alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eve Mistrulli, Appellant, v McFinnigan, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Gerhard Grob et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 271]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-101, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated December 14, 2005, as, upon prior orders of the same court (1) converting that branch of the motion of the defendant Gerhard Grob which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him and the separate motion of the defendant Ernest Alscher pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him into motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), and (2) reserving determination of the motions pending the movants’ depositions, granted the motions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent Gerhard Grob.

The plaintiffs husband, while a patron at a bar, was stabbed during an altercation with other patrons and died thereafter. The plaintiff brought this action against, among others, the defendants Gerhard Grob and Ernest Alscher, who were shareholders in McFinnigan, Inc., a corporation which, she alleged, owned and operated the subject bar. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for violation of the Dram Shop Act *(see*General Obligations Law § 11-101) and for common-law negligence. Grob and Alscher separately moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court converted the motions to summary judgment motions and reserved determination of the motions pending the movants’ depositions. After the parties engaged in further discovery, the Supreme Court granted the motion and cross motion.

*607After Grob and Alscher established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there was no basis upon which to pierce the corporate veil as to them. A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiffs injury” *(Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]; *see Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Moskowitz,*297 AD2d 724, 725 [2002]; *Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202*AD2d 552, 552 [1994]). Here, the evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the presence of either of those two elements as to the only two individual defendants at issue on this appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Grob and Alscher. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM  10-Q FOR  THE  SIX   MONTH  PERIOD  ENDED  MAY 31,  1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Nov-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Dec-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1998
<CASH>                                         $127,199
<SECURITIES>                                   $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  $5,679,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                   $300,000
<INVENTORY>                                    $17,427,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $24,980,891
<PP&E>                                         $54,079,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                 $25,679,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 $57,723,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $17,927,085
<BONDS>                                        $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          $0
<PREFERRED>                                    $0
<COMMON>                                       $392,732
<OTHER-SE>                                     $14,167,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   $57,723,156
<SALES>                                        $78,665,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               $78,665,355
<CGS>                                          $47,363,286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  $47,363,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               $2,193,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $852,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                $398,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                   $42,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            $398,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                 $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                $0
<CHANGES>                                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $355,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        



</TABLE>
§ 77.101 Tests for methane and for oxygen deficiency; qualified person. ( a ) The provisions of Subparts C, P, R, and T of this Part 77 require that tests for methane and for oxygen deficiency be made by a qualified person. A person is a qualified person for these purposes if he is a certified person for such purposes under § 77.100.
( b ) Pending issuance of Federal standards, a person will be considered a qualified person for testing for methane and oxygen deficiency: ( 1 ) If he has been qualified for this purpose by the State in which the coal mine is located; or
( 2 ) If he has been qualified by the Secretary for these purposes upon a satisfactory showing by the operator of the coal mine that each such person has been trained and designated by the operator to test for methane and oxygen deficiency. Applications for Secretarial qualification should be submitted in writing to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, Certification and Qualification Center, P.O. Box 25367, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo. 80225
[36 FR 9364, May 22, 1971, as amended at 43 FR 12320, Mar. 24, 1978]
### §50116. Commercial technology transfer program

(a) In General.—The Administrator shall execute a commercial technology transfer program with the goal of facilitating the exchange of services, products, and intellectual property between the Administration and the private sector. This program shall place at least as much emphasis on encouraging the transfer of Administration technology to the private sector ("spinning out") as on encouraging use of private sector technology by the Administration. This program shall be maintained in a manner that provides clear benefits for the Administration, the domestic economy, and the research community, while protecting national security.

(b) Program Structure.—In carrying out the program described in subsection (a), the Administrator shall provide program participants with at least 45 days notice of any proposed changes to the structure of the Administration's technology transfer and commercialization organizations that is in effect as of December 30, 2005.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3399; Pub. L. 115–10, title VIII, §829, Mar. 21, 2017, 131 Stat. 66.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 50116 | 42 U.S.C. 16811. | Pub. L. 109–155, title VI, §621, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2935. |

Section

This section restates provisions originally enacted as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155, 119 Stat. 2895), and not as part of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–303, 112 Stat. 2843), which is generally restated in this chapter.

In subsection (a), in the last sentence, the word "Administration" is substituted for "agency" for clarity and because of the definition of "Administration" added by section 10101 of title 51.

