alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irene Winby et al., Respondents, v Dimitra Kustas, Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[775 NYS2d 906]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Dimitra Kustas appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated May 15, 2003, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A property owner is not liable in negligence unless he or she created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence *(see Voss v D&C Parking,*299 AD2d 346 [2002]). While an out-of-possession owner is generally not liable for injuries that occur on leased premises, one who retains control of the premises, or contracts to repair or maintain the property, may be liable for defects *(see Eckers v Suede,*294 AD2d 533 [2002]; *Gilbert v 4905 Ave. D Realty,*224 AD2d 659 [1996]. “Control of the premises may be established by proof of the landlord’s promise, either written or otherwise, to keep certain premises in repair *(see, Putnam v Stout,*38 NY2d 607 [1976]), or by a course of conduct demonstrating that the landlord has assumed responsibility to maintain a particular portion of the premises” *(Gelardo v ASMA Realty Corp.,*137 AD2d 787, 788 [1988]).

Here, the defendant Dimitra Kustas failed to meet her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment of showing that she did not retain control over the subject premises and, in *616any event, lacked notice of the allegedly dangerous condition where the injured plaintiff fell (see *Jenkins v Ehmer,*272 AD2d 976, 977 [2000]). She failed to tender evidence sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Therefore, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), and the motion was properly denied. Florio, J.E, Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### 9904.403-10 [Reserved]
#### 952.227-9 Refund of royalties.

As prescribed in 927.206-2, insert the following clause:

# Refund of Royalties (MAR 1995)

(a) The contract price includes certain amounts for royalties payable by the Contractor or subcontractors or both, which amounts have been reported to the Contracting Officer.

(b) The term *royalties* as used in this clause refers to any costs or charges in the nature of royalties, license fees, patent or license amortization costs, or the like, for the use of or for rights in patents and patent applications in connection with performing this contract or any subcontract here-under. The term also includes any costs or charges associated with the access to, use of, or other right pertaining to data that is represented to be proprietary and is related to the performance of this contract or the copying of such data or data that is copyrighted.

(c) The Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer, before final payment under this contract, a statement of royalties paid or required to be paid in connection with performing this contract and subcontracts hereunder together with the reasons.

(d) The Contractor will be compensated for royalties reported under paragraph (c) of this clause, only to the extent that such royalties were included in the contract price and are determined by the Contracting Officer to be properly chargeable to the Government and allocable to the contract. To the extent that any royalties that are included in the contract price are not, in fact, paid by the Contractor or are determined by the Contracting Officer not to be properly chargeable to the government and allocable to the contract, the contract price shall be reduced. Repayment or credit to the Government shall be made as the Contracting Officer directs. The approval by DOE of any individual payments or royalties shall not prevent the Government from contesting at any time the enforceability, validity, scope of, or title to, any patent or the proprietary nature of data pursuant to which a royalty or other payment is to be or has been made.

(e) If, at any time within 3 years after final payment under this contract, the Contractor for any reason is relieved in whole or in part from the payment of the royalties included in the final contract price as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this clause, the Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer of that fact and shall reimburse the Government in a corresponding amount.

(f) The substance of this clause, including this paragraph (f), shall be included in any subcontract in which the amount of royalties reported during negotiation of the subcontract exceeds $250.

(End of clause)

[60 FR 11817, Mar. 2, 1995]
##### 



Exhibit 32-5

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PECO Energy Company
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, that
(i) the report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of PECO Energy Company.

|                     |  |                                                                      
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2004 |  | /s/ JOHN L. SKOLDSJohn L. SkoldsPresident
     Exelon Energy Delivery
#### WHITE v. DAVENPORT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 9, 1906.)

Action *by*Josiah J. Whi1 against William B. Davenport and others.

