alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronnie M. Collymore, as Administrator of the Estate of Gwendolyn Collymore, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Montefiore Medical Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[833 NYS2d 438]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered March 20, 2006, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Montefiore Medical Center upon a prior grant of summary judgment, and noting discontinuance of the action as against defendant Robbins, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital deviated from accepted medical practice when it failed to designate the decedent a “fall risk” upon her admission. Their reliance on the opinion of a registered nurse as to the hospital’s alleged malpractice in not having ordered the decedent’s bed rails to be left in the raised position was insufficient *(see Elliot v Long Is. Home, Ltd.,*12 AD3d 481 [2004]; *Mills v Moriarty,*302 AD2d 436 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 502 [2003]), and, in any event, the nurse’s affidavit failed to specify any evidence in the record to support her conclusion that the decedent was a “fall risk” under the hospital’s applicable care and treatment policy.

Not only was there a lack of a triable factual issue as to malpractice on the hospital’s part, but there was no evidence to support plaintiffs’ argument that an issue of fact existed as to whether the decedent’s fall contributed to the cause of her *238death. The autopsy report refuted this contention, showing that decedent’s death was due to hypertensive and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, plaintiffs’ medical expert offered only conclusory assertions of causation *(see e.g. Candía v Estepan,*289 AD2d 38 [2001]), which were founded on mischaracterizations of the evidence. Notably, plaintiffs’ expert offered no medical explanation as to how the head trauma purportedly contributed to the decedent’s death, and he made no reference to the contradictory findings in the autopsy report.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.
(November 7, 1960)

#### (A) Stanley S. Atias, Respondent, v. Walter Gibson, Doing Business as Bank Hall Express, Appellant. (B) Carpet Center at Korvette-Westbury, Respondent, v. New York Post Corporation et al., Appellants. (C) Joseph W. Campanella et al., Respondents, v. Fred J. Noeth, Doing Business as Plainview Herald, Appellant. (D) Harvey S. Feuerstein, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendant. (E) In the Matter of the Estate of Anna Flasterstein, Deceased. Lee M. T. Flasterstein, Appellant; Samuel Flasterstein et al., as Surviving Executors and Trustees, Respondents. (F) In the Matter of the Accounting of Samuel Flasterstein et al., as Executors of Isidor Flasterstein, Deceased, Respondents. Lee M. T. Flasterstein, Appellant. (G) Attilio Mercantini, as Executor of Constance Potenza, Respondent, v. Elvira Innamorati, Appellant; (H) Olivia G. Seeler, Inc., Respondent, v. Katherine Kiernan, Appellant; (I) Edward Washington, Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant.

[In each action] Motion by respondent [s] to dismiss the appeal denied, on condition that appellant [s] perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Nolan P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### § 22.515 Provisions of annual appropriations acts.

An annual appropriations act can include general provisions stating national policy requirements that apply to the use of funds (e.g., obligation through a grant or cooperative agreement) appropriated by the act. Because these requirements are of limited duration (the period during which a given year's appropriations are available for obligation), and because they can vary from year to year and from one agency's appropriations act to another agency's, the grants officer must know the agency(ies) and fiscal year(s) of the appropriations being obligated by a given grant or cooperative agreement, and may need to consult legal counsel if he or she does not know the requirements applicable to those appropriations.
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 GPS Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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 operation of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to GPS Industries, Inc. and
will be retained by GPS Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





                                       /s/ GEORGE DORIN
Date:  May 16, 2005               By:  ___________________________
                                       George Dorin
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Duly Authorized Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 13

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Mr. Wittman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Stay on Schedule (S.O.S.) 
Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING RECESS DURING AUGUST UNTIL APPROVAL OF ALL REGULAR 
              APPROPRIATION BILLS.

    Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
``Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment during August
    ``13. If by July 31 of any calendar year the House has not passed 
each of the regular appropriation bills for the fiscal year which 
begins on October 1 of that calendar year, it shall not be in order to 
consider a concurrent resolution to provide that the House stand 
adjourned during any day occurring during August of that calendar year 
until the House has passed each such bill. For purposes of this clause, 
term `regular appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill 
which is under the jurisdiction of a single subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives (as may be 
provided under the Rules for the fiscal year involved).''.
                                 <all>
```
### §8453. Application

A claim may be allowed under this subchapter only if application is filed with the Office before the employee or Member is separated from the service or within 1 year thereafter. This time limitation may be waived by the Office for an employee or Member who, at the date of separation from service or within 1 year thereafter, is mentally incompetent if the application is filed with the Office within 1 year from the date of restoration of the employee or Member to competency or the appointment of a fiduciary, whichever is earlier.

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 568.)
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Jacob Steinberg, Deceased, Abraham Steinberg, Appellant; Julia Steinberg et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on February 18, 1963, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to deny the motion of contestants-respondents insofar as they sought to modify items (a) and (c) of the demand for bill of particulars. Said items of the demand should have been allowed to stand. The order provides that the bill of particulars shall be served following the completion of the examinations before trial; and the contestants should then be able to and be required to state the times when and the places where the acts constituting the alleged fraud and undue influence took place, and also the names of the person or persons alleged to have exercised or practiced *789the same. (See *Matter of Martin,*151 Mise. 93; *Matter of Gordon,*6 N. Y. S. 2d 569, 570.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### PAGE v. MARSHALL OIL CO.

No. 455A97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 396

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 6 November 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         144,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,146,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    942,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,397,400
<PP&E>                                       2,878,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,643,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,054,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,747,800
<BONDS>                                        754,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,567,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,054,600
<SALES>                                      3,456,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,475,800
<CGS>                                        2,707,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,232,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                210,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            126,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA (the
"Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig T
Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Richard A.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, 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 result of operations of
        the Company.

                                    /s/ Craig T Dunham
                                   -------------------
                                   Craig T Dunham
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer

                                   /s/ Richard A. Johnson
                                   -------------------
                                   Richard A. Johnson
                                   Chief Financial Officer
May 17, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1376 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1376

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 24, 2024.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
Res. 1371) strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, 
Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border. The amendment to 
the preamble printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall be 
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or 
demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security or their respective designees.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 4 March 2009 – Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission**

**(Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04)**

State aid – Maritime transport – Subsidies paid by the Italian authorities to regional undertakings – Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – New or existing aid – Duty to state reasons – Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by the recipient of State aid against a Commission decision
declaring it compatible with the common market (Arts 230 EC, fourth para., and 233 EC) (see paras 63-72)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87 EC and 253
EC) (see paras 98-99, 101-103)*

3.                     *Commission – Principle of collegiality – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 107-108)*

4.                     *State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Definition (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 123-124, 126-127)*

5.                     *State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Payments in favour of shipping companies providing, in the context of public service
contracts, regular services to and from islands (Art. 88(1) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 4(3)) (see paras
143-144)*

6.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Scope – Absolute authority of res judicata (see paras 159-160)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATIONS for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | In Cases T-265/04 and T-292/04, annuls Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | In Case T-504/04, declares that the action has become devoid of purpose; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | In Case T-265/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | In Case T-292/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Caremar SpA, Siremar SpA, Saremar SpA and Toremar SpA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5. | | In Case T-504/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6. | | In Case T-504/04, orders the Italian Republic and Caremar to bear their own costs. |
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------

                       Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
                           445 Park Avenue, Suite 1028
                              New York, N.Y. 10022



                                 March 29, 2006


Corey M. Horowitz, Chairman & CEO
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
445 Park Avenue, Suite 1028
New York, New York  10022

                 Re:  Extension of Anti-dilution Protection

Dear Corey:

     This letter shall confirm that Section 6(b) of your Employment Agreement,
dated November 26, 2004, with Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. (the
"Employment Agreement") is hereby amended as follows (all capitalized terms
herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement):

     "At anytime during the period ended November 26, 2006, in the event that
the Company completes a financing (either a single transaction or series of
transactions) consisting of the issuance of common stock or any other securities
convertible or exercisable into common stock, (exclusive of securities issued
upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants or other convertible securities),
Executive shall receive (at the closing of such financing) from the Company, at
the same price as the securities issued in the financing, such number of
additional options to purchase Common Stock so that Executive maintains his
Derivative Ownership Percentage, provided, that, the provisions of this
paragraph shall provide anti-dilution protection to Executive up to a maximum
financing of $2.5 million. Such additional options to be issued to Executive
shall immediately vest on the date of grant and shall contain substantially the
same provisions as the Options issued pursuant to Section 6(a) hereof."


     Please sign below to confirm our understanding.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Newtork-1 Security Solutions, Inc.

Agreed and Accepted:                   By:  /s/ David Kahn
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David Kahn, Chief Financial Officer
 /s/ Corey M. Horowitz
--------------------------------
Corey M. Horowitz
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImClone Systems Incorporated (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel S. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J. Howerton, Acting Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, 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:

(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 Company.

|               |  | /s/DANIEL S. LYNCHDaniel S. Lynch Chief Executive Officer               
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 15, 2004 |  |                                                                         
|               |  | /s/MICHAEL J. HOWERTONMichael J. Howerton
Acting Chief Financial Officer
|March 15, 2004 |  |                                                                         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

---

QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

SADE O. STEWART,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 640 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.