In subsection (b), the date "December 30, 2005" is substituted for "the date of enactment of this Act" to reflect the date of enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155, 119 Stat. 2895).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–10 inserted ", while protecting national security" after "research community".
§ 872.25 Are there any restrictions on how OSM may use Federal expense funds? ( a ) We may use Federal expense funds only for the purposes in sections 402(g)(3)(A) through (D) and 402(g)(4) of SMCRA, which include the following: ( 1 ) The Small Operator Assistance Program under section 507(c) of SMCRA (not more than $10 million annually);
( 2 ) Emergency projects under State, Tribal, and Federal programs under section 410 of SMCRA;
( 3 ) Nonemergency projects in States and on lands within the jurisdiction of Indian tribes that do not have an approved abandoned mine reclamation program under section 405 of SMCRA;
( 4 ) The Secretary's administration of Title IV of SMCRA and this subchapter; and
( 5 ) Projects authorized under section 402(g)(4) in States and on lands within the jurisdiction of Indian tribes that do not have an approved abandoned mine reclamation program under section 405 of SMCRA.
( b ) We will not deduct moneys that we have annually allocated or distributed as Federal expense funds under sections 402(g)(3)(A) through (D) or (4) of SMCRA for any State or Indian tribe from moneys we annually allocate or distribute to a State or Indian tribe under the authority of sections 402(g)(1) or (5) of SMCRA.
( c ) We expend moneys under the authority in section 402(g)(3)(C) of SMCRA only in States or on Indian lands where the State or Indian tribe does not have an abandoned mine reclamation program approved under section 405 of SMCRA.
### §100707. Confidentiality of information

Information concerning the nature and specific location of a System resource that is endangered, threatened, rare, or commercially valuable, of mineral or paleontological objects within System units, or of objects of cultural patrimony within System units, may be withheld from the public in response to a request under section 552 of title 5 unless the Secretary determines that—

(1) disclosure of the information would further the purposes of the System unit in which the resource or object is located and would not create an unreasonable risk of harm, theft, or destruction of the resource or object, including individual organic or inorganic specimens; and

(2) disclosure is consistent with other laws protecting the resource or object.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3106.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100707 | 16 U.S.C. 5937. | Pub. L. 105–391, title II, §207, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3501. |

Section
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Newman, ChiefExecutive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of DRS Technologies, Inc.

| November 9, 2005 | /s/ MARK S.  NEWMAN       |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  | Mark S. Newman            |
|                  | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIREDBY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDEDTO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONOR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

----
### §936. Repealed. Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1257, title VII, §702(d), 68 Stat. 1189

Section, act July 9, 1952, ch. 608, pt. II, §216, 66 Stat. 486, related to promotion and precedence.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Additional Repeal

Section was also repealed by act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641.
# C_2023165EN.01001901.xml

| 10.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/19

---

Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11055 - EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 133 of 17 April 2023
  )

(2023/C 165/08)

On page 7, point 1, first line:

for:

‘On 4 April 2013’,

read:

‘On 4 April 2023’.

---
#### § 843.22 Enforcement actions at abandoned sites.

The Office may refrain from issuing a notice of violation or cessation order for a violation at an abandoned site, as defined in § 842.11(e) of this chapter, if abatement of the violation is required under any previously issued notice or order.

[53 FR 24882, June 30, 1988]
#### § 810.11 Applicability.

Part 815 applies to all coal exploration conducted under regulatory programs. part 816 applies to all surface mining activities conducted under regulatory programs. Part 817 applies to all underground mining activities conducted under regulatory programs. Parts 818 through 828 apply to certain special categories of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. Parts 816 and 817 apply to each of those special categories of operations, except to the extent that a provision of parts 818 through 828 specifically exempts a particular category from a particular requirement of part 816 or part 817.
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 quarterly report of The Dewey Electronics
Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant
to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Corporation.

/s/ Stephen P. Krill
Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer
Date:  February 12, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained
by The Dewey Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
exchange commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.510 Energized trolley wires; repair.

[Statutory Provisions]

Energized trolley wires may be repaired only by a person trained to perform electrical work and to maintain electrical equipment and the operator of a mine shall require that such person wear approved and tested insulated shoes and wireman's gloves.
§ 581.4 Qualifications of lessees. ( a ) In accordance with section 8(k) of the Act, leases shall be awarded only to qualified persons offering the highest cash bonus bid.
( b ) Mineral leases issued pursuant to section 8 of the Act may be held only by: ( 1 ) Citizens and nationals of the United States;
( 2 ) Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20);
( 3 ) Private, public, or municipal corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or of the District of Columbia or territory thereof; or
( 4 ) Associations of such citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or private, public, or municipal corporations, States, or political subdivisions of States.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of SEDONA Corporation on Form 10-K
for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Anita M. Primo, Chief
Financial Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuant Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  May 11, 2004                        /s/ ANITA M. PRIMO
                                            ------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)
Vok^^ ^m w^^-^^-"^^ 

Mike Allison -tV^t CIT>' Q Terry Hoff 

Mayor ^^dHBij^ V Human Resources Director 

Howard D. Partington ^S^^^^^BB^ \ Wayne E. Henneke 

City Administrator jaUHHRHH^W/ City Clerk / Finance Director 

Nick Gregory * " fflUn Judy Manning 

Assistant City Administrator ^^^^^^^,..,1^11 ^ HIL . Deputy Clerk 

Robert G. Suelter 

City Attorney ,-»-*• • aw>r^a—>.i«-« . GREATBEND 

March 5. 2010 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

X-53 EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S. E. 

Washington. DC 20590 

Re: Great Bend Municipal Airport Hub Change 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

First of all, on behalf of our community we would like to thank you for your 

continued support of this important program. 

With Salina's recent decision to stay in Kansas City, we have had continuing 

dialogue with Great Lakes on how best to increase otjr ridership. We have come to 

the conclusion a change In Hubs for our community is the right choice. As you may 

remember, Great Lakes original bid was for Denver service but they were willing to 

accommodate us in maintaining Kansas City service. 

This letter is to confirm the City of Great Bend and Great Lakes Aviation have 

agreed to a change in air service at the Great Bend Municipal Airport for the same 

subsidy amount in the recent Order and to eliminate flights from Great Bend to 

Kansas City International Airport (MCI) due to the downsizing and deterioration of 

connecting opportunities in MCI. We would like to have flights go to Denver 

International Airport (DEN). 

With your approval we are in acceptance of Great Lakes Aviation new service 

pattern beginning in April of 2010. 

P.O. 60x1168 • Great Bend. Kansas • 67530 • 620.793.4111 • Fax 620.793.4108 

www.greatbendks.net 
Please contact me at 620 793-4111 if you have any questions. Again, your 

assistance Is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Allison 

Mayor 

Cc: Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 15-27

August 3, 2004

The Detroit Edison Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of The Detroit Edison Company and subsidiaries for the periods ended
June 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated August 3, 2004 (which
report included an explanatory paragraph regarding The Detroit Edison Company's
application of the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Staff
Position No. 106-2, which relates to accounting for the effects of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, retroactive to
January 1, 2004); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, is being
incorporated by reference in registration Statement No. 333-100000 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIdentification and Analysis of Future Aeronautical Communications Candidates: A Study of Concepts and Technologies to Support the Aeronautical Communications Needs in the NextGen and Beyond National Airspace SystemThis report describes the results of future aeronautical communications research conducted by Rockwell Collins employees under NRA contract to NASA. The overall goal of this research was to identify and begin to evaluate communication technology candidates expected to meet the long-term aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-ground data communications needs of Air Traffic Management in the NextGen and beyond National Airspace System (NAS), considering how the NAS and communications technologies will evolve during a 50-year modernization time horizon.Document ID20160007414Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWichgers, Joel M.*(Rockwell Collins, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA, United States)*Mitchell, James P.*(Rockwell Collins, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 9, 2016Publication DateAugust 1, 2015Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberE-19112GRC-E-DAA-TN20989NASA/CR-2015-218844Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 999182.02.03.01.66CONTRACT_GRANT: NNA12AB82CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160007414.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of-- ) 

) 

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58984 

Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. 

David Newsome, Jr., Esq. 

Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Contract Disputes Resolution Center 

Bloomington, MN 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 13 March 2014 

&:~4W--- Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58984, Appeal of Kellogg Brown & 

Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals