alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
L^i.."' i i.; - I 

DECEIVED 

OcC 2 2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION* A o i KI/-* r»r\/>ly^r-rOFFir OFFICF OF TTFAPTNnS "^-ARIN G DOCKE T E OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF CJ SYSTEMS AVIATION GROUP, INC., 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. CP09EA0020 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0584 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

Judge Isaac D. Benkin 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

Respondent, CJ Systems Aviation Group, Inc. ("CJ Systems"), hereby 

respectfully requests a postponement of the hearing scheduled for January 5, 2010, in this 

matter. Counsel for the Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), joins in 

this request. 

Respondent has been engaged in discussions with the FAA regarding this and 

other pending and potential enforcement matters relating to CJ Systems. Rather than 

address these items on a piecemeal basis, the parties are attempting to and may conclude 

a broader arrangement resolving this and other matters. Consequently, in the interest of 

judicial economy and efficiency, the hearing in this matter should be postponed to enable 

the parties time to either settle this case individually or as part of a broader settlement. If 

however, neither is possible within 45 days, the parties will provide Your Honor with a 
status report. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for CJ Systems Aviation Group, Inc. 

Robert P. Silverberg 

1101 30*^ Street N.W., Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3300 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this 14* day of December, 2009, served the foregoing 

Motion for Continuance 

by First Class Mail to the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

by Facsimile and First Class Mail to the following address: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

and by E-mail and First Class Mail to the following address: 

Christian L. Lewerenz 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

christian.lewerenz@faa. gov 

L.^/. 

Robert P. Silverberg
#### Linda I. Sweet, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Paul A. Bean, an Infant, Respondent, v Town of Wirt, Appellant, and Jerry Judd, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 867]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County *1098(James E. Euken, A.J.), entered August 19, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant Town of Wirt for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action as parent and natural guardian of her son seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a single-vehicle accident that occurred on a highway owned by the Town of Wirt (defendant). Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against it. A municipality has an absolute and nondelegable duty to maintain its roads, including any shoulder provided, in a condition reasonably safe for the traveling public and to guard against contemplated and foreseeable risks to motorists *(see Stiuso v City of New York,*87 NY2d 889, 890-891 [1995]; *Friedman v State of New York,*67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]; *Bottalico v State of New York,*59 NY2d 302, 304-305 [1983]; *Tomassi v Town of Union,*46 NY2d 91, 97 [1978]; *Lopes v Rostad,*45 NY2d 617, 623 [1978]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether the condition of the highway was “the product of adequate study and a reasonable planning decision on the part of defendant” *(Drake v County of Herkimer,*15 AD3d 834, 835 [2005]; *see Forsythe-Kane v Town of Yorktown,*249 AD2d 505, 506 [1998]; *Appelbaum v County of Sullivan,*222 AD2d 987, 988-989 [1995]).

Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant sustained its initial burden on the motion of establishing its lack of negligence and the lack of any causal connection between such alleged negligence and the injuries sustained by plaintiffs son, we nonetheless conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the motion. Specifically, plaintiff raised issues of fact with respect to whether defendant breached its duty to maintain its highway and shoulder in a condition reasonably safe for motorists *(see Beaumont v Smyth,*16 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2005]; *Purves v County of Erie,*12 AD3d 1112 [2004]; *Gordon v County of Ontario,*11 AD3d 891, 892 [2004]) and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and the injuries *(see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist.,*93 NY2d 664, 674-675 [1999]; *Beaumont,*16 AD3d at 1108; *Purves,*12 AD3d 1112 [2004]). We note in particular that there are triable issues of fact concerning whether the injuries were caused or contributed to by defendant’s alleged negligence in allowing loose gravel to accumulate in the travel lanes and on the *1099shoulder of the road, in failing to maintain an adequate shoulder, and in failing to erect warning signs and guardrails. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
#### § 100.16 Exchange of paper and coin to be handled through Federal Reserve banks and branches.

Other than as provided in this document all transactions including the exchange of paper currency and coin shall be handled through the Federal Reserve banks and branches.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11036

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMAAL ROZELL DUNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-61-1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jamaal Rozell Dunson has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Dunson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11036 Document: 00515090733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2019
No. 18-11036

2

appellate review. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 

(5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 18-11036 Document: 00515090733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2019
#### Ralph Filipowich, Appellant, v Sergio Tavano et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 663]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered July 15, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court dated January 9, *5202004, denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Powell v Tuyn,*306 AD2d 335 [2003]; *Aprea v Franco,*292 AD2d 478 [2002]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). “Great deference is accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” *(Cicillini v City of New York,*15 AD3d 522 [2005]; *see Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv.,*237 AD2d 402 [1997]).

In this case, the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was attempting to cross 86th Street in Brooklyn. There was ample .evidence presented that, while eating a slice of pizza, the plaintiff suddenly and unexpectedly “jumped out” from between parked cars, and from behind an elevated subway structure support column, in front of an automobile operated by the defendant Sergio Tavano and owned by the defendant Ronald Neglia. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict, finding that Tavano was not negligent, should not be disturbed. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 64 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 64

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1995

   Mr. Gallegly introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof, of mothers who are citizens or legal 
residents of the United States and all persons naturalized in the 
United States are citizens of the United States and of the State 
wherein they reside. The first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth 
article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby 
repealed.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.
    ``Section 3. This article shall apply to persons born after the 
date of its ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,977
<PP&E>                                             661
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,242
<BONDS>                                         11,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           283
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,364
<SALES>                                          8,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,372
<CGS>                                            3,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (361)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (375)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (129)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,463)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 109

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for raising the

social security earnings limit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 25, 1995

Mr. HASTERT (for himself, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr.

ARMEY, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FLANAGAN, Mrs.

FOWLER, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. FOLEY, Mr.

HEINEMAN, and Mr. BARR of Georgia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need

for raising the social security earnings limit.

Whereas the Senate has held hearings on the social security

earnings limit in 1994 and 1995 and the House has held

two hearings on the social security earnings limit in

1995;

Whereas the Senate has overwhelmingly passed Sense of the

Senate language calling for substantial reform of the social security earnings limit;

Whereas the House of Representatives has overwhelming

passed legislation to raise the exempt amount under the

social security earnings limit three times, in 1989, 1992,

and 1995;
2

•HCON 109 IH

Whereas such legislation is a key provision of the Contract

with America;

Whereas the President in his 1992 campaign document ‘‘Putting People First’’ pledged to lift the social security earnings limit; and

Whereas the social security earnings limit is a depression-era

relic that unfairly punishes working seniors: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the intent of the Congress that leg3 islation will be passed before the end of 1995 to raise the

4 social security earnings limit for working seniors aged 65

5 through 69 in a manner which will ensure the financial

6 integrity of the social security trust funds and will be con7 sistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget in

8 7 years.

Æ
Docket Number: FAA-2015-0497
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Statement of Financial Condition at March 3, 1997 (Unaudited) and
the Statement of Income for the six months ended March 31, 1997
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,290
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                               00
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.66 Reply to answer. ( a ) The Internal Revenue Service may file a reply to the respondent's answer, but unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, no reply to the respondent's answer is required. If a reply is not filed, new matter in the answer is deemed denied.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning August 2, 2011.
[T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32309, June 3, 2011]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Spotards, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 264]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered January 13, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the validity of his plea is unpreserved for appellate review since it was not raised in the County Court *(see People v Clarke,*93 NY2d 904, 905 [1999]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; *People v Coles,*
      *587240 AD2d 419 [1997]). In any event, the defendant’s claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntarily, and intelligent because it resulted from his counsel’s failure to advise him that he would be sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender cannot be reviewed on direct appeal since it is based on matter which is dehors the record *(see People v Reels,*17 AD3d 488, 489 [2005]; *People v Villacreses,*12 AD3d 624, 626 [2004]). The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is likewise based on matter which is dehors the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Reels, supra; People v Villacreses, supra).*Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         230,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,602,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,536
<INVENTORY>                                  7,411,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,157,238
<PP&E>                                       3,119,882
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,147,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,085,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,785,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        560
<COMMON>                                       225,276
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,942,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,085,268
<SALES>                                     13,391,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,391,787
<CGS>                                       11,068,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,619,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             679,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,874,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,874,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,874,593)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
 2010
    
    2009 (1)A Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    449.2
    
    
    
    307.4B Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    8.8
    
    
    
    (8.8
    )C Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    458.0
    
    
    
    298.6D Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    296,119,000
    
    
    
    295,232,000E Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    8,585,000
    
    
    
    8,092,000F Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    8,585,000
    
    
    
    8,091,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    1.52
    
    
    
    1.04Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    1.47
    
    
    
    1.01UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    1.55
    
    
    
    1.01Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    1.50
    
    
    
    0.98
 
 (1)
    
    Corrected as described in note 17 in Part I, Item I