alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(163 App. Div. 107)

#### FENDERSON v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

(No. 202-74.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Carriers (§ 153*)—Carriage oe Goods—Loss of Goods.

The letters “S. L. & C.” printed on a bill of lading is not a sufficient compliance with Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws, c. 41) § 209, as added by Laws 1911, c. 248, providing that the carrier may, by inserting in the bill the words “Shippers’ load and count,” exempt itself from liability for improper loading or by the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, etc., in-the absence of proof of a course of dealing between the parties where such initials had been used.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 687-690; Dec. Dig. § 153.*]

Appeal from Tioga County Court.

Action by George E. Fenderson against the Eehigh Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before SMITH, P. J., and LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.

Cobb, Cobb, McAllister & Feinberg, of Ithaca, for appellant.

S. M. Lounsberry, of Owego (F. W. Clifford, of Owego, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

*495SMITH, P. J.

The judgment below was an affirmance of a judgment recovered in justice’s court for the nondelivery of a car load of goods shipped by the defendant for the plaintiff.- Upon the bill of lading were printed the letters “S. U. & C.” The printing of these letters upon the bill of lading is claimed by defendant to exempt it from all liability for the nonreceipt of these goods under section 209 of the Personal Property Law, as added by Laws 1911, c. 248. That section provides:

> “The carrier may, also, by inserting in the bill the words, ‘shipper's load and count’ or other words of like purport, indicate that the goods were loaded by the shipper and the description of them made by him; and if such statement be true, the carrier shall not be liable for damages caused by the improper loading or by the nonreceipt or by the misdescription of the goods described in the bill.”

The sole contention of appellant upon this appeal is that the insertion of the letters “S. L. & C.” is a compliance with the statute, exempting defendant from the liability to which it might otherwise be subject. It is unnecessary to pass upon the contention of the plaintiff that this statute is unconstitutional, or that it is against public policy. We are satisfied that the defendant has not brought itself within its terms. The initials “S. L. & C.” are not, within the statute, the equivalent of the words “shipper’s load and count,” or words of like purport. If a course of dealing had been shown between the parties where such initials had been used to the knowledge of both parties as indicating such meaning, a different question might arise. Without proof of such dealing, however, in order to claim the exemption given by the statute, defendant must comply strictly with the conditions named. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the judgment of the county court should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2274 

To establish a language arts facility for Homeland Security personnel and 

law enforcement officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 9), 2006 

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To establish a language arts facility for Homeland Security 

personnel and law enforcement officers. 

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 ‘‘Foreign Language 

5 Training Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act— 

8 (1) the term ‘‘executive agency’’ has the same 

9 meaning as in section 105 of title 5, United States 
2 

•S 2274 IS

1 Code, except that the term does not include the De2 partment of Defense; 

3 (2) the term ‘‘law enforcement officer’’ has the 

4 same meaning as in section 8331 of title 5, United 

5 States Code; and 

6 (3) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

7 of Homeland Security. 

8 SEC. 3. LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM AND FACILITY. 

9 (a) PROGRAM EXPANSION.—The Secretary shall ex10 pand the language arts program at the Federal Law En11 forcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, to pro12 vide training for the Department of Homeland Security 

13 personnel and law enforcement officers identified under 

14 section 4. 

15 (b) FACILITY.—The Secretary is authorized to con16 struct a language arts facility at the Federal Law Enforce17 ment Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. 

18 SEC. 4. TRAINING REQUIREMENT. 

19 (a) HOMELAND SECURITY.—The Secretary shall— 

20 (1) identify any employee of the Department of 

21 Homeland Security for whom foreign language edu22 cation is necessary; and 

23 (2) require foreign language education for any 

24 employee identified under paragraph (1). 
3 

•S 2274 IS

1 (b) LAW ENFORCEMENT.—The head of each execu2 tive agency shall— 

3 (1) identify any law enforcement officer em4 ployed by such executive agency for whom foreign 

5 language education is necessary; and 

6 (2) require foreign language education for any 

7 law enforcement officer identified under paragraph 

8 (1). 

9 (c) TRAINING.—Foreign language education for any 

10 individual identified under subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1) shall 

11 be provided at the language arts facility authorized under 

12 section 3(b). 

13 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

15 as are necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: May 20, 2011

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack, President and          Chief Executive Officer          (Principal Executive Officer) and          Acting Chief Financial Officer          (Principal Financial Officer and          Principal Accounting Officer) |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 31, 2020

No. 04-20-00426-CV

IN RE THE ESTATE OF DONACIANO ALDRETE, JR.

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-18-70

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After the trial court sustained a challenge to Appellant’s Statement of Inability to Pay 

Costs, Appellant and court reporter Ramiro Hernandez reached an agreement regarding payment

of the reporter’s fees. Pursuant to that agreement, Appellant paid one-half of the fee, and we 

ordered him to pay the remainder of the fee and file proof of payment by December 11, 2020. 

Appellant has not filed proof he has paid the remainder of the court reporter’s fee, and the court 

reporter has filed a motion for extension of time to file the record, stating he has not been paid 

the remainder of the fee. 

