alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dena H. Hussein et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 27]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 13, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

On January 11, 1995, during the evening rush hour commute, plaintiff Dena Hampton Hussein entered the subway station at the corner of 32nd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan. Before entering the turnstile, she slipped and fell, breaking her ankle. It is undisputed that it had been sleeting throughout the day, and that sleet was continuing to fall at the time of the accident.

The motion court erred in concluding that summary judgment was precluded by questions of fact concerning how plaintiff’s accident occurred and whether the Transit Authority had notice of the wet spot where the accident occurred.

Plaintiff’s first theory of liability is precluded as a matter of law by the undisputed fact that the sleet was still falling at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Just as landowners have no duty to clear outdoor public spaces while precipitation is still falling *(see, Valentine v City of New York,*86 AD2d 381, 383, *affd*57 NY2d 932), they are not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy when an alleged slippery condition is said to be caused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm *(see, Kovelsky v City Univ.,*221 AD2d 234; *Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home,*248 AD2d 687; *Zonitch v Plaza at Latham,*255 AD2d 808). And, just as it is unreasonable to require the Transit Authority to keep the floors of subway cars clean and dry during ongoing storms, when the subway cars are continuously *147filled with wet commuters *(see, Duncan v New York City Tr. Auth.,*260 AD2d 213; *see also, Alatief v New York City Tr. Auth., 256*AD2d 371), similarly, a station floor cannot be effectively kept dry in such circumstances.

Furthermore, the evidence proffered by plaintiff gives no indication that the damp condition was of such an appearance that defendant should have noticed it *(see, Henness v Lusins,*229 AD2d 873). Nor is there any indication that the damp condition at the spot where plaintiff fell was present long enough for defendant to have had constructive notice of it *(see, Lapcek v New York City Tr. Auth.,*261 AD2d 126).

We also reject the viability of plaintiff’s second theory of liability against the Transit Authority, in which it is asserted that the subway station’s floor tiles were inherently dangerous because they became unusually slippery when wet *(see, Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969; *Kruimer v National Cleaning Contrs.,*256 AD2d 1). In any case, the report submitted by plaintiff regarding the slipperiness of the station’s tiles dealt generally with terrazzo tile but failed to indicate that plaintiff slipped on terrazzo tile, or even that the station floor on which her injury occurred contained this type of tile. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

              Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
		  and Chief Financial Officer Under Section 302
		       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Kevin R. Keating, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
 certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Micro Interconnect
 Technology, Inc. ("Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
 of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
 were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
 information included in this report, fairly present in all material
 respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
 of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am the Registrant's certifying officer responsible for establishing
 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
 Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

     a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
 such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
 supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
 Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
 me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
 which this report is being prepared.

     b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
 controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about
 the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
 of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal
 control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
 recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
 to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial
 reporting; and;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
 over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit
 committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
 equivalent functions):

     a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
 or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
 reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
 process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
 or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
 internal control over financial reporting.


Date:  March 29, 2003      By:/s/ Kevin R. Keating
                              ---------------------------
                              Kevin R. Keating
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
					Financial Officer
                              (principal executive and financial officer)
§ 415.103 General. ( a ) The FAA conducts a safety review to determine whether an applicant is capable of conducting launch processing and flight without jeopardizing public health and safety and safety of property. The FAA issues a safety approval to a license applicant if the applicant satisfies the requirements of this subpart and demonstrates that it will meet the safety responsibilities and requirements of part 417 of this chapter.
( b ) The FAA advises an applicant, in writing, of any issue raised during a safety review that would impede issuance of a safety approval. The applicant may respond, in writing, or amend its license application as required by § 413.17 of this chapter.
( c ) An applicant must make available to the FAA upon request a copy of any information incorporated into a license application by reference.
( d ) A safety approval is part of the licensing record on which the FAA bases its licensing determination.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11624]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER97-1523-040, ER97-4234-036 and OA97-470-038]


New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2000, the New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) a revised Addendum A (Attachment A) to its 
Market Monitoring Plan, with modifications to conform to the 
Commission's Order in New York Independent System Operator, Inc., et 
al., 90 FERC para. 61,317 (2000).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 15, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11624 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 39.11 What actions do airworthiness directives require?

Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out, conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you must take to resolve an unsafe condition.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11603]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


The Joint Staff; National Defense University (NDU), Board of 
Visitors (BOV); Meeting

AGENCY:  National Defense University.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The President, National Defense University has scheduled a 
meeting of the Board of Visitors.

