alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                    The  Consolidated  Balance Sheet As Of February 28, 1998 and
                    the  Consolidated  Statement  Of Income For The Three Months
                    Ended February 28, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,285
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116
<INVENTORY>                                    98
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,684
<PP&E>                                         34,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,067
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       910
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,561
<SALES>                                        2,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,187
<CGS>                                          820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               32
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (893)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.34)
<FN>
<F1>
10% stock dividend  February 23, 1998;  Prior  financial data schedules have not
been restated for this dividend.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[980 NE2d 523, 956 NYS2d 475]

#### Tina M. Holstein, Respondent, v Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse, Appellant.

Argued October 17, 2012;

decided November 20, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C.,*White Flains *(Myra I. Packman*of counsel), for appellant.

*D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs.,*Syracuse *(John A. Cirando, Bradley E. Keem*and *Elizabeth deV. Moeller*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Tina Holstein commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries she sustained based on the *893alleged negligence of an employee of defendant Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse (the Hospital). Following trial, the jury returned a verdict on liability, by a vote of five to one, in favor of Holstein and awarded approximately $1.7 million in damages. After the verdict was announced, the Hospital requested that the jury be polled. In response, the court remarked: “Jury be polled? They have signed. They each have individually signed.” The Hospital’s counsel stated: “Okay. All right. Thank you” and the jury was dismissed. Two weeks later, the Hospital moved to set aside the verdict and requested a new trial. Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment awarding plaintiff damages (86 AD3d 911 [4th Dept 2011]).

In *Duffy v Vogel,*we held that a party has an absolute right to poll the jury and a court’s denial of that right mandates reversal and a new trial (12 NY3d 169, 176-177 [2009]). In this case, however, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that the request had been withdrawn or waived in light of the nature of counsel’s response to the judge’s inquiry.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Presidential Documents

28863 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 116 

Thursday, June 18, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of June 8, 2009 

Delegation of Certain Functions Under Section 201 of Public 

Law 110–429 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to you all functions conferred upon 

the President by subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 201 of Public Law 

110–429. You will exercise these functions in coordination with the Secretary 

of Defense. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 8, 2009 

[FR Doc. E9–14415 

Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


OB#1.EPS</GPH>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors t he citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/20/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

MELVIN SAMUEL RAINE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. BRITT COLLE,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 95-3386 (D. Ct. No. 95-3436) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court dismissing pro se appellant Raine’s action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Raine argues on appeal that the district court erred in allegedly failing to recognize a- 2 -

constitutional right under the circumstances alleged in his complaint. We affirm. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a deprivation of his constitutional rights in the actions of an attorney who was paid a retainer for representation and from whom plaintiff heard nothing for several weeks. All of the factual allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint and in plaintiff’s brief on appeal relate to the relationship between the attorney and plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the violation of a federal law of a defendant acting under color of state law. The relationship between plaintiff and his attorney involves no action by a state governmental official. Plaintiff’s attorney was acting in a purely private capacity. Thus, we agree with the district court that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and affirm the dismissal of this action. We GRANT in forma pauperis status and AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Shorefront Apartments, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          813800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3236556
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4055356
<PP&E>                                        21565145
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28517308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3403505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    24226221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28517308
<SALES>                                        4932752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5175326
<CGS>                                          4706860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    83438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                138322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 246706
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             246706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    246706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.32
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31(a)

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

I,
Mayo A. Shattuck III, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a15(f) and 15d15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 27, 2009

|                                                             |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ MAYO A. SHATTUCK III                                     |  | 
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1100EA

_____________ Emanual K. Maxwell, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * American Modern Home Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED] Company, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 19, 1997

Filed: December 2, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Emanual K. Maxwell brought this lawsuit after his home was destroyed by an early m orning fire and American Modern Home Insurance Company (American ) r e fused to pay Maxwell's claim. American contended Maxwell or someone acting at his dir ection intentionally caused the fire, and Maxwell's policy was void becaus e Maxwell had misrepresented earlier losses on his application. Over Maxwell' s objec tion, American presented testimony from Maxwell's brother showing th e brot herhada financial stake in Maxwell's house and on several occasions fire ha d damaged insu red properties in which the brother had an interest. The case wa s submitted to the-1-

jury in the form of two interrogatories, first, wh ether Maxwell or someone acting at his directi onintentionally set the fire, and second, whether Maxwell concealed o r misrepresentedmaterial facts relating to the policy. The jury was unable to agree on the first interrogatory but responded affirmatively to the second interrogatory. On appeal, Maxwell contends the district court abused its discretion in admitting the brother's testimony. Even if we assume the challenged evidence was improperl y adm itted, we will not disturb the jury's verdict unless the evidence was so prejudicial that a new trial is likely to produce a different result. See Lamb Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist. , 103 F.3d 1422, 1 432 (8th Cir. 1997). Having reviewed the record and the pa

rties' briefs, we conclude that any error in admitting the brother's testimo nywas harmless in light of the evidence that supports the jury' s misrepresentation verdict. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Order filed, September 26, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00704-CR

____________

CHRISTI ANN HERRERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13,756

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 14, 2012. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Katheryne Kyriell, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 23
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses of
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company prepared in accordance with the requirements
of Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-56084 and 33-59545) and Forms S-3 (File Nos.
33-49801, 33-45260, 33-33559, 33-57658, 33-61297, and 33-50331) and the
Prospectus of Constellation Energy Corporation prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Form S-4 (File No. 33-64799) of our report dated January 19,
1996 accompanying the consolidated financial statements and the consolidated
financial statement schedule of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1995, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company.
                                          /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Baltimore, Maryland
March 29, 1996
Exhibit 32(p)

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









|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (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 presented in the Report.









|/s/ Wanda C. CurryWanda C. Curry
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of System Energy Resources, Inc.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	February 27, 2009
#### POTTER TITLE & TRUST CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Civil Action No. 5989.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 29, 1946.

Evans, Evans & Spinelli and John E. Evans, Jr., all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Dalzell, McFall, Pringle & Bredin and John R. Bredin, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff has served upon defendant seventeen interrogatories, citing as authority therefor Rule No. 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.GA. following section 723c.

The defendant has objected to Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 17. Certain of the interrogatories to which objection is made demand information as to possible reports made to defendant relative to the accident mentioned in the complaint and call upon defendant to state the nature of the reports, the names of the persons who took them, and for a copy of the report. Several others pray for copies of maps or plans and photographs of the locality of the accident prepared or taken for defendant.

The plaintiff is entitled to discovery in respect to the subject matter of the interrogatories, with two possible exceptions, however. If the reports were made personally to counsel of the defendant, upon his examination, for his use at the trial, such reports are privileged, and the defendant is not required to answer the interrogatories respecting such reports. The plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the plans and photographs, but inspection of them under Rule 34 is the logical method rather than the requirement that defendant prepare copies of them.

As a matter of convenience the defendant may desire to submit the matters requested, in view of the offer of plaintiff to bear the expense of their preparation.

The objections of defendant to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12,14, 16 and 17 are overruled except as they are sustained in the foregoing memorandum, now referred to and made part hereof.
[880 NYS2d 451]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Roman, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 14, 2009

*57APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Steven Banks*and *Lorca Morello*of counsel), for appellant. *Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Lucy Jane Lang*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered July 12, 2006, reversed, on the law, plea vacated, information dismissed, and surcharge remitted.

Defendant’s pre-plea motion to dismiss the information as jurisdictionally defective should have been granted, since the information did not set forth “nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense[s] charged and the defendant’s commission thereof’ *(People v Henderson,*92 NY2d 677, 679 [1999]; *see*CPL 100.40 [1] [c]). Fatal to the information insofar as it charged defendant with attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.03) was the absence of a sworn police statement identifying “[the] particular type of illegal drug” that defendant allegedly attempted to possess *(People v Kalin,*12 NY3d 225, 231 [2009]). Insufficient in this regard were the elliptical allegations that police “recovered the same type of substance that defendant purchased” from a “separately charged” codefendant and that the substance recovered from the codefendant “is in fact what it is alleged to be,” particularly given the police affiant’s conspicuous and unexplained failure to describe or identify the substance said to have been recovered from the co-defendant.

Nor did the information make out a prima facie case of either second degree obstructing governmental administration (Penal Law § 195.05) or attempted tampering with physical evi*58dence (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.40 [2]), since it failed to allege evidentiary facts tending to support a finding that defendant’s actions in allegedly “snort[ing]” the unidentified object were intended to interfere with an official police function or to prevent the use of evidence. The information contained no allegations from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendant was aware of the police surveillance or presence at the scene at any time before allegedly inhaling the vaguely described object (see *People v Rodriquez,*19 Misc 3d 302 [2008]; *cf. People v Mercedes,*194 Misc 2d 731 [2003] [information alleged that defendant concealed and mutilated marijuana cigar upon police approach]).

McKeon, EJ., and Heitler, J., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 715 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3481 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal 

responsibility for stormwater pollution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

DECEMBER 17, 2010 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER 

4 POLLUTION. 

5 Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1323) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3481 RS

1 ‘‘(c) FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER

2 POLLUTION.—Reasonable service charges described in 

3 subsection (a) include reasonable fees or assessments 

4 made for the purpose of stormwater management in the 

5 same manner and to the same extent as any nongovern6 mental entity. 

7 ‘‘(d) NO TREATMENT AS TAX OR LEVY.—A fee or 

8 assessment described in this section— 

9 ‘‘(1) shall not be considered to be a tax or other 

10 levy subject to an assertion of sovereign immunity; 

11 and 

12 ‘‘(2) may be paid using appropriated funds.’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 715 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3481 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

pollution. to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater 

DECEMBER 17, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS