alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of “Baby Girl” Q., Also Known as Meagan Q., and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. *393Damaira Q., Appellant, and Yesenia A., Intervenor-Appellant. Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 328]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about May *2,*2003, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject children and committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s claim that she was denied a fair fact-finding hearing and her constitutional right of confrontation by the admission of the agency’s progress notes containing prejudicial hearsay, speculation and postpetition evidence is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; *see Matter of Karen BB.,*216 AD2d 754, 756-757 [1995]). Nor are we inclined to review the issue as a matter of discretion where the agency gave all interested parties reasonable advance notice of its intent to introduce into evidence those portions of its notes that were highlighted *(cf. Matter of Leon RR.,*48 NY2d 117, 123-124 [1979]). In any event, were we to review, we would find that the testimony of the agency’s caseworker established that the bulk of the highlighted portions of the notes were admissible as business records *(see id.*at 122-123), and that the few inadmissible notes were harmless *(see Matter of Nicole VV.,*296 AD2d 608, 613 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 616 [2002]).

The progress notes provide clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to complete any of the drug programs to which she was referred by the agency, and indeed continued to use drugs throughout the relevant period, and otherwise failed to plan for the future of the children despite the agency’s diligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; *see Matter of Louis Jaybee J.,*294 AD2d 285 [2002]). In addition, a preponderance of the evidence shows that it would not be in the best interests *394of the children to either suspend judgment or transfer custody to respondent’s sister, who intervened at dispositional stage and is an appellant herein *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). Respondent has made little or no progress on the drug and other issues that caused the removal of the children in the first place *(see Matter of Michael B.,*80 NY2d 299, 310-311 [1992]), and the children were faring much better with their present foster parents than they did while in the care of the sister. We have considered respondent’s other arguments, including that her assigned counsel was ineffective, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


------                                                                ------
NUMBER                                                                SHARES
------                                                                ------

                                    TELOCITY

              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN NEW YORK, NY AND RIDGEFIELD PARK, NY

THIS CERTIFIES THAT:



IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF:



            FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, OF
  TELOCITY, INC., TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION IN PERSON OR BY
  DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY ON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED.
 THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL NOT BE VALID UNTIL COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED BY THE
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR. WITNESS THE FACSIMILE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND
                THE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.

DATED:







                                                CHASEMELLON SHAREHOLDER SERVICES
National Aeronautics and Space Administration é : ics A

Quiet SuperSonic Technology
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FROM CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893577
<NAME>                        CarrAmerica Realty
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                       135,620
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 53,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                     2,856,816
<DEPRECIATION>                               239,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,733,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                    1,602,383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                       95
<COMMON>                                         717
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,881,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,733,625
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             429,104
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                344,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              125,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                     574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          124,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 110,997
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.25
<FN>
<F1>
Notes & accounts receivable are presented net of allowance for doubtful accounts
as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
#### Lefler *v.*Hunt.

Oil a trial in assumpsit on the general issue, the plaintiff cannot recover without proof of his demand.

The plaintiff’s bankruptcy is a bar to such action for any demand existing prior to the bankruptcy; and the defence is admissible under the general issue.

APPEAL from the *Jasper*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

Assumpsit. The declaration contains a special count upon a written memorandum, and the common counts. Plea, the general issue with notice of set-off. Trial by the Court, and judgment for the plaintiff. A new trial was denied.

The evidence appears-upon the record, and shows that no proof was adduced, on the part of the plaintiff, in support of his cause of action; and that the defendant’s evidence in no *196manner tended to establish it. The cause of action being denied by the plea, required proof. The judgment was erroneous, and the new trial asked for should have been granted.

*H. P. Biddle,*for the appellant.

*R. A. Lockwood,*for the appellee.

There is another question in the cause, the decision of which may be material to its final determination in the Court below. The defendant, among other things, gave in evidence, for what purpose does not appear, a transcript of proceedings in the District Court of the *United Stales*for the District of *Indiana,*showing that the plaintiff in this suit, on the 1st of *March,*1842, filed his petition in bankruptcy, and, on the 28th of *November*of the same year, obtained his final discharge as a bankrupt. The indebtedness for which this suit is brought, is stated in the declaration to have accrued on the 19th of *December,*1842, being subsequent to the plaintiff’s being declared a bankrupt. Bankruptcy is a bar to an action by the bankrupt for any indebtedness, due or otherwise, existing prior to the bankruptcy; Acts of Congress, 1841; and may, in assumpsit, be given in evidence under the general issue. 2 Greenl. Ev. 112. — 1 Chitty’s PI. 512. This suit, therefore, may be defeated by showing the demand claimed to have existed prior to the plaintiff’s being declared a bankrupt..

*Per Curiam.-*

—

-The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### BRENDA HENRY and FOSTER HENRY, Individually, and BRENDA HENRY, as Guardian Ad Litem for CRYSTAL HENRY v. SOUTHEASTERN OB-GYN ASSOCIATES, P.A., JAMES L. PRICE, M.D., and LAIF LOFGREN, M.D.

No. 507A01

(Filed 18 December 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 142 N.C. App. 561, 550 S.E.2d 245 (2001), affirming ah order entered 20 September 1999 by Lanier, J., in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 2001.

*The Law Offices of William S. Britt, by William S. Britt, for plaintiff-appellants.*

*Walker, Clark, Allen, Herrin & Morano L.L.P., by Robert D. Walker, Jr., and 0. Drew Grice, Jr., for defendant-appellees.*

*Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by Adam Stein, on behalf of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David B., Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 896]

*618Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered October 4, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 3731/97, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court also rendered October 4, 2001, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree under indictment No. 3802/00, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s main argument, there was no cooperation agreement. The defendant produced no competent proof of any “clear and specific promise from the authorities” *(People v Reed,*184 AD2d 536, 537 [1992]), and there was no competent proof of anything that could properly be characterized as a cooperation agreement *(see e.g. People v Anonymous,*234 AD2d 80 [1996]; *cf. People v Anonymous,*278 AD2d 111, 112 [2000]; *People v Fraisier,*253 AD2d 437 [1998]; *People v Argentine,*67 AD2d 180, 184 [1979]). We do not agree with the defendant to the extent that he argues that, even in the absence of any cooperation agreement, he was entitled to have his plea vacated based on the People’s failure to demonstrate a reasonable basis for their refusal to reward him for his supposed cooperation by agreeing to recommend a sentence less severe than the sentence that was promised as an inducement to the plea *(cf. United States v Bowler,*585 F2d 851, 853 [1978]). When there is no cooperation agreement, the People have no duty to produce evidence justifying their refusal to consent to reduce the defendant’s sentence to a term less severe than that agreed to as part of the plea agreement.

The defendant’s argument that Penal Law § 70.08 violates the rule announced in *Apprendi v New Jersey*(530 US 466 [2000]; *see Blakely v Washington,*542 US —, 124 S Ct 2531 [2004]; *Ring v Arizona,*536 US 584 [2002]) is not preserved for appellate review *(see e.g. People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329, 335 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]; *People v Besser,*96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; *People v Sutton,*12 AD3d 707 [2004]; *People v Robinson, 8*AD3d 1028, 1030 [2004]; *People v Norris,*5 AD3d 796, 797 [2004]), and, in any event, is without merit *(see e.g. People v Sutton, supra; People v Horn,*7 AD3d 638 [2004], *lv*
      *619
      *denied*3 NY3d 659 [2004]; *People v Horne,*6 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; *People v Norris, supra).*Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 389

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1863

To authorize the transfer of certain naval vessels. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 12), 2003

Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. BIDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read the first time 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL

To authorize the transfer of certain naval vessels.

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 ‘‘Transfer of Naval Ves5 sels Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER BY GRANT. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to 

8 transfer vessels to foreign countries on a grant basis under 
2

•S 1863 PCS 

1 section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 

2 U.S.C. 2321(j)) as follows: 

3 (1) The OLIVER HAZARD PERRY class 

4 guided missile frigate USS GEORGE PHILIP 

5 (FFG 12) to the Government of Bahrain. 

6 (2) The OLIVER HAZARD PERRY class 

7 guided missile frigate USS SIDES (FFG 14) to the 

8 Government of Portugal. 

9 (b) GRANTS NOT COUNTED AGAINST AGGREGATE

10 VALUE OF TRANSFERRED EXCESS DEFENSE ARTI11 CLES.—The value of a vessel transferred to another coun12 try on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign As13 sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) pursuant to au14 thority provided by subsection (a) shall not be counted for 

15 the purposes of subsection (g) of that section in the aggre16 gate value of excess defense articles transferred to coun17 tries under that section in any fiscal year. 

18 (c) COSTS OF TRANSFERS.—Any expense incurred by 

19 the United States in connection with a transfer authorized 

20 to be made on a grant basis under subsection (a) shall 

21 be charged to the recipient (notwithstanding section 

22 516(e)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (2 U.S.C. 

23 2321j(e)(1))). 
3

•S 1863 PCS 

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER BY SALE. 

2 The President is authorized to transfer the 

3 SPRUANCE class destroyer FLETCHER (DD 992) to 

4 the Government of Chile on a sales basis under section 

5 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761). 

6 SEC. 4. REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT IN UNITED STATES 

7 SHIPYARDS. 

8 To the maximum extent practicable, the President 

9 shall require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel 

10 under this Act, that the country to which the vessel is 

11 transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel 

12 as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of 

13 that country, performed at a shipyard located in the 

14 United States, including a United States Navy shipyard. 

15 SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY. 

16 The authority to transfer a vessel under this section 

17 shall expire on the date at the end of the 2-year period 

18 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 
Calendar No. 389

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1863

A BILL

To authorize the transfer of certain naval vessels. 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Exhibit 11



OURPETS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES



STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004



|                                                                                    |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | ---- | - | ---------- | -
|                                                                                    |  | 2005 |            | 2004 |  
|Net income                                                                          |  | $    | 254,238    |      | $ | 12,940     |  
|Preferred Stock dividend requirements                                               |  |      | 26,400     |      |   | 21,300     |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders                               |  | $    | 227,838    |      | $ | (8,360     | )
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Weighted average number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding |  |      | 11,930,298 |      |   | 11,712,306 |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Net income (loss) per common share                                                  |  | $    | 0.02       |      | $ |           |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |      |   |            |
#### Jenkins *v.*Prewitt.

*Wednesday, January*1, 1845.

A bill of review, on account of newly discovered evidence, cannot be sustained, if, by the use of reasonably active diligence, the evidence might have been known to the complainant before the trial of the first cause.

Sullivan, J.

— This is the same cause that was before this Court at the *November*term, 1838, at which time a demurrer was sustained to the bill, and the complainant had leave to amend. An amendment was immediately filed, in which the complainant alleges that the matter, on which he founds his application for a review of the original decree, came to his ‘knowledge in the summer of 1828. The remaining allegátions are as stated in the published opinion of this Court in 5 Blackf. 7.

The defendant, *Robert H.*Prewitt, *(Byrd Prewitt*having deceased since the original decree was entered,) answers the amended bill, and denies that the complainant did not obtain a knowledge of the facts stated in the amendment until the summer of 1828. He also filed two pleas ; the first of which sets up the same defence as that contained in the answer; the second is, that, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, the plaintiff might have known the facts now relied on, at the trial of the original cause. The complainant replied reaffirming the statements in his bill. A number of depositions were taken, by a large majority of which it is proved, that, at and before the time of the trial on the original bill, the fact was notorious that the title to the land in controversy was not in *Ezekiel*Jenkins, but in his wife.

Whether the complainant should produce other testimony than his own affidavit, in support-of the allegation that the fact, on which he relies for a rehearing, came first to his knowledge within five years before filing the bill, need not now be decided. It is very clear from the evidence, that the fact was notorious in the neighbourhood at the time of the original trial, and that the complainant, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, might have known it. The testimony is too strong to admit of doubt on that point.

To sustain a bill of review on account of newly discovered evidence, it is necessary that the matter be not only new, *330jt must be such as the party, by the use of a reasonably *active*diligence, could not have known. If there be negligence in this respect, it destroys the title to the relief prayed. *Young*v. *Keigkly,*16 Ves. *348.*—Blake v. Foster, 2 Ball & Beatt. 457.

Dewey, J.,

having been concerned as counsel, was absent.

*Per Curiam.*

— The bill is dismissed with costs.
Sierra Nevada Corporation Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) Space Act Agreement

NNK11MS01S

Sierra Nevada Corporation CCDev2 Space Act Agreement

Sierra Nevada Corporation SAA Amendment 01 – Optional Milestones
NASA Hires Veterans!

NASA values the
commitment and service
of military veterans and
their families. We offer
meaningful employment,
career development, and
workplace flexibilities.

Across the agency, veterans deliver subject matter expertise, years
of on-the-job training, and advanced skills in everything from
information technology to transportation logistics and from
supply-chain management to public relations. In addition, there are
many opportunities for veterans and military spouses available such
as in:

- Aerospace and Aviation - Cyber Security
- Engineering - Security Administration
- Program Management - Business Administration

If you’re a veteran who served on active duty, you may be eligible
for special hiring authorities for veterans’ preference, as well as
other veteran specific hiring options.

oO Of Learn more at nasa.gov/careers/veterans
noun lf and visit USAjobs.gov to view openings and
ty

DEA ?2+4 apply!

Follow us on Linkedin and view application tips at nasa.gov/careers
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of
FC Banc Corp.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp.
(the "Company") and subsidiary as of September 30, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, and cash flows for the
three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 18, 2002, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
November 8, 2002