alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michele M. Oliva, Respondent, v Garrison Gross et al., Appellants.

[816 NYS2d 110]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 20, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). To defeat the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff was required to come forward with competent admissible medical evidence, based on a recent examination and objective findings, sufficient to verify her subjective complaints of pain and limitation of motion *(see Farozes v Kamran,*22 AD3d 458 [2005]; *Ali v Vasquez,*19 AD3d 520 [2005]; *Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494 [2005]). The plaintiff failed to meet her burden in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing as she submitted only the affirmation of her counsel, which was not based on any personal knowledge of the facts, a copy of her own deposition testimony, a copy of a motor vehicle accident report, and color photographs of her damaged vehicle.

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily *552activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see *Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

[House Report 106-985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-985

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4656, THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN 
              FOREST SERVICE LAND IN THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN

                                _______
                                

  October 17, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 634]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 634, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4656, 
the Conveyance of Certain Forest Service Land in the Lake Tahoe 
Basin, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of 
debate in the House divided equally between the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
    The rule waives all points of order against the bill and 
its consideration. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.

                                  

```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 335 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 335

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT.

    (a) Extension of Requirements Regarding Financial Operations of 
Congressional Award Program; Noncompliance With Requirements.--Section 
104(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``and 2004'' and inserting ``2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007, 2008, and 2009''.
    (b) Termination.--
            (1) In general.--Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act 
        (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and 
        inserting ``October 1, 2009''.
            (2) Savings provision.--During the period of October 1, 
        2004, through the date of the enactment of this section, all 
        actions and functions of the Congressional Award Board under 
        the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) shall have 
        the same effect as though no lapse or termination of the Board 
        ever occurred.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--The Congressional Award Act is amended--
            (1) in section 103 (2 U.S.C. 803)--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(1) (B) and (C), by striking 
                ``a a local'' and inserting ``a local''; and
                    (B) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking 
                ``section'' each place it appears and inserting 
                ``subsection''; and
            (2) in section 104(c)(2)(A) (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)), by 
        inserting a comma after ``1993''.

            Passed the Senate July 14, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 335

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terence Sien, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Alpha Spacecom, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|September 24, 2003 | /s/ Terence Sien

Name:  Terence Sien
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RESPONSE ONCOLOGY, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED 
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           3,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,446)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,641
<PP&E>                                          12,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,538
<BONDS>                                         45,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         27
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,452
<SALES>                                         25,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,642
<CGS>                                           12,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   423
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                       744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 923.21 Term of office.

The term of office of each member and alternate member of the committee shall be for two years beginning April 1 and ending March 31. Members and alternate members shall serve in such capacities for the portion of the term of office for which they are selected and have qualified and until their respective successors are selected and have qualified. Committee members shall not serve more than three consecutive terms. Members who have served for three consecutive terms must leave the committee for at least one year before becoming eligible to serve again.

[70 FR 44252, Aug. 2, 2005]
#### § 989.102 Inspection service.

*Inspection service* means the Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

[49 FR 18730, May 2, 1984, as amended at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018]
432.1007 Administration and payment of

performance-based payments.

The responsibility for receiving, reviewing, and approval of performance-based payment requests

may not be transferred from the contracting officer.

Parent topic: Subpart 432.10 - Performance-Based Payments
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Ancillary Studies in Immunomodulation Clinical Trails.                    

