alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donavon T. Curtis, Appellant, v Town of Inlet et al., Defendants, and Town of Webb, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 319]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered June 20, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant Town of Webb for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the amended complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while snowmobiling. According to plaintiff, the snowmobile trail at issue, which was located in the Town of Webb (defendant), was not marked to warn of an upcoming “Y” intersection and he therefore continued to travel straight ahead, careening over an embankment and into a ravine. Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it on the ground that the dangers encountered by plaintiff on the snowmobile trail were inherent in the sport of snowmobiling and plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries *(see Alessi v Boy Scouts of Am. Greater Niagara Frontier Council,*247 AD2d 824, 824-825 [1998]). In order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on a plaintiffs as*1312sumption of risk, the defendant must establish that the plaintiff was aware of the allegedly defective or dangerous condition and the accompanying risk, although “[i]t is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” (Maddox *v City of New York,*66 NY2d 270, 278 [1985]). Whether the plaintiff was aware of the risk assumed depends upon “the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’ *(id.; see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*73 NY2d 650, 657 [1989]; *see also Lamey v Foley,*188 AD2d 157, 164 [1993]). Here, defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion. In support thereof, defendant failed to submit any evidence setting forth the risks inherent in the sport of snowmobiling or any evidence establishing that the trail at issue was free from defects not inherent in the sport, such as inadequate trail signage *(see generally Rosati v Hunt Racing, Inc.,*13 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2004]). We conclude in any event that plaintiff raised issues of fact with respect to his training and experience as a snowmobiler and whether, under the circumstances, the signage of the trails was sufficient to satisfy defendant’s duty to “make the conditions as safe as they appear to be” *(Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
#### Orange County Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. Merchants Acceptance Corporation, Respondent, and Middletown Auto Distributors, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. James H. Wilcox et al., Doing Business as Wilcox Used Cars, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

*690Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ. [See *post,*p. 811.]
#### § 1203.10 Selecting the test headform.

A helmet shall be tested on the smallest of the headforms appropriate for the helmet sample. A headform size is appropriate for a helmet if all of the helmet's sizing pads are partially compressed when the helmet is equipped with its thickest sizing pads and positioned correctly on the reference headform.
#### § 609.6 Severability.

The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed, or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
§ 906.16 Reconsideration. ( a ) Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of an NAO decision issued under § 906.15. The request must be filed with NAO within 10 days after service of NAO's decision. A party shall not file more than one motion for reconsideration of an NAO decision.
( b ) The motion must be in writing and contain a detailed statement of an error of fact or law material to the decision. The process of reconsideration is not a forum for reiterating the appellant's objections to the initial administrative determination.
( c ) Arguments not raised by a party in his or her motion for reconsideration of a decision will be deemed waived.
( d ) In response to a motion for reconsideration, NAO will either: ( 1 ) Reject the motion because it does not meet the criteria of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section; or
( 2 ) Issue a revised decision and serve a copy of its revised decision upon the appellant and the Regional Administrator.
( e ) At any time prior to notifying the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 906.17(a), the NAO may issue a revised decision to make corrections and serve a copy of its revised decision upon the appellant and the Regional Administrator.
No: 16-037 June 27, 2016

Contact: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Amends Licensing, Inspection and Annual Fees for Fiscal Year 2016

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations to reflect the licensing, 

inspection, special project, and annual fees it will charge applicants and licensees for fiscal year (FY) 

2016. The amended regulations reduce annual fees for most licensees primarily due to a decrease in the 

NRC’s budget.

The final fee rule, published June 24 in the Federal Register, includes fees required by law to 

recover approximately 90 percent of the agency’s budget. A proposed rule was published for public 

comment on March 23, 2016.

For FY 2016, the NRC’s required fee recovery amount, after billing and collection adjustments, 

is $882.9 million. Approximately 38 percent, or $332.7 million, of the fees would recover the cost of 

specific services to applicants and licensees under 10 CFR Part 170. The remaining 62 percent, or 

$550.7 million, would be billed as annual fees to licensees under 10 CFR Part 171. 

Annual fees for FY 2016 decrease by 3.1 percent over last year for operating reactors, 6 percent 

for fuel facilities, 2.4 percent for research and test reactors, and 11.7 percent for spent fuel 

storage/reactor decommissioning licensees. Fees increase by 7.6 percent for most uranium recovery 

licensees and decrease by 18.2 percent for Department of Energy activities related to the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

The final rule includes several changes from the FY 2015 rule. For instance, the NRC has 

lowered the hourly rate of staff review time from $268 to $265 for FY 2016, and fees charged under 10 

CFR Part 170 have been updated accordingly.

Another change is that the NRC will now recover the agency’s costs in responding to significant 

requests for information, records, or NRC employee testimony in lawsuits where the NRC is not a 

named party; these are commonly referred to as “Touhy requests.” The final rule will assess hourly rate 

fees on all Touhy requests that require over 50 NRC staff hours.

The NRC estimates the FY 2016 annual fees will be paid by licensees of 100 operating 

commercial power reactors, four research and test reactors, 122 spent nuclear fuel storage and 

decommissioning reactor facilities, nine fuel cycle facilities, 10 uranium recovery facilities and 

approximately 3,000 nuclear materials licensees.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0077 - Status Update and Proposed Policy Revision: Tasks Related to Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Enforcement Program.

Accession Number: ML14189A282

Date Released: Thursday, August 14, 2014

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML14143A363 - SECY-14-0077 - Status Update and Proposed Policy Revision: Tasks Related to Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Enforcement Program. (6 page(s), 7/30/2014)
    - ML14189A289 - SECY-14-0077 - Recommended Revision to Enforcement Policy (Enclosure). (1 page(s), 7/30/2014)
    - ML14209A024 - SECY-14-0077 - Recommended Revision to Enforcement Policy, Annotated (Enclosure 2). (1 page(s), 7/28/2014)
    - ML12321A145 - SECY-12-0161 - Status Update: Tasks Related to Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Allegation and Enforcement Programs. (9 page(s), 11/28/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### In the Matter of Rodney D.E., Jr., an Infant. Monroe County Department of Human and Health Services, Division of Social Services, Respondent; Stephanie P., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[822 NYS2d 474]

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Marilyn L. O’Connor, J.), entered August 3, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The amended order terminated the parental rights of respondent, committed the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner and authorized petitioner to consent to the adoption of the child.

*1362It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 803.6 Certification. ( a ) The notification required by the act shall be certified: ( 1 ) In the case of a partnership, by any general partner thereof;
( 2 ) In the case of a corporation, by any officer or director thereof;
( 3 ) In the case of a person lacking officers, directors, or partners, by any individual exercising similar functions;
( 4 ) In the case of a natural person, by such natural person or his or her legal representative;
( 5 ) In the case of the estate of a deceased natural person, by any duly authorized legal representative of such estate.
( b ) Additional information or documentary material submitted in response to a request pursuant to section 7A(e) and § 803.20 shall be accompanied by a certification in the format appearing at the end of the Notification and Report Form, completed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section by the person or individual to whom it was directed.
( c ) In all cases, the certifying individual must possess actual authority to make the certification on behalf of the person filing notification.
[43 FR 33548, July 31, 1978, as amended at 48 FR 34429, July 29, 1983]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1973

___________

Wally Bredemeier, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Hallmark Cards, Inc., a Missouri * Western District of Missouri.

corporation; Hallmark Marketing * 

Corporation, a Delaware * [UNPUBLISHED]

corporation; Kenneth J. Sive; *

Thomas L. Haskin; Gary Jacobsen, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1997

 Filed: August 18, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

After the District Court granted summary judgment to 1

defendants in his age discrimination case, Wally

Bredemeier appeals. Having reviewed the record and the

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the judgment of the

District Court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32
----------




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


     The following statement is provided by the undersigned with respect to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of KAANAPALI LAND, LLC.




    By: /s/  Gary Nickele               By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
        ---------------------------         ---------------------------
        Gary Nickele                        Gailen J. Hull
        Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
§ 12.5 Computation of time. ( a ) *In general.* In computing any period of time prescribed by the rules in this part or allowed by the Commission, the Director of the Office of Proceedings, an Administrative Judge, or an Administrative Law Judge, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded from the computation only when the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than seven (7) days.
( b ) *Date of service of orders.* In computing any period of time involving the date of service of an order, the date of service shall be the date the order is served by the Proceedings Clerk, which, unless otherwise indicated, shall be the date stamped on the order by the Proceedings Clerk.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 57 FR 20638, May 14, 1992; 86 FR 64351, Nov. 18, 2021]
#### § 614.1 Cross-reference.

The rules formerly at 16 CFR part 614 have been republished by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at 12 CFR 1022.123, “Fair Credit Reporting (Regulation V).”
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Walter D. Binger et al., Appellants, and Charles J. Thatcher, Respondent.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See *post,*p. 778.]
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hitor Group, a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10 Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report )I Ken Martin, CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ken martin _______________________________ Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  October 10, 2011
#### § 233.5 Miscellaneous price comparisons.

The practices covered in the provisions set forth above represent the most frequently employed forms of bargain advertising. However, there are many variations which appear from time to time and which are, in the main, controlled by the same general principles. For example, retailers should not advertise a retail price as a “wholesale” price. They should not represent that they are selling at “factory” prices when they are not selling at the prices paid by those purchasing directly from the manufacturer. They should not offer seconds or imperfect or irregular merchandise at a reduced price without disclosing that the higher comparative price refers to the price of the merchandise if perfect. They should not offer an advance sale under circumstances where they do not in good faith expect to increase the price at a later date, or make a “limited” offer which, in fact, is not limited. In all of these situations, as well as in others too numerous to mention, advertisers should make certain that the bargain offer is genuine and truthful. Doing so will serve their own interest as well as that of the public. [Guide V]
### subpart 4—additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas
#### In the Matter of Ronald Mack, Petitioner, v Joseph T. Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[818 NYS2d 783]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits possession of unauthorized organizational material and possession of contraband. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Carroll v Goord,*24 AD3d 845 [2005]).

Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $25.
Exhibit No. 32

# Certification of
Steven J. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Paul M. Bonaiuto, Executive
Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc.,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 25, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Steven J. SmithSteven J. Smith, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Paul M. BonaiutoPaul M. Bonaiuto,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Source scales vary, and accuracy of the final land cover has not been assessed. 

Lakes are associated with facilities. Honker and Energy Lakes are also wildlife 

refuges. All Research Natural Areas and State Natural Areas lie within the Core 

areas. Core acreages are based on GIS data, not previously published. Closed 

facilities under administrative areas include Duncan Wildlife Restoration Area, 

Empire Farm, Youth Station, Lookout Tower, and Silo Overlook.

Disclaimer

Alternative Land Prescription Areas

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Between Lakes The

SOUTH

X

Other Features

Road Level

Water

1

2

3

4

5

Legend

Subcategories to RX Areas

State Natural Area

Natural Resource Areas

Core Areas

Oak Grassland Demo

Wildlife Refuge

Wetlands

Environmental Education &

Developed Recreation Areas

Developed Recreation

Environmental Education

Turkey Bay OHV

Administrative Areas

Administration

Communications

Utility Corridor

Prepared by US Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes

GIS Laboratory, September 2004

General Forest

 ̄

012

Miles
#### Abraham Manaster, Defendant in Error, v. Herman Molner, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,743.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 8, 1914.

Rehearing denied and additional opinion filed December 31, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Abraham Manaster against Herman Molner to recover one month’s rent of $105,. alleged to be due under a certain lease made between plaintiff as lessor and one S. Silber as lessee, which lease was guarantied by the defendant. The lease provided that the lessor should construct a bakeshop in the rear portion of the first floor of the building, and was made when the premises were occupied by one Goldstein. Bent was collected from said Goldstein after the making of the lease, and Goldstein claimed that the landlord had elected to treat him as a tenant from year to year. A forcible entry and detainer suit was brought against Goldstein and resulted in a verdict for the defendant, whereupon an appeal was prayed. Silber occupied the portion of the premises not occupied by Goldstein and some other property also belonging to the plaintiff. At the trial the issues were found in favor of the plaintiff, and this writ of error followed.

Jacob C. LeBosky, for plaintiff in error.

Tenney, Harding & Sherman, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

*67Abstract of the Decision.

1. Landlord and tenant, § *88*
      ***
      *—when tenancy from year to year created.*Evidence *held*to show that a landlord acted as an agent of his lessee in collecting rent from another person who occupied the premises at the time of the making of the lease, and such landlord did not by accepting the rent elect to treat such other person as a tenant from year to year of the premises.

2. Judgment, § *457*—when decree is res adjudícala.*A person cannot be injuriously affected by a judgment or decree of court who was not a party to such judgment or decree and was not in any way interested therein.

3. Judgment, § *457*—when party bound by former adjudication.*Evidence *held*to support a finding that a party was not interested in a prior forcible entry and detainer suit, wherefore the judgment in such suit was not *res adjudicate.*

4. Landlobd and tenant, § *448*—when different premises are substituted.*Evidence *held*not to sustain a contention that there was a substitution by a landlord of other premises for those leased.
#### Sophie Zabar, Appellant, v. 870 Seventh Avenue Corp., Respondent.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., and Shientag, J., concur on the authority of *Miller Coat Co.*v. *Myron Herbert, Inc.*(275 App. Div. 821). [See *post,*p. 936.]
#### Florence E. Haynes, Appellant, v. Stephen B. Haynes, Respondent.

The defendant, however, was not entitled to any credit for alimony payments in a larger amount made by him prior to the entry of the order of modification; for that reason we reverse the second order and grant plaintiff’s motion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.