alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ann Marie Finocchiaro et al., Appellants, v AVR Realty Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[820 NYS2d 520]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief and letter dated January 10, 2006, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated February 18, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants AYR Realty Corp. and Oakwood Center, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Ann Marie Finocchiaro allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a misaligned concrete wheel stop in the parking lot of a shopping center owned by the respondents Oakwood Center, LLC, and AVR Realty Corp. (hereinafter collectively the respondents). The Supreme Court granted the respondents’ motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition *(see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]; *Gonzalez v Jenel Mgt. Corp.,*11 AD3d 656, 656-657 [2004]; *Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer,*258 AD2d 634, 634-635 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Gonzalez v Jenel Mgt. Corp., supra*at 657; *Lombardo v Island Grill Diner,*276 AD2d 532 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary *820judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
No. IV-11-034

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 860-8128

 Lara Uselding (817) 276-6519

 

 July 14, 2011 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT OFFICIALS 

TO DISCUSS FORT CALHLOUN NUCLEAR PLANT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials from the Omaha 

Public Power District in Omaha, Neb., on July 27, to discuss post flooding recovery actions at 

the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant. OPPD operates the plant, located 19 miles north of Omaha.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will begin at 9 a.m. at the Doubletree 

Inn, 1616 Dodge St.

Fort Calhoun is shut down and remains in a safe mode under an Unusual Event declared 

by the licensee on June 6 because of flooding along the Missouri River.

Conferees will discuss the status of actions being taken to keep the plant safe during 

flooding at the site and planned post-flooding recovery actions.

Members of the NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public after the 

business portion of the meeting.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web 

address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at 

www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when 

news releases are posted to NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125

Telephone: (817) 860-8128

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
§ 233.2 Retail price comparisons; comparable value comparisons. ( a ) Another commonly used form of bargain advertising is to offer goods at prices lower than those being charged by others for the same merchandise in the advertiser's trade area (the area in which he does business). This may be done either on a temporary or a permanent basis, but in either case the advertised higher price must be based upon fact, and not be fictitious or misleading. Whenever an advertiser represents that he is selling below the prices being charged in his area for a particular article, he should be reasonably certain that the higher price he advertises does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales of the article are being made in the area—that is, a sufficient number of sales so that a consumer would consider a reduction from the price to represent a genuine bargain or saving. Expressed another way, if a number of the principal retail outlets in the area are regularly selling Brand X fountain pens at $10, it is not dishonest for retailer Doe to advertise: “Brand X Pens, Price Elsewhere $10, Our Price $7.50”.
( b ) The following example, however, illustrates a misleading use of this advertising technique. Retailer Doe advertises Brand X pens as having a “Retail Value $15.00, My Price $7.50,” when the fact is that only a few small suburban outlets in the area charge $15. All of the larger outlets located in and around the main shopping areas charge $7.50, or slightly more or less. The advertisement here would be deceptive, since the price charged by the small suburban outlets would have no real significance to Doe's customers, to whom the advertisement of “Retail Value $15.00” would suggest a prevailing, and not merely an isolated and unrepresentative, price in the area in which they shop.
( c ) A closely related form of bargain advertising is to offer a reduction from the prices being charged either by the advertiser or by others in the advertiser's trade area for other merchandise of like grade and quality—in other words, comparable or competing merchandise—to that being advertised. Such advertising can serve a useful and legitimate purpose when it is made clear to the consumer that a comparison is being made with other merchandise and the other merchandise is, in fact, of essentially similar quality and obtainable in the area. The advertiser should, however, be reasonably certain, just as in the case of comparisons involving the same merchandise, that the price advertised as being the price of comparable merchandise does not exceed the price at which such merchandise is being offered by representative retail outlets in the area. For example, retailer Doe advertises Brand X pen as having “Comparable Value $15.00”. Unless a reasonable number of the principal outlets in the area are offering Brand Y, an essentially similar pen, for that price, this advertisement would be deceptive. [Guide II]
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Patrick Henry, President and Chief Executive Officer of Entropic Communications, Inc. (the
Registrant), and David Lyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached
as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of July 29, 2010.



|                                                                                  |  |  |  |                                                                 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Patrick Henry                                                                 |  |  |  | /s/ David Lyle                                                  
|Patrick Henry
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |  |  |  | David Lyle
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)



|* | This Certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Registrant made under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date of this Report, except to the extent that the Registrant specifically incorporates this
Certification by reference therein.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Saul Rosenblatt, Appellant, v. G. A. & A. Taxi Inc. et al., Respondents.

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Dore and Shientag, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment appealed from on the ground that conflicting testimony raised issues of fact and the credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court, and on the further ground that on plaintiff’s own testimony the trial court properly could have found that plaintiff was guilty of negligence causing or contributing to cause the accident.
#### § 1250.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for toys that mandates provisions of ASTM F963.
No: II-15-034 April 27, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Meeting To Discuss Safety Performance 

of Global Nuclear Fuel Plant in Wilmington

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting with Global Nuclear 

Fuel – America’s management in Wilmington, N.C., on May 5 to discuss the results of the agency’s 

licensee performance review at the company’s commercial nuclear fuel fabrication plant.

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in the Madeline Suite of Wagoner Hall, University of North 

Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College St. The meeting will be open to the public and media, and 

NRC officials will be available after the formal presentation to answer questions.

The NRC staff assessed performance at the Global facility during a period beginning Jan. 1, 

2013, and ending Dec. 31, 2014, in the areas of safety operations, radiological controls, facility support 

and special topics. The NRC staff review determined that the company continued to conduct its 

activities safety and securely, protecting public health and the environment. During 2015, the agency 

will continue the inspection program required for facilities of this type.

“The NRC inspects Global and other nuclear fuel facilities on an ongoing basis to monitor 

their performance,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree, “Our inspection reports are 

publicly available and we also hold regular meetings like this one near each facility to discuss our 

oversight and answer local residents’ questions.”

A copy of the NRC letter to the company regarding the performance review is publicly 

available on the NRC website.
NRC COMPLETES REINTEGRATION OF SECURITY 

INTO REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS ASSESSMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reintegrated security inspection results into the 

agency’s Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) assessment program, effective July 1. The 

reintegration will be reflected in the August quarterly update to the ROP’s Action Matrix.

The NRC previously treated safety and security inputs to the Action Matrix separately. 

Reintegrating security information provides a holistic representation of licensee performance and 

will allow NRC staff to more fully leverage supplemental inspection procedures and resources

when performance warrants.

The integrated assessment process will provide the public increased transparency through 

a complete representation of licensees’ performance. Under the new process, licensees receive a 

single assessment letter that covers all seven ROP cornerstones.

Letters were issued to nuclear power plant licensees with unresolved security findings on 

July 30, notifying them that their Action Matrix assessments on the public website will appear 

different when the new assessment results are reflected on the NRC’s website Aug. 6. Those 

plants are Farley Units 1 and 2; Fermi; Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; Prairie Island 1 and 2; Salem 

1 and 2 and Hope Creek. These security findings were previously identified under the separate 

security assessment program, but they have not been shown on the public Action Matrix for 

these plants until now. Future updates to the Action Matrix will reflect new findings.

From now on, the website will show information on all seven ROP cornerstones, with 

security inputs displayed in one of two ways. Issues of very low security significance will show 

up as “green” findings or performance indicators. Issues of greater security significance will 

show up as “blue” findings or performance indicators, regardless of their actual significance 

level. Specific information about all security performance deficiencies will remain non-publicly 

available, consistent with current NRC policy. 

Information on the ROP and the Action Matrix is available on the NRC website. The July 

30 letters are available through the NRC’s ADAMS document database, using the “Advanced 

Search” tab, selecting “Accession Number” under Property and entering these numbers as Value: 

ML12212A121 (Farley); ML12212A012 (Fermi); ML12212A013 (Prairie Island); 

ML12212A385 (Palo Verde); and ML12212A078 (Salem/Hope Creek).

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-089 August 1, 2012
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

I, Frank Ferraro, President and Chief Financial Officer of Corporate Road
Show.Com, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/ Frank Ferraro
--------------------------------------
Frank Ferraro
President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate
disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under
that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and
specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Corporate Road Show.Com, Inc. and will be retained by Corporate Road
Show.Com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

                                    Page 15
#### Hilda Bell, Appellant, v. Firth Carpet Company et al., Respondents.

Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Colombia
      Goldfields Ltd. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, I certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Colombia Goldfields Ltd. for the
              quarter ended March 31, 2006 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended March 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of Colombia Goldfields
              Ltd..
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Randall MartinName:
            J.
                Randall MartinTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
                22, 2006By:
            /s/
                Kenneth PhillippeName:
            Kenneth
                PhillippeTitle:
            Principal
                Financial OfficerDate:
            May
                22, 2006
No: 15-014 March 6, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Renews Operating License of Callaway Nuclear Plant in Missouri

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating license of the Callaway nuclear 

power plant in Fulton, Mo., for an additional 20 years, through Oct. 18, 2044.

The Callaway plant is a single pressurized water reactor. The Union Electric Co., doing business 

as Ameren, applied to renew its license on Dec. 19, 2011. The NRC staff’s review of the application 

proceeded on two tracks. A safety evaluation report was issued Aug. 21, 2014, and a supplemental 

environmental impact statement on Oct. 29, 2014. These documents, as well as other information about 

the Callaway license renewal, are available on the NRC website.

Under NRC procedures, the staff may renew a nuclear plant’s operating license with 

Commission approval despite outstanding adjudicatory contentions. The Missouri Coalition for the 

Environment filed contentions last September and December seeking to re-open the Callaway 

adjudication. On Feb. 26, the Commission denied the September request to reopen and suspend 

licensing of reactors. Still pending before the Commission is the December request to reopen the 

hearing and file an environmental contention. 

Once the NRC staff completed comprehensive environmental and safety reviews, it concluded 

Ameren met all the requirements for license renewal. The staff on Feb. 3 requested authorization to 

renew the license. The Commission granted authorization on March 4. Should the renewed license be 

set aside on appeal, Callaway would revert to its original license, which is effective until Oct. 18, 2024. 

Renewal of Callaway’s license brings to 76 the number of commercial nuclear power reactors 

with renewed licenses. Applications for an additional 18 renewals are currently under review. 

Information about those reviews can be found on the NRC website.
### §8502. National Capital Service Director

(a) Establishment and Compensation.—There is in the Executive Office of the President the National Capital Service Director who shall be appointed by the President. The Director shall receive compensation at the maximum rate established for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5.

(b) Personnel.—The Director may appoint and fix the rate of compensation of necessary personnel, subject to chapters 33 and 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5.

(c) Duties.—

(1) President.—The President, through the Director and using District of Columbia governmental services to the extent practicable, shall ensure that there is provided in the area described in section 8501(a) of this title adequate fire protection and sanitation services.

(2) Director.—Except with respect to that part of the National Capital Service Area comprising the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds as defined and described in sections 5101 and 5102 of this title, the Supreme Court Building and grounds as described in section 6101 of this title, and the Library of Congress buildings and grounds as defined in section 11 of the Act of August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C. 167j), the Director shall ensure that there is provided in the remainder of the area described in section 8501(a) of this title adequate police protection and maintenance of streets and highways.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1215; Pub. L. 109–284, §6(25), (26), Sept. 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 1213.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8502(a) | 40:136(b) (1st sentence), (c) (1st sentence). | Pub. L. 93–198, title VII, §739(b), (c), Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 825. |
| 8502(b) | 40:136(c) (last sentence). | |
| 8502(c) | 40:136(b) (2d, last sentences). | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "from time to time" and "of section 5314 [sic] of title 5" are omitted as unnecessary. [The words "of section 5314 of title 5" were not omitted.]

In subsection (b), the reference to chapter 33 of title 5 is substituted for "the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service" for clarity and for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "subchapter III" are substituted for "subchapter 3" to correct an error in the source provision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–284, §6(25), substituted "5315" for "5314".

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 109–284, §6(26), inserted "of this title" after "sections 5101 and 5102".
Exhibit 32.2  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 Annual Report of Merci, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Jose Acevedo, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  August 19, 2008 /s/ Jose Acevedo
 Chief Financial Officer