N opinion. Motion denied.
817.7004-1 Authorization. The contracting officer shall obtain approval one level above the contracting officer before— ( a ) *Entering into a UCA.* The request for approval must fully explain the need to begin performance before definitization, including the adverse impact on the VA resulting from delays in beginning performance.
( b ) *Including requirements for non-urgent items and equipment in a UCA.* The request should show that inclusion of the non-urgent items is consistent with good business practices and in the best interest of the Government.
( c ) *Modifying the scope of a UCA when performance has already begun.* The request should show that the modification is consistent with good business practices and in the best interests of the Government.
-1- 



    	 



    








    	-2- 



    	 



    








    	-3- 



    	 



    








    	-4- 



    	 



    








    	-5- 



    	 



    








    	-6- 



    	 



    








    	-7- 



    	 



    








    	-8- 



    	 



    








    	-9- 



    	 



    








    	-10- 



    	 



    








    	-11- 



    	 



    








    	-12- 



    	 



    








    	-13- 



    	 



    








    	-14- 



    	 



    








    	-15- 



    	 



    








    	-16- 



    	 



    








    	-17- 



    	 



    








    	-18- 



    	 



    








    	-19- 



    	 



    








    	-20- 



    	 



    








    	-21-
970.0370-1 Policy. ( a ) Management and operating contractors shall develop and maintain systems of management and quality control to discourage waste, fraud and abuse; and to ensure that components, products, and services that are provided to the Department of Energy (DOE) satisfy the contractor's obligations under the contract.
( b ) As a part of the required overall management structure, the contractor must maintain management control systems which, in compliance with the requirements of the clause at 970.5203-1— ( 1 ) Are documented and satisfactory to DOE;
( 2 ) Ensure that all levels of management are accountable for effective management systems and internal controls within their areas of assigned responsibility;
( 3 ) Cover both programmatic and administrative functions;
( 4 ) Provide reasonable assurance that Government resources are safeguarded against theft, fraud, waste, and unauthorized use;
( 5 ) Promote efficient and effective operations;
( 6 ) Ensure that all obligations and costs incurred are in compliance with the intended purposes and the terms and conditions of the contract;
( 7 ) Properly record, manage, and report all revenues, expenditures, transactions and assets;
( 8 ) Maintain financial, statistical and other reports necessary to maintain accurate, reliable, and timely accountability and management controls; and
( 9 ) Are periodically reviewed to ensure that the systems provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the system are being accomplished and that these controls are working effectively.
( c ) Management and operating contractors shall also develop and maintain a baseline program of quality assurance that will implement documented performance and quality standards, and management controls and assessment techniques to ensure components, services, and products meet DOE's, design criteria and other governing and applicable specifications.
( d ) DOE expects all its contractors to seek to identify improvements in any aspect of performance. Management and operating contracts are very large and complex; therefore, the opportunities to identify changes in performance that will increase the effectiveness or efficiency of contract performance are more prevalent than under other contracts. The clause at 970.5203-2 requires DOE management and operating contractors to affirmatively seek to identify, evaluate, and institute, where appropriate, processes that will improve the effectiveness or efficiency of any aspect of contract performance. It further requires the contractor to communicate any such improvements to DOE, other management and operating contractors, and DOE major facilities contractors. The contractor is required to participate in efforts by those contractors to address common problems or the institution of improvements. It allows the contractor to enlist the aid of the DOE contracting officer where necessary to institute or communicate the improvements. The obligations under the clause in no way affect the contractor's obligations under other provisions of the contract to notify or acquire the approval of the contracting officer.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36370, July 22, 2009]
#### Gilda Glassman, Respondent, v. Barnett Glassman, Defendant, and Jack London Productions Inc., et al., Third-Party Appellants.

Order entered October 20, 1966 (CPLR 5520, subd. [c]), unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and motion granted to the extent of vacating the restraining notice with respect to the accounts of Jack London Productions, Inc., and Nationwide Financial Corporation. The judgment creditor failed *830to present evidentiary support of the judgment debtor’s interest in the corporations’ bank accounts. Such disposition is without prejudice to further application by the third parties, Zenith Factors, Inc., and Trophy Productions, Inc., for similar relief as to their corporate accounts. As so modified, the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to any party. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and MeGivem, JJ.
#### 622.404-11 Wage determination appeals.

