alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alice Putney et al., Appellants, v The People of the State of New York, Acting By and Through the Power Authority of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 25, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as dismissed the appeal from Supreme Court’s order denying reargument, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
##### 



Exhibit 4.9
  
  Terms of appointment as non-executive director
 Bank
 Disclosure of interests and other relevant information
  APRA
 Remuneration and expenses
 NEDSP




---



##### 



Term of appointment and vacation of office
       Board meetings




---



##### 



Board committees
  Time commitment envisaged
   Indemnity, insurance and access to Bank documents
  Charters and policies
  
    
    Board charter;
    
    Board Corporate Governance Guidelines;
    
    The Banks Constitution;
    
    Securities trading guidelines;
    
    Guidelines for communication between the Bank and shareholders;
    
    Taking of independent professional advice by directors;
    
    Code of ethics entitled Statement of Professional Practice;
    
    External Auditor Services Policy;
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Policy; and
    
    Occupational Health and Safety Systems.
  Notification of interests to ASX




---



##### 



Continuing education arrangements
       John M Schubert
 Acknowledgment
  /s/ Reg Clairs
    
    08/08/05Signature
    
    Date
#### Jay Abrams et al., Appellants, v Suzanne Berelson, Respondent.

Decided June 28, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
- 2587-7 (002).pdf
- 2587-2.pdf
Exhibit 32(g)

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



I,



(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.










|/s/ Daniel F. PackerDaniel F. Packer
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3274 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3274

     To amend the Controlled Substances Act to address the use of 
                           intrathecal pumps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2010

Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Brown of Ohio) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Controlled Substances Act to address the use of 
                           intrathecal pumps.

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

SECTION 1. INTRATHECAL PUMPS.

    Section 102(10) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
802(10)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The term `dispense' means to deliver'' 
        and inserting the following: ``(A) The term `dispense' means--
            ``(i) to deliver'';
            (2) by striking ``such delivery.'' and inserting the 
        following: ``such delivery; or
            ``(ii) to deliver a controlled substance by a pharmacy to a 
        practitioner, pursuant to the prescription of the practitioner, 
        where the controlled substance is to be administered through 
        the use of an intrathecal pump by the practitioner acting in 
        the usual course of professional practice.'';
            (3) by striking ``The term `dispenser' means'' and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(B) The term `dispenser' means''; and
            (4) by striking ``to an ultimate user or research 
        subject''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13934]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9037A; 34-60032A; IC-28757A; File No. 265-25]


Investor Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee 
Establishment; Correction

    In FR Doc. No. E9-13349, on page 27359 for Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 
the link for sending electronic comments to the Commission was 
incorrectly stated in two places. The correct link reads as follows: 
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13934 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,481,826
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (13,683)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (520)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (9)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| a.   | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.   | Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c.   | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| d.   | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   April 30 , 2012 | By:    | /s/  ANDRE ZEITOUN |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | Andre Zeitoun           |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,076,310
<SECURITIES>                                14,347,044
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,252,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                   179,857
<INVENTORY>                                 26,436,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,438,966
<PP&E>                                       2,305,389
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,370,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,756,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,602,871
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,833
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,975,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,756,149
<SALES>                                     12,953,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,953,042
<CGS>                                        8,048,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,048,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,703,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,201,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,201,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,201,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        


</TABLE>
RALPH LEO DAIGLE, Petitioner,

v. DALE R. GRIBLER, Respondent. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 10-1266 (HHK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on initial consideration of petitioner’s pro se Petition for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petition will be denied. Petitioner alleges that, “[o]n or about May 19, 2010, Larry William Wilcox[’s] liberties commenced to be restrained and is on going to this day[] by RESPONDENT, who is or represents a ‘CORPORATION for Profit”, holding a natural man . . . against His will, over His objection, and without His consent[.]” Pet. ¶ 2 (capitalization in original). Petitioner demands Mr. Wilcox’s immediate release from custody. See id. at 4. “Three inter-related judicial doctrines – standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that federal courts assert jurisdiction only over ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Worth v. Jackson , 451 F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A party has standing if his claims “spring from an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized,’ ‘actual or imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Inc. v. United States , 103 F.3d 994, 998

1(D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555 (1992)). “[T]he injury alleged cannot be conjectural or hypothetical, remote, speculative, or abstract.” Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. United States , 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, petitioner articulates no legally protected interest of his own; rather, he purports to bring this action on Mr. Wilcox’s behalf. Although he may represent himself as a pro selitigant, petitioner is a lay person who is not qualified to appear in this Court on behalf of another person. See28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona , 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Standing may be denied where, as here, this pro se litigant seeks to assert the rights of a third party. See Navegar, Inc. , 103 F.3d at 998. Even if petitioner had standing to bring this action, this Court cannot entertain a challenge to the legality of Mr. Wilcox’s custody. Habeas actions are subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky. , 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the warden. Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick , 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh , 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), who is identified as Sheriff Dale Gribler of Paw Paw, Michigan. “[A] district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

HENRY H. KENNEDY, JR. United States District Judge DATE: August 21, 2010

2
QUEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION

                                  Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Quest Products Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Herbert M. Reichlin, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

                                                /s/ Herbert M. Reichlin
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Herbert M. Reichlin
                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                                November 11, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>             THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
                     EXTRACTED   FROM  ASHLAND   INC.'S  ANNUAL  REPORT  TO
                     SHAREHOLDERS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
                     1998,  WHICH RESTATED AND  RECLASSIFIED  CERTAIN PRIOR
                     YEAR  AMOUNTS,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
                     REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                           70
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 1,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     27
<INVENTORY>                                                     678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              2,539
<PP&E>                                                        5,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                                2,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                6,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         2,067
<BONDS>                                                       1,653
<COMMON>                                                         64
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                     293
<OTHER-SE>                                                    1,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  6,496
<SALES>                                                      12,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             12,412
<CGS>                                                        10,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                10,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 208
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     72
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             136
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   75
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  2.96
        

</TABLE>
#### DONALDSON TRANSFER AND STORAGE CO., a corporation, in its own behalf and to the use of the National Union Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, v. UNITED STATES of America.

Civ. A. 11873.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 9, 1955.

C. Dale Blair, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Hubert I. Teitelbaum, 1st Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act arises out of a motor vehicle accident. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq.

Plaintiff avers that his truck was being operated south in the curb lane on the Manchester Bridge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and had reached a point short of the center of the bridge. A United States Post Office truck, operated also in a southerly direction but in the inner traffic lane, was passing the plaintiff’s truck, and before clearing the truck swerved, or turned to its right causing the plaintiff’s driver to suddenly and abruptly apply his brakes and turn his equipment' to the right to avoid a collision with the United States Post Office truck..

The right top of plaintiff’s truck struck the superstructure of the bridge, causing the damage and loss alleged.

The matter comes before the court on motion of the United States of America for summary judgment. Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.

The United States contends that the damage to plaintiff’s truck was not a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act of its driver in cutting in front of plaintiff’s truck.

 A motion for summary judgment should not be granted if there is *304an issue presented as to the existence of any material fact. Sarnoff v. Ciaglia, 3 Cir., 165 F.2d 167. In considering such a motion, the court should take the view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed, giving to that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.

 Construing as I must the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, and recognizing the basic presumption in law that a person is justified in anticipating that every driver obeys the law, a definite factual dispute is presented as to whether the act of the driver of the United States Post Office vehicle was the proximate cause of the accident and damages to plaintiff’s vehicle.

With a factual dispute existing, the motion of the United States of America for summary judgment must be refused.

An appropriate Order is entered.
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 Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elwood Shepard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



Date: May 4, 2006

By: /s/  Elwood Shepard

Elwood Shepard

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer