alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2779

M. A. BRYANT; VIVIAN BRYANT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-2782

M. A. BRYANT; VIVIAN BRYANT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-97-23-A, CA-98-116-A, BK-85-789-RKA-11-7)
2

Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 26, 1999

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. A. Bryant, Vivian Bryant, Appellants Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994,

§ 226(b)(3), Pub. L. No. 103-354, 108 Stat. 3209, 3214 (1994).

3

PER CURIAM:

M.A. Bryant and Vivian Bryant appeal from the district court’s

orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the

Department of Agriculture on the Bryants’ action in which they

challenged the decision of the Farm Service Agency, the successor

to the Farmers Home Administration,* denying their request for loan

servicing (No. 98-2779), and dismissing their subsequent action on

the basis of res judicata (No. 98-2782). We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Bryant v. Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture,

No. CA-97-23-A (W.D. Va. Oct. 13, 1998), and Bryant v. Farmers Home

Admin., No. CA-98-116-A (W.D. Va. Dec. 7, 1998). Because counsel

for the Bryants has not entered an appearance in this court, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw from the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6106

DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. A. BRAXTON, L. MULLINS, Hearings Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-02-1125)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Edward Crawley seeks to appeal the order of the district

court dismissing without prejudice Crawley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order Crawley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Victor Altheus DePonceau, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Decided November 23, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct *911involvement of a substantial constitutional question *(see*CPLR 5601).
[774 NYS2d 254]

#### Charles Marino, Appellant, v Philip Lorch, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 17, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Vincent D. McNamara,*East Norwich *(Anthony Marino*of counsel), for appellant. *Toni*A. *Bean,*Amityville, for respondent.

*57OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs, defendant’s counterclaim dismissed and judgment directed to be entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover damages sustained when defendant trespassed upon his land. Plaintiff testified that defendant, an adjoining landowner, leaned his ladder against a tree on plaintiffs property and cut branches on plaintiffs side of the boundary, including branches that did not extend over defendant’s property. Plaintiff alleged that in doing so, defendant damaged the subject tree and his fence. Defendant conceded that part of his ladder was on plaintiffs property but claimed that he only cut branches that extended over his property and he denied damaging the tree or plaintiff’s fence. However, a review of the videotape admitted into evidence by plaintiff established that defendant cut down branches on plaintiffs property which did not extend over defendant’s property. Under the circumstances, plaintiff established a prima facie case of trespass. While plaintiff failed to establish his damages, to wit, the difference in the value of the property immediately before and immediately after the act complained of or the amount the subject tree depreciated as a result of defendant’s act *(see 36*NY Jur 2d, Damages § 78; *Evans v Keystone Gas Co.,*148 NY 112 [1895]; *Nichols v New York & Pa. Tel. & Tel. Co.,*126 App Div 184 [1908]), we note that even in the absence of any showing of actual damages, plaintiff is entitled to an award of nominal damages *(see Ligo v Gerould,*244 AD2d 852 [1997]). Although punitive damages may be awarded where a person deliberately trespasses onto the land of another and injures that person’s property *(see*1 Dobbs, Torts § 56, at 114-115 [2001]; *Litwin v Town of Huntington,*248 AD2d 361 [1998]) and the decision whether to award same is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see Nardelli v Stamberg,*44 NY2d 500 [1978]), we are of the opinion that defendant’s single act of trespass under the circumstances presented does not warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

With respect to defendant’s counterclaim which sought the cost to repair a pool filter which was allegedly damaged as a result of falling pine needles and pine cones from plaintiff’s overhanging tree, inasmuch as defendant failed to proffer evidence that the tree was defective and that plaintiff had actual *58or constructive notice of its condition, plaintiff cannot be held liable for any damages allegedly caused by same *(see Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41*NY2d 446 [1977]; *Lahowin v Ganley, 265*AD2d 530 [1999]; *Golan v Astuto, 242*AD2d 669 [1997]). Thus, substantial justice requires the dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim (UDCA 1804).

Doyle, EJ., Winick and Skelos, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 116 (Thursday, June 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29016-29017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14282]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Departmental Offices; Renewal of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory 
Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), with the concurrence of the 
General Services Administration, the Secretary of the Treasury has 
determined that renewal of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of 
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (the 
``Committee'') is necessary and in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the 
Treasury by law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karthik Ramanathan, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Financial Markets and Director, Office of Debt Management 
(202) 622-2042.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Committee is to provide 
informed advice as representatives of the financial community to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and Treasury staff, upon the Secretary of the 
Treasury's request, in carrying out Treasury responsibilities for 
Federal financing and public debt management.
    The Committee meets to consider special items on which its advice 
is sought pertaining to immediate Treasury funding requirements and 
pertaining to longer term approaches to manage the national debt in a 
cost-effective manner. The Committee

[[Page 29017]]

usually meets immediately before the Treasury announces each mid-
calendar quarter funding operation, although special meetings also may 
be held.
    Membership consists of up to 20 representative members, appointed 
by Treasury. The members are senior level officials who are employed by 
primary dealers, institutional investors, and other major participants 
in the government securities and financial markets.
    The Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Committee is the 
Director of the Office of Debt Management. The Treasury Department is 
filing copies of the Committee's renewal charter with appropriate 
committees in Congress.

    Dated: June 1, 2009.
Karthik Ramanathan,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Financial Markets.
[FR Doc. E9-14282 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
#### Zell, Trustee, Appellee, *v.*Hamilton County Board of Revision et al., Appellees; Cincinnati School District Board of Education, Appellant.

[Cite as *Zell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 330.]

(No. 96-935

Submitted October 31, 1996

Decided April 30, 1997.)

*331*Fred Siegel Company, L.P.A.,*and *Annrita S. Johnson,*for appellee Sam Zell.

*Joseph T. Deters,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Thomas J. Scheve,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Wood & Lamping*and *David C. DiMuzio,*for appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The auditor did not file a notice of appeal, but in his brief as an appellee he argues for reversal of the BTA’s decision. *Sua sponte,*the court strikes the auditor’s brief.

The primary difference between this case and case No. 96-934 is that in this case the seller was the appellant at the BTA, while in case No. 96-934 the BOE was the appellant. Here, Zell, as the appellant, bore the burden of proving his right to a reduction in value. *Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision*(1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E.2d 650, 651.

The first contention raised by the BOE is that the rebuttable presumption that sale price reflects true value arises in a valuation case only after proof that the sale was an arm’s-length sale. This is the same contention raised by the BOE as its first contention in *Cincinnati Bd. of Edn.*We disagree with the BOE’s contention for the same reasons as set forth *Cincinnati Bd. of Edn.*

The BOE’s second contention is that Zell did not prove that he was not selling under economic duress. We disagree with the BOE. The BTA is vested with wide discretion in determining the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of witnesses who come before it. *Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision*(1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433. The proper scope of this court’s review of the BTA’s decisions is not a substitution of the board’s judgment on factual issues, but to determine from the record if the BTA’s decision is supported by reliable and probative evidence.*Alcoa v. Kosydar*(1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 477, 8 O.O.3d 459, 377 N.E.2d 785. The BTA found that the sale was an arm’s-length sale, thereby finding no economic duress. The BTA’s finding is supported by testimony and evidence in the record. The best example of the evidence supporting the BTA’s finding of no economic duress is Bawolek’s testimony that Zell was not under duress to sell.

*332The BOE’s third contention is that the sale was not exposed to the open market. This is the same contention that the BOE raised in case No. 96-934. We disagree with the BOE’s contention for the same reasons set forth in *Cincinnati Bd. of Edn.*

For the reasons stated above, we find that the decision of the BTA is reasonable and lawful, and it is therefore affirmed.

*Decision affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         164,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,731,671<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    112,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,103,781
<PP&E>                                       1,232,374<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,056,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,931,885
<BONDS>                                      7,018,330<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          482,197<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       420,770
<OTHER-SE>                                   (406,912)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,056,869
<SALES>                                     10,006,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        4,052,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,622,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             969,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (526,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,027
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (569,751)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
<FN>
<F1> NET OF ALLOWANCES
<F2> NET OF DEPRECIATION
<F3> LONG TERM DEBT
<F4> REDEEMABLE WARRANTS
</FN>



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy Gulf
States' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000044570
<NAME> ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 006
   <NAME> ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,538,186
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    364,415
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         735,208
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       850,828
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,488,637
<COMMON>                                       114,055
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,152,575
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            284,165
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,550,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          153,978
<PREFERRED>                                    201,444
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,702,719
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  190,890
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     92,055
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                30,280
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,566,476
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,488,637
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,147,829
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            22,402
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,617,283
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,617,283
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        530,546
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           (269,924)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 260,622
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       178,244
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,976
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     23,865
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   36,111
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        77,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      167,642
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         466,324
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,768,866
<SECURITIES>                                23,716,836
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,081,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                   245,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,206,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,775,851
<PP&E>                                       2,009,637
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,192,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,023,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,111,349
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       175,622
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,736,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,023,027
<SALES>                                     10,608,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,608,880
<CGS>                                        6,722,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,722,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,343,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,542,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,542,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,542,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit21**

List ofSubsidiaries

The subsidiariesof Barnwell Industries, Inc., at September 30, 2006 were:
| ** **                                   | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of**               |
|----------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| **Name of  Subsidiary**                      | ** ** | **Incorporation or Organization** |
|                                         |       |                              |
| Barnwell of Canada, Limited                  |       | Delaware                          |
| Water Resources International, Inc.          |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Hawaiian Properties, Inc.           |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Kona Corporation                    |       | Hawaii                            |
| Kaupulehu Developments                       |       | Hawaii                            |
| Cambridge Hawaii Limited Partnership         |       | Hawaii                            |
| Barnwell Management Co., Inc.                |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Shallow Oil, Inc.                   |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Geothermal Corporation              |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Mining Co.                          |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Overseas, Inc.                      |       | Delaware                          |
| Geothermal Exploration and Development Corp. |       | Delaware                          |
| Victoria Properties, Inc.                    |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Financial Corporation               |       | Delaware                          |
| NDTX, Inc.                                   |       | Delaware                          |
| Barnwell Investment Corporation              |       | Hawaii                            |
| WRI Properties, Inc.                         |       | Hawaii                            |
| Barnwell Alakea Properties, Inc.             |       | Hawaii                            |
| Barnwell Hilo Corporation                    |       | Hawaii                            |
| Kaupulehu Investors, LLC                     |       | Hawaii                            |
| Mauka 3K, LLC                                |       | Hawaii                            |
| Barnwell of Israel, Ltd.                     |       | Israel                            |
| Barnwell Oil & Gas, Ltd.                 |       | Israel                            |
| Bill Robbins Drilling, Ltd.                  |       | Alberta, Canada                   |
| Gypsy Petroleum Ltd.                         |       | Alberta, Canada                   |
| Dartmouth Petroleum, Ltd.                    |       | Alberta, Canada                   |
| J.H. Wilson Associates, Ltd.                 |       | Alberta, Canada                   |

 

----