The cognizant contracting activity is the contracting agency for the purposes of FAR 22.404-11.
Exhibit 99.1


                      Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350
                  of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code
                  --------------------------------------------

         The undersigned officers hereby certify, as to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Exelon Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002,
that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Exelon Corporation and its
subsidiaries.



Date:  August 6, 2002          /s/ John W. Rowe
                               ----------------
                               John W. Rowe
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                               Exelon Corporation


Date:  August 2, 2002          /s/ Ruth Ann M. Gillis
                               --------------------------------
                               Ruth Ann M. Gillis
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               Exelon Corporation
#### SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, a Washington non-profit corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NORTHWEST BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., an Idaho corporation; Nordyne, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-35308.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 17, 2007.

Filed Nov. 6, 2007.

William E. Pierson, Jr., Esq., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew Charles Bohrnsen, Esq., Bohrnsen & Stowe PS, Steven Robert Stocker, Esq., Stamper Rubens Stocker & Smith PS, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: REINHARDT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

This matter is on appeal from a judgment entered in favor of Northwest Building Systems, Inc. (“NBS”) and Nordyne, Inc. (“Nordyne”) after a full trial on the merits before Magistrate Judge Michael Leavitt. We review for clear error findings of fact made after a bench trial. *Saltarelli v. Bob Baker Group Med. Trust,*35 F.3d 382, 384 (9th Cir.1994); *see*Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a) (“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.”). The clear error standard “is significantly deferential, requiring a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed’ before reversal is warranted.” *Mathews v. Chevron Corp.,*362 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting *McClure v. Thompson,*323 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir.2003)). We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. *General Elec. Co. v. Joiner,*522 U.S. 136, 141-42, 118 S.Ct. *689512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). After careful review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, we affirm.

Spokane argues variously that the wrong building code was applied in this case, that Nordyne violated the Washington Products Liability Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1), by not affixing a sticker to the heating unit, that NBS was liable for defective construction, and that both NBS and Nordyne violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code. § 19.86.020. In Judge Leavitt’s well written opinion, each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law challenged by Spokane are supported by detailed reference to the trial evidence. Similarly, a review of the record and the applicable law reveals that the court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that good grounds existed to establish the trustworthiness of the testimony of NBS’s expert.

There being no reversible error, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### 917.601 Definitions.

*Performance-based contracting* has the meaning contained in 48 CFR 37.101.

*Performance-based management contract* means a management and operating contract that employs, to the maximum extent practicable, performance-based contracting concepts and methodologies through the application of results-oriented statements of work; clear objective performance standards and measurement tools; and incentives to encourage superior contractor performance.

[62 FR 34861, June 27, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 81006, Dec. 22, 2000]
##### 



Exhibit 31-9
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
 AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 26, 2005
    /s/ J. Barry MitchellSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### 9905.502 Cost accounting standard—consistency in allocating costs incurred for the same purpose by educational institutions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's June 30, 2000 consolidated financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,116
<INVENTORY>                                     14,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,446
<PP&E>                                          27,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           354
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,742
<SALES>                                         30,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,824
<CGS>                                           16,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,155)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00662

- CR

James Fuller FITZGERALD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 12

- 112

The Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for a new trial

.

SIGNED July 30, 2014.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
49.100 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart deals with— ( 1 ) The authority and responsibility of contracting officers to terminate contracts in whole or in part for the convenience of the Government or for default;
( 2 ) Duties of the contractor and the contracting officer after issuance of the notice of termination;
( 3 ) General procedures for the settlement of terminated contracts; and
( 4 ) Settlement agreements.
( b ) Additional principles applicable to the termination for convenience and settlement of fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contracts are included in subparts 49.2 and 49.3. Additional principles applicable to the termination of contracts for default are included in subpart 49.4.
Nicor
      Inc.


Form
      10-Q


Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
      that:




(i)         the accompanying Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30,
      2006
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and




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






Dated: 
                August 2, 2006
            
            /s/ 
                RICHARD L. HAWLEYRichard
                L. HawleyExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer