alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Grace Mayer, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents. R.A. Gottlieb, Inc./Slattery, Inc., a Joint Venture, Sued Herein as Gottlieb Skanska, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Sheldon Electric Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 476]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered December 16, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped over an electric extension cord on a subway platform, granted motions by defendants Transit Authority and renovation contractor Gottlieb for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Transit Authority showed good cause for the late filing of its motion (CPLR 3212 [a]), namely, the Clerk’s rejection of its prior timely motion because of confusion over the proper caption, in part caused by plaintiff. Nor should the motion have been denied under CPLR 3212 (f) because of any lack of opportunity for plaintiff to take the deposition of third-party defendant Sheldon Electric, a subcontractor joined by Gottlieb after plaintiff had filed a note of issue. Although Sheldon’s role in the project was made known to plaintiff at Gottlieb’s deposition, she did not seek nonparty disclosure from it or attempt to bring it into the action, but instead proceeded to file a note of issue *(see Rothbort v S.L.S. Mgt. Corp.,*185 AD2d 806 [1992]). On the merits, plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ prima facie showing that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the extension cord over which she tripped *(see Mitchell v City of New York,*29 AD3d 372, 374 [2006]). Plaintiffs assertion that defendants must have placed the cord on the platform because it was there when she fell is mere speculation, particularly given defendants’ showing that no work had been performed on the day of the accident, Presidents’ Day, or on the two prior days *(see Ruisi v Frank’s Nursery & Crafts,*272 AD2d 314 [2000]). The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable *(see Marszalkiewicz v Waterside Plaza, LLC,*35 AD3d 176, 177 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11



                               EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Years Ended December 31,
                                                    1996               1995                1994
                                                    ----               ----                ----
<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                   <C>
Net income (loss) applicable to
 common stock                                 $    15,911         $  (107,345)          $    60,058
                                              ===========         ===========           ===========


Outstanding shares - common stock
 at January 1,                                $10,185,000         $ 8,435,000           $ 6,295,000


Dilutive effect convertible notes
 payable                                             -                    -               1,638,808


Weighted average shares issued
 during year                                         -              1,733,333             1,497,808
                                              -----------         -----------           -----------


Weighted average common shares
 outstanding - primary and fully
 diluted - December 31,                       $10,185,000         $10,168,333           $10,431,756
                                              ===========         ===========           ===========


Net income (loss) per common share -
 primary  and fully diluted -
 December 31,                                 $       .00         $      (.01)          $       .01
                                              ===========         ===========           ===========
</TABLE>
§ 72.700 Respiratory equipment; respirable dust. ( a ) Respiratory equipment approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 shall be made available to all persons as required under parts 70, 71, and 90 of this chapter. Use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings. Each operator shall maintain an adequate supply of respiratory equipment.
( b ) When required to make respirators available, the operator shall provide training prior to the miner's next scheduled work shift, unless the miner received training within the previous 12 months on the types of respirators made available. The training shall include: The care, fit, use, and limitations of each type of respirator.
( c ) An operator shall keep a record of the training at the mine site for 24 months after completion of the training. An operator may keep the record elsewhere if the record is immediately accessible from the mine site by electronic transmission. Upon request from an authorized representative of the Secretary, Secretary of HHS, or representative of miners, the operator shall promptly provide access to any such training records. The record shall include: ( 1 ) The date of training;
( 2 ) The names of miners trained; and
( 3 ) The subjects included in the training.
[79 FR 24986, May 1, 2014]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 27, 2017

d0920

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2017

151416

AMBER DUDLEY, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF JAMES DUDLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151416

COA: 317202 

St. Clair CC: 12-001027-NO

ST. CLAIR COUNTY OFFICE OF DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER, COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, 

TIMOTHY R. CHARRON, ROBERT WILEY,

CHARLES WOOD, and EDWARD H. FAHLEY

as Trustee of EDWARD H. FAHLEY TRUST,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### John Peri, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 59733.)

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered September 13, 1977, which granted claimant’s motion for an examination before trial and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the claim. Claimant purchased New York State lottery tickets during the period of November 15, 1973 to October 9, 1975. He subsequently filed a claim in the Court of Claims on October 28, 1975 alleging that New York State breached its lottery contract with claimant by misrepresenting his chances of winning said lottery and by negligently and fraudulently conducting said lottery in that the State of New York has been systematically cheating the claimant "by announcing 'winning’ numbers on lottery tickets that were never sold.” Claimant seeks damages of $90 for the 180 tickets purchased at a cost of 50 cents a ticket. The court ordered an examination before trial of the defendant and denied the State’s cross motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 2, 5, 7). The State had sought a dismissal on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the causes of action because the State has not waived its immunity from claims arising from conducting a State lottery; on the further ground that the causes of action were not timely commenced and, finally, on the ground that the pleadings fail to state a cause of action. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [d]) the court allowed the claim to stand pending pretrial discovery when claimant will be in a position to properly postulate his causes of action. Such relief is within the discretion of the court and may be granted if it appears from the affidavits before the court on the motion that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated. No such showing can be gleaned from the affidavits before the court. Denial of the State’s cross motion for failure to state a cause of action was an abuse of discretion and the cross motion should have been granted. At a minimum, a valid complaint must include all material elements of the cause of action (CPLR 3013; *Williams v Arpie,*56 AD2d 689, affd 44 NY2d 689; *Latzko v Spector,*28 AD2d 1111, affd 22 NY2d 710; *Foley v D’Agostino,*21 AD2d 60). The elements of negligence, fraud or breach of contract are not set out in claimant’s meagerly stated claim. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, cross motion granted, and claim dismissed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 967 

To prohibit the advertising of sportsbooks on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications 

Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. TONKO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the advertising of sportsbooks on any medium 

of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Federal Communications Commission, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Betting on Our Future 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 967 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING OF SPORTSBOOKS 

2 ON CERTAIN MEDIA OF ELECTRONIC COMMU3 NICATION. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful to advertise 

5 a sportsbook on any medium of electronic communication 

6 subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

7 (b) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.—The 

8 Commission shall implement and enforce this section as 

9 if this section is a part of the Communications Act of 1934 

10 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). A violation of this section, or a 

11 regulation promulgated under this section, shall be consid12 ered to be a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 

13 or a regulation promulgated under such Act, respectively. 

14 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

15 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

16 means the Federal Communications Commission. 

17 (2) SPORTING EVENT.—The term ‘‘sporting 

18 event’’ includes a fantasy or simulation sports game 

19 or contest. 

20 (3) SPORTS BET OR WAGER.—The term ‘‘sports 

21 bet or wager’’— 

22 (A) means the staking or risking by any 

23 person of something of value upon the outcome 

24 of a sporting event, upon an agreement or un25 derstanding that the person or another person 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 967 IH

1 will receive something of value in the event of 

2 a certain outcome; 

3 (B) includes any scheme of a type de4 scribed in section 3702 of title 28, United 

5 States Code; and 

6 (C) does not include participation in any 

7 game or contest in which participants do not 

8 stake or risk anything of value other than— 

9 (i) personal efforts of the participants 

10 in playing the game or contest or obtaining 

11 access to the internet; or 

12 (ii) points or credits that the sponsor 

13 of the game or contest provides to partici14 pants free of charge and that can be used 

15 or redeemed only for participation in 

16 games or contests offered by the sponsor. 

17 (4) SPORTSBOOK.—The term ‘‘sportsbook’’ 

18 means a person who is engaged in the business of— 

19 (A) taking sports bets or wagers; and 

20 (B) paying out winnings. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 4, 2018

p1126 

# Order

Clerk December 4, 2018

157694

GREGORY REED AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157694

COA: 335939

Wayne Probate Court:

2016

- 815274

- CZ

ELAINE STEELE, Personal Representative of the

Estate of ROSA LOUISE PARKS, Deceased,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2023080EN.01005301.xml

| 3.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/53

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 80/05)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2023) 1181 | 24 February 2023 | 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated (‘4-tert-OPnEO’)
  EC No.-; CAS No.- | Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Ringaskiddy, Cork, Ireland | REACH/23/7/0 | Surfactant in the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals, as a processing aid in viral inactivation and associated purification processes | 4 January 2033 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |
| REACH/23/7/1 | Surfactant in the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals for filter cleaning in viral inactivation processes | 4 January 2028 |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2023) 1181

24 February 2023

4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated (‘4-tert-OPnEO’)

EC No.-; CAS No.-

Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Ringaskiddy, Cork, Ireland

REACH/23/7/0

Surfactant in the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals, as a processing aid in viral inactivation and associated purification processes

4 January 2033

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

REACH/23/7/1

Surfactant in the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals for filter cleaning in viral inactivation processes

4 January 2028

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

---
----

|  | 1. | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on      the date hereof (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      company. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | 3/11/09 |   |  /s/Thomas K.    Derbyshire   |   |
|--------|---------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   |    |   | Vice      President, Treasurer and |   |
|   |    |   | Principal      Financial Officer   |   |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23 (a)


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. (File No. 333-10739
and 333-56295) of our report dated February 26, 1999, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years ended December
31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------
Lexington, Kentucky
March 25, 1999
### §403–5d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403–5d, comprising section 203(d) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107–56, was editorially reclassified as section 3365 of this title.
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.

§ 75.1723 Stationary grinding machines; protective devices. ( a ) Stationary grinding machines other than special bit grinders shall be equipped with: ( 1 ) Peripheral hoods (less than 90° throat openings) capable of withstanding the force of a bursting wheel.
( 2 ) Adjustable tool rests set as close as practical to the wheel.
( 3 ) Safety washers.
( b ) Grinding wheels shall be operated within the specifications of the manufacturer of the wheel.
( c ) Face shields or goggles, in good condition, shall be worn when operating a grinding wheel.
[38 FR 4976, Feb. 23, 1973]
#### § 580.33 How can I appeal a penalty?

See 30 CFR part 550.1409 and 30 CFR part 590, subpart A, for instructions on how to appeal any decision assessing a civil penalty under 43 U.S.C. 1350 and 30 CFR part 550, subpart A.
### **CHAPTER 407—ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT**

Sec.
40701.
Research and development initiative.
40702.
Additional research and development initiative.
40703.
Research alignment.
40704.
Research program on perceived impact of sonic booms.
#### § 762.4 Responsibility.

The regulatory authority or OSM shall use the criteria in this part for the evaluation of each petition for the designation of areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.
#### § 77.1001 Stripping; loose material.

Loose hazardous material shall be stripped for a safe distance from the top of pit or highwalls, and the loose unconsolidated material shall be sloped to the angle of repose, or barriers, baffle boards, screens, or other devices be provided that afford equivalent protection.
§ 585.416 How do I request a lease or grant suspension? ( a ) You must submit a written request to BOEM that includes the following information no later than 90 calendar days before the expiration of your appropriate lease or grant period: ( 1 ) The reasons you are requesting suspension of your lease or grant, including an explanation why the suspension is necessary.
( 2 ) The length of additional time requested.
( 3 ) An explanation why it is in the public interest to approve the suspension.
( 4 ) Any other information BOEM may require.
( b ) If you are unable to timely submit a COP or GAP, as required, you may request a suspension to extend the preliminary period of your lease or grant. Your request must include a revised schedule for submission of your COP or GAP, as appropriate.
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|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 on Form 10-KSB of National Property Investors 8 (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 26, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 26, 2008   



This certification
is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DE LOERA JIMENEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73485 

Agency No. A044-125-516 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Juan de Loera Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73485 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and 

deny in part the petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred 

in determining that his criminal conviction constituted a particularly serious crime 

because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 

F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not 

presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal 

under CAT because Jimenez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would 

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to 

Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of

torture too speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.