alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Coomes *v.*Coomes’ Devisees.

Will — Devise — Vested Remainder — Survivorship.

The devise was a vested remainder upon the testator’s death, hence, all the surviving children of the testator, at his death, took an immediate vested interest which descended by operation of law to their heirs.

APPEAL EROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 7, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The testator by his last will directed *“*that after the payment of his debts all the residue of his estate, real, personal, and mixed, should remain in the possession of his wife for and during her *407widowhood, the better to enable her to maintain and educate their ■children, and at her death the estate to be equally divided *among his children*and the *survivors of them.”*

A daughter of the testator died after the decease of her father and before the termination of the particular estate to her mother, leaving two children; these children seek to get their mother’s portion of the estate which appellant resists. The devise was a vested remainder upon testator’s death, to be possessed and enjoyed upon the happening of the marriage or death of the surviving widow, hence all the surviving children of the testator at his death took an immediate, vested interest, which would descend by operation of law to their heirs-at-law unless otherwise disposed of by the legatee.

■ This being the view of the court below the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, Acting President and Acting Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Penn Octane Corporation;2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
MICHIGAN SCIENCE CENTER

Urban Skies - Equitable Universe: Using 

Open Space to Empower Youth to Explore 

Their Solar System and Beyond

Christian Greer

7/3/23 - 7/2/26

Urban Skies – Equitable Universe is an out-of-school 

STEM learning program for urban 7th and 8th graders 

to learn how to explore the Solar System and navigate 

the surfaces of the Moon and Mars using OpenSpace, 

an open-source interactive visualization software 

developed by AMNH with NASA support. 

Development of student STEM identity, co-designing 

with youth, and involvement of family are key 

elements in the three tiered opportunities: SciChats 

with scientists, “Junior Celestial Navigator” 40-hour 

workshops to learn the 

software tools and converse with visitors, and “Senior 

Celestial Navigator” 40-hour workshops to develop 

skills and knowledge to decide where a mission might 

land.

List of Partners:

• Association of Science and Technology Centers

• University Preparatory Science and Math

Middle School

• Harlem Educational Activities Fund

• Dual Language Middle School

• Woodside Community Center

• KIPP Infinity Charter School

Michigan Science Center

Credits: Michigan Science Center

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC23M0079, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 10h

December 2, 1999


Mr. Brent Buck
Murray Income Properties
299 South 9th Street
Suite 203
Oxford, MS  38655

RE:      Tower Place Festival
         Management Contract Renewal

Dear Brent:

Our current management agreement, dated December 12, 1994 and renewed each year
in letter agreements between Murray Income Properties and CK Retail Charlotte
Overhead Limited Partnership is in the process of expiring. It is our desire to
renew this management contract upon the same terms and conditions as the
previous management, dated December 12, 1994, with the exception that the term
shall now expire on December 31, 2000. I have attached as Exhibit "A", a copy of
the December 12, 1994 management agreement and would like you to indicate your
approval of the renewal and the new expiration date by signing this renewal
agreement in the appropriate space below.

It has been a pleasure to be the property manager/leasing agent at Tower Place
Festival and we look forward to continuing our relationship as your management
agent in the future.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT ACCEPTED:

<TABLE>

<S>                                          <C>
CK Charlotte Overhead Limited Partnership    Tower Place Joint Venture
a North Carolina Limited Partnership         By:  Murray Income Properties I, LTD.
By:      Childress Klein Retail-Charlotte         a Texas Ltd. Partnership, Joint Venturer
         #2, Inc., Its General Partner       By:  Murray Realty Investors VIII, Inc.
                                                  a Texas Corp., General Partner


BY: /s/ David Haggart                        By:   /s/ Brent Buck
    -------------------------------------          -----------------------------
    David Haggart, Vice President                  Brent Buck, Executive Vice President

Attest/Witness:                              Witness:

   /s/ Wendy Roy                             /s/ Joni Armstrong
-----------------------------------------    -----------------------------------
Title: Secretary                             Name: Joni Armstrong
</TABLE>



(Corporate Seal)
#### Sakyna Hunter, Appellant, v India Young, Defendant, and Brunette Alcy, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 887]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered February 4, 2004, which, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Brunette Alcy pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the plaintiffs case to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of that defendant and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant Brunette Alcy, and a new trial is granted against that defendant, with costs to abide the event.

*595Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of liability pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) against the defendant Brunette Alcy, the owner of the vehicle which allegedly collided with the rear of the stopped automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The plaintiff presented evidence demonstrating that Alcy was the registered owner of the subject vehicle, thereby giving rise to the strong statutory presumption that the driver of the vehicle was operating it with her permission *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1]; *see generally Murdza v Zimmerman,*99 NY2d 375 [2003]; *Chambers v City of New York,*309 AD2d 81 [2003]; *Matter of General Acc. Ins. Co. v Bonefont,*277 AD2d 379 [2000]). The plaintiff was not obligated to establish the identity of the driver of the vehicle in order to pursue recovery against Alcy *(see Horvath v Lindenhurst Auto Salvage, Inc.,*104 F3d 540 [1997]; *Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Levinson,*218 AD2d 606 [1995]; *McCollum v U-Haul Intl. Corp.,*204 AD2d 56 [1994]; *D'Angelo v New York Tel. Co.,*54 AD2d 554 [1976]), nor did the evidence rebut, as a matter of law, the presumption of permissive use *(see Chambers v City of New York, supra; Lipetz v Palmer,*216 AD2d 367 [1995]). Accordingly, “granting the plaintiff every favorable inference from the evidence submitted" *(Godlewska v Niznikiewicz,*8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]), there was a rational basis upon which a jury could have found in her favor *(see*CPLR 4401), and she is entitled to a new trial.

The plaintiff s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Cozier, Krausman and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Stephanie Casella, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

[787 NYS2d 883]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Walter Miller appeal and the defendant Khalid Amir separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J), dated November 21, 2003, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the medical records of the plaintiffs treating physician and an affirmed medical report of their own examining physician *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *see also Hodges v Jones,*238 AD2d 962 [1997]; *Pagano v Kingsbury,*182 AD2d 268, 271 [1992]; *Gleason v Huber,*188 AD2d 581 [1992]). In opposition, the affirmation of the plaintiffs examining physician was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Significantly, there was no satisfactory explanation in admissible form for the nearly three-year gap between the conclusion of the plaintiffs medical treatments and the date of the examination by the plaintiffs expert *(see Jimenez v Kambli,*272 AD2d 581 [2000]; *Smith v Askew,*264 AD2d 834 [1999]).

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any competent medi*586cal evidence to support a claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident, as a result of the subject accident *(see Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]; *Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth.,*273 AD2d 200 [2000]; *Greene v Miranda,*272 AD2d 441 [2000]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]; *Bennett v Reed,*263 AD2d 800 [1999]; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### MARK BUCAREY v. HOLLOWAY HUNT.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADM

Office of the Administrator

Inspector General (W)

Robert W. Cobb

Aerospace Safety 

Advisory Panel

NASA Advisory 

Council

Chief Financial Officer (B)

CFO 

General Counsel (G)

General Counsel

Equal Opportunity 

Programs (E)

Assistant Administrator

Legislative Affairs (L)

Assistant Administrator

External Relations (I)

Assistant Administrator

Human Resources & 

Education (F)

Assistant Administrator

Procurement (H)

Assistant Administra

Public Affairs (P)

Assistant Administrator

Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization (K)

Assistant Administrator

Management

Systems (J)

Assistant Administrator

Biological and Physical 

Research (U)

Associate Administrator

Space Flight (M)

Associate Administrator

• Lyndon B. Johnson 

Space Center

• John F. Kennedy Space 

Center

• George C. Marshall 

Space Flight Center

• John C. Stennis Space 

Center 

Earth Science (Y)

Associate Administrato

• Goddard Space 

Flight Center 

Space Science (S)

Associate Administrator

• Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory *

• Ames Research Center • Dryden Flight 

Research Center 

• Langley Research 

Center

• John H. Glenn 

Research Center at Lewis Field 

* JPL is a contractor-operated facility.

Aerospace 

Technology (R)

Associate Administrator
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Hipolito Felix, Appellant. Pepsi Cola Newburgh Bottling Company, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 726]

*927Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant worked in a warehouse until he resigned to join his family in Puerto Rico. The record establishes that claimant’s wife and daughter had relocated to Puerto Rico in the summer of 2002 because his wife was unhappy living in New York. Claimant submitted his letter of resignation effective January 31, 2003, indicating that he was leaving due to his family. However, claimant did not join his family in Puerto Rico until after the school semester ended in March 2003. Under the circumstances herein, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment due to personal and noncompelling reasons *(see Matter of Parduski [Commissioner of Labor],*253 AD2d 937 [1998]; *Matter of Olek [Sweeney],*243 AD2d 806 [1997]; *cf. Matter of Rodriguez [Commissioner of Labor],*256 AD2d 768 [1998]). Although claimant testified that he opted to relocate due to economic hardships and his daughter’s asthma, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve inasmuch as claimant failed to mention either reason in his resignation letter or letter to the Department of Labor (see *Matter of Moffatt [Levine],*52 AD2d 1019 [1976]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

             Certification furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the
                              Sarbanes - Oxley Act

In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group, Inc., I, Richard P. Nespola,  Chairman of the Board,  President and Chief
Executive Officer of the registrant certify that:

1. this annual 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 this annual  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for and as of the end of such year.

Date: March 31, 2004





                           BY: /S/ RICHARD P. NESPOLA
                        CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT
                           AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group,  Inc., I, Donald E. Klumb,  Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of the
registrant certify that:

1. this annual 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 this annual  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for and as of the end of such year.

Date: March 31, 2004





                             BY: /S/ DONALD E. KLUMB
                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 27, 2014, 07:30 a.m. to October 28, 2014, 06:00 p.m., Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Monica, 1707 Fourth Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 06, 2014, 79 FR 60175.                

The meeting will start on October 27, 2014. The meeting time and location remains the same.

The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 7, 2014.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-24380 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Kenneth Whitfield, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 187]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J), entered December 18, 2003, which denied their motion to compel the production and in-camera inspection of certain documents.

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

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an alleged sexual assault by one five-year-old student against another. The deposition testimony of various school personnel established that the defendant Board of Education of the City of Mount Vernon had no notice of any violent proclivities or sexual aggression by the alleged assailant. After the conclusion of depositions, the plaintiffs moved to compel the production and in camera inspection of the alleged *552assailant’s school file, including his disciplinary records. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that nothing in the record warranted even an in camera inspection of the requested school records.

The plaintiffs had no basis to believe that the requested file contained information helpful to their case. Four knowledgeable deponents, including the infant plaintiffs mother, had testified that no one was aware of any prior violent, aggressive, or sexually inappropriate behavior by the alleged assailant. Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production and in camera inspection of certain documents was merely an impermissible fishing expedition, and was properly denied *(see Matter of Dickinson,*273 AD2d 89 [2000]; *Weisberg v Weisberg,*236 AD2d 207 [1997]; *Colony Nyro Partners v Merritt & Co.,*231 AD2d 547, 548 [1996]; *Lipshie v Peck,*139 AD2d 702 [1988]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

I - A 

DnYaooran 

I 

Headquarters Assurance Operations 

1- Fredem Gregory MI&& D. Christensen 

I 

Smalland LHeand " 

Disadvantaged Microgravity BUSiMSS Sciences and 

Utilization Appilcations 

Wph C. Thamru Amauld E. Ni I 

Earth Science I1 I space Scknce 

Edward J. Wder 

Edurd Sa* 

asofMay1999 

*JPL ir a mtractor-operated facility.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-95973 of M & F Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report datedMarch 30, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of M&F Bancorp, Inc, appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of M&F Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 30, 2005 

 

50
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XIV, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30,  2004 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

Date:   August 9, 2004               /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                     Title: President and Treasurer

                                    A signed original of this written  statement
                                    required by Section 906 has been provided to
                                    CNL  Income  Fund  XIV,  Ltd.  and  will  be
                                    retained  by CNL Income Fund XIV,  Ltd.  and
                                    furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
                                    Commission or its staff upon request.