alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard F. Landow, Respondent, v Town of Amherst, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[853 NYS2d 760]

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution resulting from his arrest and subsequent criminal prosecution for obstructing governmental administration in the second *1237degree (Penal Law § 195.05). As we noted in a prior appeal, Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial, following which the court “expressly found defendant liable under the false arrest cause of action and implicitly found defendant liable under the false imprisonment cause of action as well, inasmuch as the court awarded plaintiff damages ‘for the humiliation and embarrassment suffered during the 28 hours or so that he spent in custody’ ” *(Landow v Town of Amherst,*28 AD3d 1223, 1223-1224 [2006]). We agreed with defendant on the prior appeal that “the court erred in assessing the amount of damages to be awarded for false imprisonment based on a period of incarceration of ‘28 hours or so’ because that period included postarraignment incarceration . . . [and d]amages resulting from postarraignment incarceration are attributable only to the tort of malicious prosecution, for which the court awarded no damages” *(id.*at 1224). We therefore modified the judgment by, inter alia, vacating the amount of damages awarded, and we remitted the matter to Supreme Court to determine the amount of damages to be awarded for false imprisonment, i.e., only those resulting from prearraignment incarceration *(id.).*Upon remittal, the court determined that plaintiff had been incarcerated for four hours prior to his arraignment, and the court awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $10,000 therefor.

Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the humiliation and embarrassment suffered by plaintiff as a result of his prearraignment incarceration, based on his false imprisonment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]; *see generally Guion v Associated Dry Goods Corp. [Lord & Taylor Div.],*56 AD2d 798 [1977], *affd*43 NY2d 876 [1978], *rearg denied*44 NY2d 732 [1978]; *Lynch v County of Nassau,*278 AD2d 205, 206 [2000]; *Hallenbeck v City of Albany,*99 AD2d 639, 640 [1984]). Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing upon remittal with respect to the issue of damages. In our prior decision, we merely directed the court upon remittal to determine the amount of damages to be awarded for false imprisonment *(Landow,*28 AD3d at 1224), and “no additional fact finding was required” with respect to that issue *(Matter of Hewitt v Hewitt,*261 AD2d 766, 767 [1999]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
IV 

House Calendar No. 95

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 335

[Report No. 108–231] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 2003

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of prescription 

drugs, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2427) to 

4 authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

5 promulgate regulations for the reimportation of prescrip6 tion drugs, and for other purposes. The bill shall be con-
2

HRES 335 RH 

1 sidered as read for amendment. The previous question 

2 shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 

3 without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

4 on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

5 and ranking minority member of the Committee on En6 ergy and Commerce or their designees; and (2) one motion 

7 to recommit. 

8 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2427 pursuant 

9 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

10 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid11 eration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

House Calendar No. 95

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 335

[Report No. 108–231] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2427) 

to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes. 

JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
<PAGE>   1

                                                         EXHIBIT 21 TO FORM 10-K
                                                     WESCO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                                FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000



                           WESCO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           PERCENTAGE
                                                            OWNED BY                 STATE OF
        NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                 REGISTRANT             INCORPORATION
        ------------------                                 ----------             -------------
<S>                                                        <C>                     <C>
Wesco Holdings Midwest, Inc...............................     100%                  Nebraska
  CORT Business Services Corporation......................     100%                  Delaware
  Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc..........................     100%                  Illinois
    Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc.,
    Charlotte Service Center..............................     100%                  Delaware
    Precision Brand Products..............................     100%                  Delaware
  Wesco-Financial Insurance Company.......................     100%                  Nebraska
    Kansas Bankers Surety Company.........................     100%                  Kansas
MS Property Company.......................................     100%                  California
</TABLE>
No. 1037.

#### Chahoon *v.*Hickey, Collector of Internal Revenue.

May 13, 1946.

*Laurence Graves*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Sewall Key*and *J. Louis Monarch*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit No. 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-94699, 33-26823, 33-57879, 33-57881, 333-50703 
and 333-50711) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-51423) of Westvaco Corporation
of our report dated November 16, 1998 appearing on page 34 of the Westvaco 
Corporation 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders which is incorporated by 
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, NY 
November 24, 1998
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

298

CA 11-02179

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

ELLEN J. GALLAGHER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

EDWARD R. GALLAGHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

 

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

GETNICK, LIVINGSTON, ATKINSON & PRIORE, LLP, UTICA (THOMAS L. ATKINSON

OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David

A. Murad, J.), dated April 28, 2011 in a divorce action. The order,

among other things, required defendant to maintain plaintiff as

co-insured on all property and liability insurance until he has

removed her name from all instruments of liability. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988;

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; see

also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: March 23, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   April 7, 2006                             Signed:  /s/  Donald M. Boone



Donald M. Boone, President/CEO/Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1216

GEORGE E. BURDICK, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PRITCHETT & BIRCH, PLLC; LLOYD C. SMITH, JR.; REGINA PARKER; SAMUEL GRIMES; CHRISTOPHER B. MCLENDON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Burdick, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Graham Baker, BAKER, JENKINS, JONES & DALY, PA, Ahoskie, North Carolina, Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George E. Burdick appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his subsequent

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burdick v. Pritchett & Birch, PLLC , No. 4:08-cv-00053-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2008; Jan. 22, 2009). 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
#### Central Trust Co. and another *v.*Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. and others.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

May *1,*1885.)

Receiverships—Attorney’s Fees.

Wliore, during the pendency of a receivership, counsel for the complainant present claims for professional services for allowance, they will not be allowed the full value of their services, but only a part, thereof; and the balance will be allowed to stand until the litigation is disposed of, and the court can see whether or not the property in the receiver’s hands will suffice to pay all expenses, and the court will then decide what final allowance should be made.

In the Matter of the Application of Messrs. Green, Burnett & Humphreys, for an allowance for professional services as attorneys for the petitioner in *Wabash & St.*L. *& P. Ry. Co.*v. *Central Trust Co.*and others.

*Green, Burnett & Humphreys, pro se.*

*Wells H. Blodgett, H. S. Priest,*and *Geo. S. Grover,*for receiver.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of tlie St, Louis bar.

Brewer, J., *{orally.)*

It is not because we think the counsel have not earned the amount reported by the master in their favor that we do not sustain this report in full; but we do not believe in the policy or propriety, pending a receivership, of making a large allowance to parties who are employed as officers of the court, or in looking after the interests of clients in that connection. They should wait until the matter comes to a close, and then their bills, as a whole, should be presented. The court can then look at them, and pass upon the question as to whether they are correct or not. It makes a great difference, practically, in the administration of affairs, whether parties present bills for two or three thousand dollars every three or four months, or at the end of the litigation for eight or ten thousand dollars. Wo do not mean that counsel shall go without compensation as the ease progresses, because they cannot afford to; but still these intermediate allowances will always be small, and will not be in the way of a determination of what the services up to that time are really worth, or what they should bo at the final disposition of the case. They will be simply in view of the necessities, so to speak, of counsel pending litigation; and while the master in this case recommends an allowance of $6,000, the order will be that these gentlemen be paid $2,000 on account. The matter will stand over until we come to the final disposition of th.e *Wabash Case,*and then all fees and claims will be presented, and it will be seen whether there are funds enough in the Wabash road to pay the expenses.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         228,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  592,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    710,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,562,478
<PP&E>                                       3,475,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 383,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,350,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,114,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,183
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,350,026
<SALES>                                      3,462,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,462,508
<CGS>                                        1,807,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,807,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,556,928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.01
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17110]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 7, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice 
President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89cbc6daa7dadbcaa7c8f9f9e5e0eae8fde0e6e7faa7cae6e4e4ece7fdfac9ebe6faa7effbeba7e6fbee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="094b465a275a5b4a2748797965606a687d6066677a274a6664646c677d7a496b667a276f7b6b27667b6e">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Mascoma Mutual Financial Services Corporation, Lebanon, New 
Hampshire; to become a bank holding company by acquiring voting shares 
of Macsoma Savings Bank, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 9, 
2017.
Yao-Chin Chao,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-17110 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NO. 07-11-0076-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MAY 19, 2011

CHERYL R. CROFT AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF

10418 EASTERN HILL COURT, ROWLETT, TEXAS  75089,

			Appellant

V.