*Date:*                         January 6, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lakshmi Ramachandra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-2550,                         *Ramachandral@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 7, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-31181 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 22, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 22, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0266. STEVE COOK v. DANA CAMPBELL-COOK.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 17CV1115
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3378 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3378

           To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroacetone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroacetone.

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

SECTION 1. CHLOROACETONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.05      1-Chloro-2-         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         propanone (CAS                                                     31/2009
                         No. 78-95-5)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2914.70.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3577 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain men’s footwear covering the ankle 

with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain men’s footwear 

covering the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEN’S FOOTWEAR COVERING THE 

4 ANKLE WITH COATED OR LAMINATED TEX5 TILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3577 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.09 Men’s footwear, except vulcanized footwear and footwear with waterproof molded 

bottoms, including bottoms 

comprising an outer sole and 

all or part of the upper, valued over $20/pair, covering 

the ankle, whose height from 

the bottom of the outer sole 

to the top of the upper does 

not exceed 8 inches, designed to be worn in lieu of, 

but not over, other footwear 

as a protection against 

water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or inclement 

weather where such protection includes protection 

against water that is imparted by the use of a coated or laminated textile fabric 

(provided in subheading 

6404.19.20) ......................... 20% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
#### Eugene Murphy *v.*Dell Corporation et al.

Bogdanski, C. J., Speziale, Peters, Healey and Paeskey, Js.

Argued June 5

decision released July 7, 1981

*James Kelly,*with whom, on the brief, was *James M. Marinetti,*for the appellant (defendant Eobert J. DeLisa).

*582
      *Jefferson D. Jelly,*with whom were *Ronald A. Stone*and, on the brief, *Raynald B. Cantin,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The defendant Robert J. DeLisa has appealed from a judgment holding him personally liable for goods and services provided on an oral contract with the plaintiff Eugene Murphy. DeLisa claims that the trial court erred in failing to find that the plaintiff had notice that the contract was with a corporation, the Dell Corporation.1 The trial court held that the defendant failed to disclose his claimed representative capacity to the plaintiff, and, therefore, the defendant was personally liable for the balance due on the contract.

The law is settled that where an agent contracts in his own name, without disclosing his representative capacity, the agent is personally liable on the contract. *Diamond Match Co.*v. *Crute,*145 Conn. 277, 279, 141 A.2d 247 (1958); *Caliendo*v. *Catania,*127 Conn. 66, 70, 14 A.2d 752 (1940); *Frederich Raff Co.*v. *Goeben,*116 Conn. 83, 85, 163 A. 462 (1932); *Pierce*v. *Johnson,*34 Conn. 274, 275 (1867); 1 Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Agency (2d Ed. 1914) -§1410; 2 Restatement (Second), Agency § 322. This proposition recently has been reaffirmed by this court in *Klepp Wood Flooring Corporation*v. *Butterfield,*176 Conn. 528, 532-33, 409 A.2d 1017 (1979).

Whether the status of the Dell Corporation as principal was undisclosed to Murphy so that he might hold DeLisa personally liable on the contract is a question of fact. *Klepp Wood Flooring Corpo*
      *583
      *ration*v. *Butterfield,*supra; *Diamond Match Co.*v. *Crute,*supra; *Frederick Raff Co.*v. *Goeben,*supra. The trial court decided that question of fact in favor of the plaintiff Murphy. It is the function of the trial court to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. This court cannot find facts. Our role is to decide whether the decision of the trial court is “clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record.” Practice Book § 3060D. See *Stelco Industries, Inc.*v. *Cohen,*182 Conn. 561, 564, 438 A.2d 759 (1980); *Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc.*v. *Manchester,*181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980). We find that the decision of the trial court is not clearly erroneous.

There is no error.

This action was originally brought by the plaintiff against the Dell Corporation and Robert J. DeLisa; however, the plaintiff withdrew his action as to the Dell Corporation.
SCPW-19-0000377

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

 

DAVID L. MOORE, Petitioner,

vs.

JANICE T. FUTA, DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

(By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Pollack and Wilson, JJ., and 

Circuit Judge Eddins, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, 

and Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

Upon consideration of David L. Moore’s petition for an 

extraordinary writ, filed on May 7, 2019, we conclude, on the 

merits of the petition,1 that petitioner Moore fails to 

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the 

requested relief or that he lacks alternative means to seek 

relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested 

 

1 This court reaches the merits of the petition because there is no 

statute, court rule, or statutorily prescribed order prohibiting Moore from 

filing the instant petition with this court.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-19-0000377

22-MAY-2019

10:49 AM
2

extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 200, 204, 982 

P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a 

clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative 

means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the 

requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 22, 2019. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone