alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert P. Bayon et al., Appellants, v Michael Nardella et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[745 NYS2d 432]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated April 19, 2001, which denied *365their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 3, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting leave to reargue, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 19, 2001, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 3, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 3, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

This action was commenced in 1990 and was marked off the trial calendar on September 22, 1997. Pursuant to CPLR 3404, the case was automatically dismissed one year later upon the plaintiffs’ failure to request restoration to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs moved for restoration in June 2000, more than one year after the case was automatically dismissed. When a case has remained dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 for over one year, it should not be restored unless the movant can demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” justifying restoration *(see Basetti v Nour,*287 AD2d 126, 131). Here, no “extraordinary circumstances” exist. Rather, the delay in restoring the case to the calendar was due to the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ counsel.

The plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that he timely requested restoration of the case on September 22, 1998 — the last day before the action would be automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 — by submitting a letter to the court. While this procedure for restoration is permissible *(id.),*the Supreme Court, in its order denying restoration, denied ever receiving such a letter. While the plaintiffs’ counsel avers that the letter was hand-delivered to the court’s chambers, without more, the Supreme Court’s file is determinative. In sum, there is insufficient evidence that the purported restoration letter was ever properly submitted to the court. Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRCATED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         223,263
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,828,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,500
<INVENTORY>                                  1,022,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,142,496
<PP&E>                                       1,095,347
<DEPRECIATION>                                 658,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,355,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,262,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,905
<OTHER-SE>                                     879,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,355,829
<SALES>                                      2,995,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,995,803
<CGS>                                        2,115,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,115,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               803,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,042
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        


</TABLE>
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 Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and will be retained by
Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
commission or its staff upon request.




/S/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004


/S/ MICHAEL S. SHORE
-------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Shore
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June      30, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| BY:    | /s/      Steven Strasser           |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Steven      Strasser               |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|   | (principal      executive officer) |

----
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 376 filed 06/06/14 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 8
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 Expert Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brandon Winton, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

/s/ Brandon Winton

|   | Brandon Winton |  
 

Chief Executive Officer

 

January 28, 2006

 
 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders
   Integral Vision, Inc.
   Farmington Hills, MI We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 333-113519 on
Form S-8 dated March 11, 2004, Registration Statement 33-61977 on Form S-8 dated August 21,
1995, Registration Statement 33-61979 on Form S-8 dated August 21, 1995, Registration
Statement 33-12571 on Form S-8 dated March 11, 1987 and Registration Statement 33-593 on
Form S-8 dated October 1, 1985, of our report dated March 19, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders equity (deficit) and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2002, and the financial
statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 2002, of Integral Vision, Inc. and Subsidiary included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2004. /S/ Moore Stephens Doeren Mayhew Troy, Michigan
March 28, 2005
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 543,113 111,231 79,791 220,108 39,890 364 4,249 Number of loans 8,305 1,583 1,863 2,213 859 32 381 Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.65 16.19 32.65 20.71 12.95 5.23 15.00 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 12.45 8.32 17.32 12.77 7.94 .00 12.06 

Weighted average risk rating3 2.42 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 8.75 8.24 8.85 8.76 9.11 10.01 9.43 

 Standard error5 .14 .22 .25 .12 .35 n.a. .42 

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.42 9.00 9.25 9.50 9.75 10.01 9.68  25th percentile 8.26 7.75 8.70 8.75 8.75 10.01 8.78  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.06 8.41 7.85 9.49 9.72 n.a. 8.70  Other livestock 8.93 7.59 n.a. 9.59 8.84 n.a. 8.61  Other current operating expenses7 8.67 8.23 8.85 8.54 9.11 10.01 9.24 

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.03 8.25 9.30 8.93 9.34 n.a. 10.47  Farm real estate 8.50 8.00 7.70 8.90 n.a. n.a. n.a Other8 8.95 11.02 9.14 9.05 7.89 n.a. 10.75 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 35.61 29.91 47.15 27.78 41.40 100.00 30.23  Under commitment 50.53 70.19 60.48 49.96 79.15 100.00 42.44  Callable 32.23 16.54 27.54 46.73 27.47 100.00 47.61  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 12.43 21.26 1.15 16.87 5.01 n.a. 13.17  Other livestock 4.84 5.10 9.92 2.33 3.29 n.a. 11.30  Other current operating expenses7 70.60 65.02 67.24 71.99 81.78 100.00 52.29 

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.72 4.00 7.56 3.12 7.21 n.a. 5.86  Farm real estate 4.66 4.24 5.92 4.61 n.a. n.a. n.a Other8 2.75 .38 8.21 1.09 2.71 n.a. 17.38 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 13.57 8.62 28.60 6.60 7.62 n.a. n.a Other 84.25 84.37 70.64 93.22 91.83 n.a. n.a Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
#### Barry Rosen, Respondent-Appellant, v Beatrice Swarzman, Appellant-Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 465]

In an action, inter alia, for replevin, the defendant appeals, as limited *393by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered October 25, 2000, as, in effect, held her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) in abeyance and directed a hearing to aid in the determination of that motion, and denied her application for the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, in effect, held the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in abeyance, and directed a hearing to aid in the determination of that motion, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The portion of the order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) does not decide the motion and does not affect a substantial right *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; *Kogler v Nassau County Med. Ctr.,*289 AD2d 298; *Marine Midland Bank v Rashid,*259 AD2d 739; *Matter of Town of Babylon v Taxpayer’s Recovery Corp.,*240 AD2d 417). Therefore, it is not appealable as of right, and leave to appeal has not been granted. Any party, however, aggrieved by an order entered subsequent to the hearing may take an appeal *(see Davidson-Sakuma v Sakuma,*280 AD2d 577).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying her application for the imposition of a sanction against the plaintiff *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Prudenti, P.J., O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
Third Amendment of the FMC Technologies, Inc. Incentive Comp. and Stock Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.4.c 
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION AND STOCK PLAN  
  
 WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company now deems necessary and desirable to amend the
Plan to clarify participants rights with respect to Restricted Stock; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Board of Directors of the Company by Section 3.3 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2004, as follows: 
  
 The text of Section 14.3 Meeting Fees is hereby amended to read
as follow: 
  
 “Each Non-Employee Director
will receive a meeting fee in such amount as will be determined from time to time by the Board for attending each meeting of the Board and its committees, including extraordinary and special meetings. Until changed by resolution of the Board, the
meeting fee will be $1,500 per Board meeting attended and $2,000 per committee meeting attended, payable in cash at the end of each calendar quarter.” 
  
 The text of Section 14.4 Committee Chairman Fees is hereby amended to read as follows: 
  
 “Each Non-Employee Director who serves as a chairman of
a committee of the Board will receive a committee chairman fee in such amount as determined by the Board for the tenure of such service. Until changed by resolution of the Board, the committee chairman fee will be paid in cash at an annualized rate
of $12,000 for the audit committee chairman and $8,000 for all other committee chairman, payable in equal installments at the end of each calendar quarter.”
#### In the Matter of Marie W. Bishop, Petitioner, against James E. Allen, Jr., as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

March 9, 1956.

*Marjorie G. Zahn*for petitioner.

*Charles A. Brind, Jr.,*and *George B. Farrington*for Commissioner of Education, respondent.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Sidney P. Nadel*and *Joseph F. Gibbons*of counsel), for Board of Education of the City of New York, respondent.

Donald S. Taylor, J.

The petitioner, a teacher of swimming in the New York City school system since 1936, in a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act seeks an order to annul the determination of the Commissioner of Education which affirmed the action of the Board of Education of the City of New York in placing her on a lower salary step than that which she claims to be entitled to under the provisions of chapter 778 of the Laws of 1947 as amended by chapter 860 of the Laws of 1948. The respondents in their answers object in point of law on the ground that the proceeding was not instituted within four months after the determination sought to be reviewed became final and binding. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286.)

The petitioner’s appeal from the board’s action to the Commissioner of Education was denied on January 18, 1955. On February 17, 1955, petitioner filed with him an application to reopen and reargue the appeal which was also denied on October 11, 1955. The instant proceeding was commenced on February 10, 1956.

*677There is no statutory mandate which requires the Commissioner of Education to grant a rehearing or reargument on an appeal from a determination of a local Board of Education. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1285, subd. 5.) Since he declined to entertain the petitioner’s application for reargument, the date of his decision which denied the primary appeal 1‘ must be considered as finally determining the rights of the parties ” *(Matter of Mahony*v. *Conway,*281 App. Div. 1057, 1058) and the four months’ limitation provided in section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act began to run from that time. *(Matter of Getz*v. *Spaulding,*277 App. Div. 925, affd. 303 N. Y. 702; *Western New York Water Co.*v. *Public Service Comm.,*124 N. Y. S. 2d 612; *Matter of Di Brizzi,*116 N. Y. S. 2d 811; *Keays*v. *Conway,*105 N. Y. S. 2d 944; *Rosenblatt*v. *Finkelstein,*84 N. Y. S. 2d 193; *Matter of Mahony*v. *Conway, supra.)*This proceeding, therefore, is barred by the Statute of Limitations. *Matter of Liebman*v. *Van Denburg*(168 Misc. 155) upon which the petitioner relies is not pertinent to the problem posed here.

The petition is dismissed, without costs.

Submit order accordingly.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 300137

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### FRANCIS L. CAPTAIN Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: C ommander John A. Maksym , JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : C aptain David A. Peters, USMC R

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 30 November 2016

_________

________________ Before C AMPBELL , R UGH , and H UTCHISON , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening

au thority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). The supplemental court

- martial order will include the following corrected summary of Specification 2 under Charge I: In that Sergeant Francis L. Captain, U.S. Marine Corps, on activ e duty, did, at Iwakuni, Japan, on or about 17 January 2012, cause Mrs. RMN to engage in sexual contact, to wit: Sergeant Francis L. Captain digitally penetrated the buttocks and anus of Mrs. RNM, who was substantially incapacitated or substantially incapa ble of declining participation in the sexual contact or substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual contact.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

                                                             Exhibit 27

                                                        Page 180 of 181 <PAGE>
 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                     153,964,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,681,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,103,000)
<INVENTORY>                                474,817,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           680,559,000
<PP&E>                                     388,487,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (165,674,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             909,807,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      312,100,000
<BONDS>                                     60,890,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       49,594,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 466,475,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               909,807,000
<SALES>                                  1,795,623,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,813,897,000
<CGS>                                    1,142,956,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,142,956,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           551,172,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             7,187,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,829,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            105,753,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                42,114,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         63,639,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                63,639,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.2



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
HPSC, Inc. on Form S-8 (file Nos. 333-28983, 33-60073, 33-60077, 33-10796 and
33-6075) of our report dated March 25, 1996, on our audit of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedules of HPSC, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



                                        /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1998
Case 1:11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB Document 6 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB Document 6 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2