alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marie Barry, as Administratrix of the Estate of George D. Hughes, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 41452.)

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing claimant-appellant’s claim for damages for pain and suffering allegedly resulting from injuries suffered by her intestate, George D. Hughes, while a patient in Rockland State Hospital on the grounds that claimant had not established a prima facie case that any act by the State caused decedent’s injuries. All that the competent evidence in the record reveals with respect to the incident involved is that in 1961 George D. Hughes, an adjudicated incompetent, fell to the floor of a ward in the Rockland State Hospital with such force that he suffered a fractured hip. A nurse who was with Hughes could tell no more than that she heard a loud thump and turned to find Hughes lying on the floor. Faced with this dearth of proof claimant attempts to rely on the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur.*We agree with the trial court that this doctrine is not applicable in the instant case. To invoke the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*it would have to have been established that the instrumentality which caused the injury was in the State’s exclusive control and that common experience would show that the accident would not have happened unless there was negligence in the operation and control of the agency *(George Foltis, Inc.*v. *City of New York,*287 N. Y. 108, 117; *George*v. *City of New York,*22 A D 2d 70, *594affd. 17 N Y 2d 561). Here negligence is obviously not the only inference that can be drawn from the attending circumstances; it is equally probable that he slipped or fell on his own. Furthermore, even if he were pushed by a fellow inmate, the State would not automatically be responsible for such an occurrence *(Di Fore*v. *State of New York,*275 App. Div, 885). We have examined the additional contentions raised by claimant and find them insubstantial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Camera Platforms, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





June 16, 2003

/s/ Xuedong Hu



Name: Xuedong Hu

Title: Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Terence Sien



Name: Terence Sien

Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TRACY HIMCHAK,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM A. HIMCHAK,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 87 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2018, the “Omnibus Motions” is DENIED.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA GARNER-RUSSO, }

 et al. }

}

Plaintiff, }

}

v. } CASE NO. 2:06 CV-06-626-A

}

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT }

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DR. PAGE 

WALLEY, et al. }

}

Defendant. }

ANSWER

COMES NOW Defendants, State of Alabama Department of Human Resources, Dr. Page

Walley and Kimberly Mashego, employees of the Alabama Department of Human Resources by

and through the undersigned counsel, and answers Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: 

1.Defendants deny each and every other allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint and demands strict

proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendants have sovereign immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States. 

2. Defendants aver qualified, good faith immunity as a defense to this action. 

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be

granted against Defendants. 

Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 15-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

4. Any award of damages, compensatory or punitive, against Defendants would

violate Defendants’ sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States. 

5. Defendants deny that Plaintiff has pled or proved that she is entitled to either

compensatory or punitive damages. 

6. Defendants reserve the right to amend their list of defenses to include any

defenses which become available or appear during the investigation of this case, discovery

procedures or otherwise. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of August 2006.

TROY KING, KIN047

ATTORNEY GENERAL

SHARON E. FICQUETTE, FIC001

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Michael C. Joiner__________

MICHAEL C. JOINER - JOI003

Assistant Attorney General

State of Alabama

Department of Human Resources

P.O. Box 304000

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000

Phone: (334) 242-9330

Fax: (334) 242-0689

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 15-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing ANSWER upon the following by placing

a copy thereof, addressed to them as indicated below, in U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, on

this the 30th day of August 2006. 

Patricia Garner-Russo

710 Augusta Farms Road

Waynesboro, VA 22980

/s/ Michael C. Joiner_______

MICHAEL C. JOINER – JOI003

Assistant Attorney General

State of Alabama

Department of Human Resources

P.O. Box 304000

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000

Phone: (334) 242-9330

Fax: (334) 242-0689

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 15-2 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 3
§ 983.59 Modification or suspension of regulations. ( a ) In the event that the committee, at any time, finds that by reason of changed conditions, any regulations issued pursuant to §§ 983.50 through 983.58 should be modified or suspended, it shall, pursuant to § 983.43, so recommend to the Secretary.
( b ) Whenever the Secretary finds from the recommendations and information submitted by the committee or from other available information, that a regulation should be modified, suspended, or terminated with respect to any or all shipments of pistachios in order to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, the Secretary shall modify or suspend such provisions. If the Secretary finds that a regulation obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, the Secretary shall suspend or terminate such regulation.
( c ) The Secretary, upon recommendation of committee, may issue rules and regulations implementing §§ 983.50 through 983.58.
[74 FR 56541, Nov. 2, 2009]
AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

                  This Amendment to the Management  Agreement (the  "Agreement")
between Rent- A-Wreck of America,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company")
and K.A.B.,  Inc., a Florida corporation  ("Management Co.") dated June 30, 1993
is effective as of July 1, 1997.

Section 2.1 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following:

                                     2.1   (a) During the term of the Agreement,
         Management Co. shall be entitled to receive annual  compensation  in an
         amount  calculated  pursuant  to  Sections  2.1(b) and (c),  payable in
         installments  due  within 45 days after the  completion  of each of the
         Company's  fiscal  quarters.  The  Company  may  deduct  therefrom  any
         withholding or deduction  which may be required by law. In the event of
         termination of this  Agreement,  the payment shall be prorated  through
         the date of termination. Management Co. represents and warrants that it
         shall furnish services each year in an amount reasonably appropriate to
         fulfill its management responsibilities hereunder.

                                            (b)   [RESERVED]

                                            (c)  The   amount  of   compensation
         payable to Management  Co. shall be $250,000 per year.  Notwithstanding
         anything to the contrary  herein,  if the  compensation  amount for any
         fiscal  quarter as provided  herein would cause the Company to report a
         net loss (as  calculated  by the Company on the basis of the  Company's
         books and records in  accordance  with  generally  accepted  accounting
         principles  consistently applied), the compensation shall be reduced to
         the  extent  required  to result  in a  breakeven  bottom  line for the
         Company  for  the  fiscal  quarter;  provided  that  any  reduction  of
         compensation  under  this  subparagraph  shall  be  limited  such  that
         Management Co. shall not receive less than $100,000 in any fiscal year.

All other  provisions of the Agreement as amended to date shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect.

                                      RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INC.

                                      By:  /s/ William L. Richter
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                               Print Name: William L. Richter
                                               Its:  Vice-Chairman of the Board

                                      MANAGEMENT CO.

                                      By:   /s/
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                           Kenneth L. Blum, Sr.
                                               Its:  Chairman and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Quarter Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rod Lynam, Chief Financial Office of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.	The information contained in the Report fairly presented, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Rod Lynam
Rod Lynam
Chief Financial Officer

February 14, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, 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 the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Subpart 747.5—Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels

**Parent topic:**PART 747—TRANSPORTATION

## 747.507 Contract clauses.

Contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.247–70 in solicitations and contracts solely for ocean transportation services, and in solicitations and contracts for goods and ocean transportation services when the ocean transportation will be fixed at the time the contract is awarded. Contracting officer must use (48 CFR) FAR 52.247–64 as prescribed in (48 CFR) FAR 47.507(a) in other situations.
# Subpart 643.1—General

**Parent topic:**PART 643—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

## 643.102 Policy.

## 643.102-70 Contract compliance and review.

When applicable, the contracting officer shall ensure the proposed contract modification complies with the competition requirements of FAR Part 6 and DOSAR Part 606. 

## 643.104 Notification of contract changes.

## 643.104-70 DOSAR contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.243–70, Notices, in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold which are awarded and/or performed overseas.
#### Lorraine Lewkowitz, Respondent, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants.

[813 NYS2d 918]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, civil rights violations, and negligent hiring and retention, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated March 4, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for a protective order *747with respect to items 1, 3, and 4 of the plaintiffs interrogatories and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to compel compliance with those interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of that branch of the motion which was for a protective order with respect to items 1, 3, and 4 of the plaintiffs interrogatories, and that branch of the cross motion which was to compel compliance with those interrogatories following an in camera inspection of the information sought in items 1, 3, and 4 of the interrogatories.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the information sought in items 1, 3, and 4 of the plaintiff’s interrogatories *(see*Civil Rights Law § 50-a; *Estate of McConlogue v County of Nassau,*208 AD2d 888, 889 [1994]; *Becker v City of New York,*162 AD2d 488, 489 [1990]; *Lawrence v City of New York,*118 AD2d 758, 759 [1986]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Alexander Loris, Appellant, v Sheila Loris, Respondent.

In an action in which a judgment of divorce had been granted, plaintiff husband *866appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 19, 1979, as, after a hearing, (1) reduced his weekly support payments from $250 to $180 pursuant to a stipulation between the parties which was incorporated into, but not merged in, the judgment of divorce; (2) denied his application to eliminate alimony payments on the ground that defendant was living with another man; (3) established arrears in the sum of $3,000, and directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the defendant in that sum; and (4) ordered that execution of such judgment be stayed so long as the plaintiff pay to the defendant the sum of $200 per week consisting of $180 current alimony and $20 arrears, until the judgment is satisfied. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the second decretal paragraph and so much of the sixth decretal paragraph thereof as directs the plaintiff to pay $180 per week in support to the defendant. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and matter is remanded to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In the interim the plaintiff shall pay the defendant $100 per week for her support. The two youngest children of the marriage left defendant to live with plaintiff in July, 1978. Plaintiff then moved by order to show cause for an order, *inter alia,*to modify the judgment of divorce by granting him custody of the two children. Plaintiff also asserted that in the event of a custody change his support payments to the defendant should be reduced by $150 ($75 for each child) in accordance with the judgment of divorce which incorporated a stipulation of the parties to that effect. Special Term awarded custody of both children to plaintiff, but concluded that the stipulation unambiguously provided for only a $70 ($35 for each child) reduction in support upon the occurrence of this event. We believe the stipulation is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to require a hearing thereon (see *Hecker v Hecker,*54 AD2d 577). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
# Subpart 624.2—Freedom of Information Act

**Parent topic:**PART 624—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

## 624.203 Policy.

DOS regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), as amended, are codified in Chapter 1, Department of State, Subchapter R, Access to Information, Part 171, Availability of information and records to the public, of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations (22 CFR Part 171).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3226 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3226

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers in containers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers in containers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAPERS IN CONTAINERS.

    (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:

``      9902.10.28       Capers, prepared   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         or preserved by                                                    31/2009
                         vinegar in
                         immediate
                         containers each
                         holding more than
                         3.4 kg (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2001.90.10)......

    (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>
```
EXHIBIT 35.1



ANNUAL SERVICERS COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE





I, Harold E. Miller, Jr., the senior officer of Franklin Capital Corporation (FCC) in charge of servicing, the servicer under the servicing agreement among Franklin Auto Trust 2006-1, as Issuer, Franklin Receivables LLC, as Depositor, Franklin Capital Corporation, as Servicer, and Franklin Resources, Inc., as Representative, (the servicing agreement) relating to Franklin Auto Trust 2006-1 (the trust), certify that:



(a)

A review of FCCs servicing activities during the period covered by the trusts report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the Reporting Period) and of FCCs performance under the servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.



(b)

To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, FCC has fulfilled all of its servicing obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period; except that there were instances in which FCC was in material noncompliance with the servicing agreement in the following three respects: in certain cases, policies and procedures maintained to monitor performance or other triggers and events of default in accordance with the transaction agreements were not operating effectively, in certain cases, information provided in certain reports to investors was not calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements and original loan documents were not safeguarded in accordance with the transaction agreements.  FCC has implemented additional controls and procedures to monitor performance and other triggers and events of default in accordance with the transaction agreements and to validate the calculations in reports to investors.  FCC has also provided written notice to the indenture trustee pursuant to the terms of the transaction agreements regarding the location of the original loan documents.  FCC believes that these additional controls and procedures are effective and the written notice to the indenture trustee satisfies the requirements of the transaction agreements.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2007.



Sincerely,



/s/ Harold E. Miller, Jr.

HAROLD E. MILLER, JR.

President & Chief Executive Officer

(Senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Subpart 2928.2 - Sureties and Other Security

for Bonds

Parent topic: PART 2928 - BONDS AND INSURANCE

2928.204 Alternatives in lieu of corporate or individual

sureties.

Upon receipt of any of the types of securities listed in FAR 28.20l or FAR 28.203, the contracting

officer must verify the validity of the security and coordinate the retention of the security with the

Chief Financial Officer. Contracting officers may obtain access to Department of Treasury Circular

570 through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 348 

To designate Poland as a program country under the visa waiver program 

established under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To designate Poland as a program country under the visa 

waiver program established under section 217 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) Since the founding of the United States, 

6 Poland has proven its steadfast dedication to the 

7 causes of freedom and friendship with the United 

8 States, exemplified by the brave actions of Polish pa-
2

•S 348 IS

1 triots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz 

2 Kosciuszko during the American Revolution. 

3 (2) Polish history provides pioneering examples 

4 of constitutional democracy and religious tolerance. 

5 (3) The United States is home to nearly 

6 9,000,000 people of Polish ancestry. 

7 (4) Polish immigrants have contributed greatly 

8 to the success of industry and agriculture in the 

9 United States. 

10 (5) Since the demise of communism, Poland has 

11 become a stable, democratic nation. 

12 (6) Poland has adopted economic policies that 

13 promote free markets and rapid economic growth. 

14 (7) On March 12, 1999, Poland demonstrated 

15 its commitment to global security by becoming a 

16 member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

17 (8) On May 1, 2004, Poland became a member 

18 state of the European Union. 

19 (9) Poland was a staunch ally to the United 

20 States during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

21 (10) Poland has committed 2,300 soldiers to 

22 help with ongoing peacekeeping efforts in Iraq. 

23 (11) The Secretary of Homeland Security and 

24 Secretary of State administer the visa waiver pro25 gram, which allows citizens from 27 countries, in-
3

•S 348 IS

1 cluding France and Germany, to visit the United 

2 States as tourists without visas. 

3 (12) On April 15, 1991, Poland unilaterally re4 pealed the visa requirement for United States citi5 zens traveling to Poland for 90 days or less. 

6 (13) More than 100,000 Polish citizens visit the 

7 United States each year. 

8 SEC. 2. RENDERING POLAND VISA WAIVER PROGRAM 

9 COUNTRY. 

10 Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

11 and notwithstanding section 217(c) of the Immigration 

12 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)), Poland shall be 

13 deemed a designated program country for purposes of the 

14 visa waiver program established under section 217 of such 

15 Act.

Æ