & LANE, BUFFALO (STANLEY J. SLIWA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered May 31, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Ben Pennetta to videotape the deposition of plaintiff.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-34 (c)
(logo)  PAYNE SMITH & JONES, P.C.
        Certified Public Accountants





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
Colonial Savings, F.A.

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying Servicer
Compliance Statement, that Colonial Savings, F.A. (the "Company") complied with
the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for asset-backed securities transactions for which
the Company served as servicer as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from
January 1, to December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") except for servicing
criteria 229.1122 (3)(i)(D) which is perfomed as requested by the investor in
accordance with the transaction agreements. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria specified above. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of a sample of the transactions and activities related to the
platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria specified above.
Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.
Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions and activities or any other
transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified above.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the reporting
period January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 for the platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.


/s/ Payne Smith & Jones, P.C.

March 1, 2007


10711 Preston Road * Suite 110 * Dallas, TX 75230 * 214 / 363-9982
 * Fax 214 / 363-9980
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-15 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
National Presto Industries, Inc.
                                   EXHIBIT 11

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Second Quarter            First Six Months
                                                                         --------------            ----------------
                                                                        2002         2001         2002          2001
                                                                        ----         ----         ----          ----
<S>                                                                   <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
Net Earnings (loss) (1)                                               $ 1,083      $ 1,379      $(1,277)      $ 2,629
                                                                      =======      =======      =======       =======

Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)                          6,840        6,861        6,839         6,869

Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive            1            1           --             1

Adjusted common and common equivalent
                                                                      -------      -------      -------       -------
  shares for computation (3)                                            6,841        6,862        6,839         6,870
                                                                      =======      =======      =======       =======

Net earnings (loss) per share:
    Basic (1 divided by 2)                                            $  0.16      $  0.20      $ (0.19)      $  0.38
                                                                      =======      =======      =======       =======
    Diluted (1 divided by 3)                                          $  0.16      $  0.20      $ (0.19)      $  0.38
                                                                      =======      =======      =======       =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                      | /s/ Jeffrey D. Serkes                        |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|  

Date. May 8, 2006 | Jeffrey D. SerkesPrincipal Financial Officer |
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6947 

To prohibit the importation of crude oil, petroleum, petroleum products, 

and liquefied natural gas from the Russian Federation, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2022 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. GIBBS, 

Mr. BABIN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. 

BUDD, Mr. CALVERT, and Mrs. BOEBERT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Intelligence (Permanent Select), Armed Services, and 

Oversight and Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation of crude oil, petroleum, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas from the Russian Federation, and for other purposes. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6947 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom from Russian 

3 Energy Enterprise and Domestic Oil Maximization Act’’ 

4 or the ‘‘FREEDOM Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL, PE6 TROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND LIQ7 UEFIED NATURAL GAS FROM THE RUSSIAN 

8 FEDERATION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

10 (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, effec11 tive beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

12 the President shall prohibit the importation of crude oil, 

13 petroleum, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas 

14 from the Russian Federation. 

15 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

16 respect to crude oil, petroleum, petroleum products, and 

17 liquefied natural gas imported on or before 11:59 p.m. 

18 eastern daylight time on the date that is 45 days after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

20 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE. 

21 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—TransCanada Keystone Pipe22 line, L.P., may construct, connect, operate, and maintain 

23 the pipeline facilities at the international border of the 

24 United States and Canada at Phillips County, Montana, 

25 for the import of oil from Canada to the United States 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6947 IH

1 as described in the Presidential Permit of March 29, 2019 

2 (84 Fed. Reg. 13101 2 (April 3, 2019)). 

3 (b) PRESIDENTIAL PERMITS.—No Presidential per4 mit or any other Executive order shall be required for the 

5 construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the 

6 pipeline facilities described in subsection (a). 

7 SEC. 4. NULLIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

8 Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7619; relating 

9 to tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad) shall 

10 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                       917
<INVENTORY>                                     17,822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,091
<PP&E>                                         109,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,115
<BONDS>                                          9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,667
<SALES>                                        109,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,581
<CGS>                                           95,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,445
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,801
<SECURITIES>                                     1,975
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,296
<INVENTORY>                                    160,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,648
<PP&E>                                       3,037,429
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,209,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,273,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,323
<BONDS>                                        672,045
<COMMON>                                        32,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     915,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,273,849
<SALES>                                        399,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,445
<CGS>                                          356,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  356,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,428
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### HOUSTON FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. et al. v. Lee H. HOGUE et al.

No. 3925.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 10, 1954.

Landry, Watkins, Cousin & Landry, New Iberia, for appellant.

Provost & Ernest and Eugene D. Brous-sard, New Iberia, for appellees.

*82ELLIS, Judge.

The Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. was the insurer of the automobile of Alexis C. Romero. The latter’s car was involved in an accident with a vehicle belonging to Lee H. Hogue, and the petition alleges the damage done to the Romero car was occasioned solely through the negligence of Hogue. Hassie Hunt Trust, employer of Hogue, was joined as a party defendant, as well as its insurer, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. The petition alleges that Hogue was within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred, and under a subrogation claim Romero’s insurer claims $1,344.27, which it had to pay Romero for damages to his automobile. Romero joined as a party plaintiff seeking his recovery of $50 covering his loss, as the policy was a $50 deductible one:

The District Court gave judgment in favor of Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. in the amount of $1,344.27 and in favor of Romero in the amount of $50, plus legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid. This judgment was in solido against all of the defendants.

From this judgment Hassie Hunt Trust and its insurer have appealed. Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and Alexis C. Romero have answered the appeal praying the judgment appealed from be affirmed. Lee H. Hogue filed here a waiver of citation and all legal rights and submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court but declared that it was not his intention to take an appeal nor to answer it, stating he would accept whatever judgment was finally rendered in this cause.

For the reasons assigned in Romero v. Hogue, La.App., 77 So.2d 74, it is hereby ordered that the judgment of the District Court be reversed insofar as it affects Has-sie Hunt Trust and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., and affirmed insofar as it affects Lee H. Hogue, the cost of this appeal to be paid by the appellee and all other costs by the defendant, Lee Hogue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,875)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,954
<PP&E>                                       2,284,508
<DEPRECIATION>                               (971,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,685,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          178,383
<BONDS>                                        506,851<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       447,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,685,551
<SALES>                                        189,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,489
<CGS>                                          111,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,275
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,492
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F2>
<FN>

<F1> Includes $6,537 for funds on deposit with trustees.
<F2> All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>



</TABLE>