DATES:  The meeting will be held between 1230-1530 on June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held in Room 155B, Marshall Hall, 
Building 62, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Director, University Operations, 
National Defense University Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 
20319-6000. To reserve space, interested persons should phone (202) 
685-3937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The agenda will include present and future 
educational and research plans for the National Defense University and 
its components. The meeting is open to the public, but the limited 
space available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first 
served basis.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-11603 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3329

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Percy LeNeal Harrell, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2007 Filed: June 11, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Percy Harrell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance contai ning cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, over Harrell’s objection, the district court 1 applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and sentenced Harre ll to 168 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. He appeals, contesti ng the two-level enhancement. Reviewing the-2- district court’s finding for clear error, seeUnited States v. Braggs , 317 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
The district court concluded that, b ecause two handguns a nd $7,700 in admitted drug proceeds were found in Harrell’s house, it was not clearly improbable that there was a nexus between the guns and drug activ ities; the court also noted the presence of a small amount of crack cocaine in the house plus drug-packaging paraphernalia in the detached garage. The court did notclearly err in imposing the enhancement. See Brown v. United States , 169 F.3d 531, 533 (8th Cir. 1999) (“close proximity of firearms and ‘drug money’ can give rise to an inference that the firearms are present to protect the money and drugs, which is a nexus sufficient to support an enhancement under 2D1.1(b)(1)”); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (clearly improbable standard). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of IQ POWER TECHNOLOGY INC.  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date here of (the  "Report"),  I,
Peter E. Braun, acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 Exhange Act of 1934; and

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




                                            /s/ Peter E. Braun
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Peter E. Braun
                                            Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 14, 2002
<PAGE>



                                                                   Exhibit 99.4


                     CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 1998-C
                           ANNUAL ISSUER'S CERTIFICATE

                                       of

                            COMPLIANCE WITH INDENTURE

         The undersigned certifies that they are an Authorized Officer of
Wilmington Trust Company, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner
Trustee for Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 1998-C and that they are duly
authorized to execute and deliver this certificate on behalf of the Issuer in
connection with Section 3.9 of the Indenture between the Issuer and Wells Fargo
Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, dated as of June 1,
1998 (the "Indenture") and the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1,
1998 (the "Agreement"), among Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, as
Servicer, Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association and The Chase Manhattan
Bank, as Sellers, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee. All
capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective
meanings specified in the Indenture and the Agreement.

         The undersigned further certifies that a review of the activities of
the Issuer for the preceding calendar year has been made under his supervision
and, to the best of his knowledge, the Issuer has fulfilled its obligations
under the Indenture for the preceding calendar year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereto my signature as of this 26th
day of March, 2001.

                           CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 1998-C
                           BY: WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its
                           individual capacity, but solely as Owner Trustee



                                   /s/ Denise Geran
                                   ---------------------
                                   Name: Denise Geran
                                   Title: Senior Financial Services Officer

Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, as Servicer, hereby requests
that Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee, execute the above Issuer's
Certificate and deliver it to Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
Indenture Trustee.


                                    CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer


                                     /s/ Richard J. Naeder
                                     --------------------------
                                     Richard J. Naeder
                                     Vice President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40644 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAFAEL AGUILAR-DELGADO, also known as Lieonel Villagomez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:03-CR-818-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rafael Aguilar-Delgado (“Aguilar”) challenges the 46-month sentence imposed on resentencing for his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred in imposing as a special condition of supervised release that he cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample. This claim is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-20037, 2005 WL 2660032 at *1-2 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2005). Accordingly, thisNo. 05-40644 -2- portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the case is remanded for the limited purpose of conforming the judgment to the oral pronouncement that, as a special condition of supervised release, Aguilar cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample. Aguilar also argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This claim was decided adversely to him in his original appeal, and the previous determinations of this court stand as the law of the case. See United States v. Becerra , 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; LIMITED REMAND TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                        AMENDMENT TO RETENTION AGREEMENT

     WHEREAS, Arch Capital Group Ltd., a Bermuda company (the "COMPANY"), and
Arch Capital Group (U.S.) Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "SUBSIDIARY"), entered into a retention agreement
(the "AGREEMENT"), dated as of January 4, 2002, with Robert Clements (the
"DIRECTOR"); and capitalized terms used without definition herein have the
meanings given to them in the Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties have agreed to amend the Agreement as follows,
effective as of January 1, 2003:

     1.   Section 2(a) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its
          entirety as follows:

          "Compensation for the Director's services shall be at an annual
          compensation rate equal to 50% of the then annual base salary of the
          Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Director may also receive
          an annual cash bonus to be determined by the Board."

     2.   Section 2(b) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its
          entirety as follows:

          "Such annual compensation for each year shall be payable in cash on a
          semi-monthly basis."

     3.   Section 2(c) of the Agreement shall be deleted, and the phrase "of the
          Share Portion and Cash Portion" shall be deleted from Section 2(d) of
          the Agreement.

     4.   All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. This amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this agreement on April
10, 2003.

                                       ARCH CAPITAL GROUP LTD.


                                       By:   /s/ John D. Vollaro
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Name:  John D. Vollaro
                                          Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                       ARCH CAPITAL GROUP (U.S.) INC.


                                       By:   /s/ Peter A. Appel
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Peter A. Appel
                                          Title: Vice Chairman


                                             /s/ Robert Clements
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Robert Clements
#### DOUGLASS v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 4, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

The record is regular in all respects and the time for signing bill of exceptions having expired, as appears from the certificate of the clerk, the cause is affirmed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map.Willamette National Forest. Detroit & Sweet Home Ranger Districts, Oregon**
 
2011:Detroit | Sweet Home
2016:Detroit | SweetHome
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:W 66/9/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930314
 
January 12, 2018
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (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.


/s/ Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer

Date: July 29, 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 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.