We order Appellant to pay the remainder of the court reporter’s fee and to file written 

proof of payment no later than January 11, 2021. If Appellant fails to pay the fee and file such 

proof by the date ordered, appellant’s brief will be due January 31, 2021, and the court will only 

consider those issues or points raised in Appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### §§ 3565.506-3565.549 [Reserved]
H. R. 2291 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington 

Avenue in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 3565.300 OMB control number.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no party is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0174.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEXTER DARNELL HEWITT, also known as Dexter Curnell Hewitt,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-149-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Dexter Darnell Hewitt appeals from his jury verdict conviction for

possession with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of crack cocaine within

1,000 feet of a playground pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 860(a). He was

sentenced to 236 months of imprisonment, eight years of supervised release, and

a $2,000 fine.

Hewitt argues that § 860, as applied to him in this case, was not a valid

constitutional exercise of federal authority by the United States Congress

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-50024 Document: 00511000544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
No. 09-50024

2

because it does not require a nexus with interstate commerce or regulate a

commercial activity. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in United

States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Next, Hewitt asserts that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient

to support the jury’s verdict. Because Hewitt failed to preserve this challenge

for appeal, our“review is limited to determining whether there was a manifest

miscarriage of justice, that is, whether the record is devoid of evidence pointing

to guilt.” United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations

and internal quotations marks omitted). However, our review of the evidence

shows that it was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict even if Hewitt’s

challenge had been preserved. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-50024 Document: 00511000544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

RONALD BLUEFORD AND CHRISTINE SAMPSON/ 

 HOWARD FUNERAL HOME 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0116-07-1 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 23, 2007 

ULYSSES C. WISE, SR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Richard B. Donaldson, Jr.; Jennifer L. Muse; Jones, Blechman, 

Woltz & Kelly, P.C., on brief), for appellants. 

 (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Associates, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Ronald Blueford and Christine Sampson/Howard Funeral Home (hereinafter referred to 

as “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that 

Ulysses C. Wise, Sr. proved he sustained a compensable injury by accident while working for 

employer on October 3, 2004. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and 

find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Wise v. Ronald Blueford and Christine Sampson/Howard 

Funeral Home, VWC File No. 223-09-50 (December 12, 2006). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2591 

AN ACT 

To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2591 EH

1 SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE 

2 CARRIER BANKRUPTCY. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLAIM FOR RE4 FUND.—Section 1106(a)(3) of the FAA Modernization 

5 and Reform Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 408 note) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

7 (b) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—Section 

8 1106(c) of such Act is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i) by inserting ‘‘or filed 

10 on November 29, 2011,’’ after ‘‘2007,’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘terminated or’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘terminated,’’; and 

14 (B) by inserting ‘‘, or was frozen effective 

15 November 1, 2012’’ after ‘‘Pension Protection 

16 Act of 2006’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2591 

AN ACT 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

To amend certain provisions of the FAA
November 17, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00320-CV V.

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order

signed by the court below on April 6, 2015. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Thomas R. Wright.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 3601.4 Multitrack processing. ( a ) When NASS has a significant number of requests, the nature of which precludes a determination within 20 working days, the requests may be processed in a multitrack processing system, based on the date of receipt, the amount of work and time involved in processing the request, and whether the request qualifies for expedited processing.
( b ) NASS may establish as many processing tracks as appropriate; processing within each track shall be based on a first-in, first-out concept, and rank-ordered by the date of receipt of the request.
( c ) A requester whose request does not qualify for the fastest track may be given an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for the fastest track. This multitrack processing system does not lessen agency responsibility to exercise due diligence in processing requests in the most expeditious manner possible.
( d ) NASS shall process requests in each track on a “first-in, first-out” basis, unless there are unusual circumstances as set forth in § 1.16 of this title, or the requester is entitled to expedited processing as set forth in § 1.9 of this title.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0589 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-189-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Frank Lester, defendant in error, v. Michael Levin and Robert Mors, sued as John Doe, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 37,254.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

William R. Peacock, for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Catapano, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 27, 1979, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to hear and report on the issue of defendant’s mental capacity at the time of his plea and sentence, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Defendant’s history of confinement to State mental institutions, as indicated in the presentence report, was such as to require the sentencing court to make some inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity prior to imposing sentence, whether or not that issue had been raised by counsel (see *People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167; *People v Bangert,*22 NY2d 799; *People v Boundy,*10 NY2d 518). Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
# L_2022323EN.01010601.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 323/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 323/106

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 219 I of 21 June 2021
  )

On page 84, in the Annex, entry 125, under the heading ‘Identifying Information’:

for:

‘DOB: 09.05.1958
  ’,

read:

‘DOB: 09.03.1958
  ’.

---
----

 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 Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 19, 2007

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Avery Pack, President and        Chief Executive Officer        (Principal Executive Officer) and        Acting Chief Financial Officer        (Principal Financial Officer and        Principal Accounting Officer) |
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Dong-Hee Suh, Seoul, South Korea, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1755 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to July 30, 2019, and upon reading the September 19, 2019 correspondence in response from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Zerdan], 173 AD3d 1602, 1603 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2018]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.