HSBC BANK USA, NA., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED

HOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-3,

			Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF DALLAS COUNTY;

NO. CC-10-06388-C; HONORABLE SALLY MONTGOMERY, PRESIDING

***Memorandum Opinion***

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Cheryl R. Croft (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on December 8, 2010.  We dismiss the appeal.  The clerks record was filed with this court on March 29, 2011.  No reporter’s record was taken.  Appellant’s brief was due on April 28, 2011.  No brief was filed by that date, so the Court notified appellant on May 6, 2011, that the due date for the brief had lapsed, that the brief had not been filed, and that if it was not received by May 16, 2011, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.  To date, no brief or motion to extend the deadline has been filed.  Nor has the court received any explanation for the omission.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P.  38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b).

Per Curiam

2

1
<PAGE>   1
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT                          DESCRIPTION                             PAGE
-------                          -----------                             ----
<S>      <C>                                                             <C>
10.AJ    Colin Stead, Performance Share Agreement under the
         Wyman-Gordon Company Long-term Incentive Plan dated July 16,
         1996.                                                            E-9
10.AK    Edward J. Davis, Executive Severence Agreement dated
         February 17, 1998.                                              E-10
21       List of Subsidiaries                                            E-11
23       Consent of Ernst & Young LLP                                      61
27       Financial Data Schedule                                         E-12
</TABLE>
 
     (b) Reports on Form 8-K
 
     On November 19, 1997, the Company filed a Form 8-K dated November 14, 1997
with the Commission for the following purposes: (1) to report that the Company
has commenced a cash tender offer for certain of its debt securities and is
soliciting to amend the related indenture; (2) to report developments relating
to the previously reported industrial accident at the facility of Wyman-Gordon
Forgings, Inc. in Houston, Texas; and (3) to report the commencement of an
investigation by certain federal agencies involving alleged irregularities at
the Company's Tilton, New Hampshire facility.
 
     On December 9, 1997, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the Commission to
report that the Company had taken the 29,000 ton press at its Houston, Texas
facility out of service for repairs.
 
     On February 9, 1998, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the Commission to
update the statue of the 29,000 ton press and to announce an extraordinary one
time charge relating to the refinancing of its 10 3/4% Senior Notes due 2003.
 
     On August 11, 1998, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the Commission to
report that it and Titanium Metals Corporation completed a transaction in which
the parties have combined their respective titanium castings businesses into a
jointly-owned venture.
 
                                       60
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3395 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3395

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
               To require limitations on prescribed burns.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 
2016''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act:
        (1) National fire danger rating system.--The term ``national 
    fire danger rating system'' means the national system used to 
    provide a measure of fire danger according to a range of low to 
    moderate to high to very high to extreme.
        (2) Prescribed burn.--The term ``prescribed burn'' means a 
    planned fire intentionally ignited.
        (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON PRESCRIBED BURNS.
    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
Secretary shall not authorize a prescribed burn on Forest Service land 
if, for the county or contiguous county in which the land is located, 
the national fire danger rating system indicates an extreme fire danger 
level.
    (b) Exception.--The Secretary may authorize a prescribed burn under 
a condition described in subsection (a) if the Secretary coordinates 
with the applicable State government and local fire officials.
    (c) Report.--At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
submit to Congress a report describing--
        (1) the number and locations of prescribed burns during that 
    fiscal year; and
        (2) each prescribed burn during that fiscal year that was 
    authorized by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```