alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Herbert Obser et al., Plaintiffs, v Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Iannelli Construction Co., Inc., Respondent. New York City School Construction Authority, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 896]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs, the Board of Education of the City of New York and the City of New York, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, *523Queens County (Bruno, J.), dated August 18, 1998, as granted (a) that branch of the motion of the defendant Iannelli Construction Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against it, and (b) the motion of the third-party defendant New York City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the defendant lannelli Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter Iannelli) did not make a special use of the school entrance at which the plaintiff Herbert Obser was injured *(see, Minott v City of New York,*230 AD2d 719). Further, neither Iannelli nor the third-party defendant, New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter NYCSCA) controlled the area where the plaintiff Herbert Obser’s accident occurred. Moreover, there was no evidence that they created the dangerous condition *(see, Bykofsky v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets,*210 AD2d 280). Therefore, both Iannelli and NYCSCA were entitled to summary judgment. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 annual report of Berry Plastics Holding Corporation (the
      “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      James M. Kratochvil, the Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer,
      Treasurer and Secretary of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








/s/
      James M.
      Kratochvil


James
      M.
      Kratochvil


Executive
      Vice-President, Chief Financial


Officer,
      Treasurer and Secretary





Date:               December
      26, 2007
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of the President and Directors of the Manhattan Company et al., as Executors of Marx Lissberger, Deceased, etc., Respondents. William R. White, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Mercantile Bank and Trust Company, Appellant.

Argued January 4, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

*503
      *David Asch*and *William J. Butler*for appellant.

*James F. Donnelly and Samuel Michelman for*respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and Finch, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Morris Blankfein, Appellant, against Henry E. Bruckman et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, et al., Respondents.

Argued March 1, 1937;

decided March 16, 1937.

*589
      *Milton Brause*and *Irving Abramson*for appellant.

*Monroe I. Katcher, II.*and *William H. Ticho*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00152-CV 

 

JICELA S. GONZALEZ AND LUIS F. GONZALEZ, APPELLANTS 

V. 

ZENON SOTELO, PATRICIA AGUILAR, AND RAY GONZALEZ, APPELLEES 

On Appeal from the 425th Judicial District Court 

Williamson County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 18-0679-C425, Honorable Betsy F. Lambeth, Presiding 

August 1, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellants, Jicela S. and Luis F. Gonzalez, appeal from the trial court’s judgment. 

Now pending before this Court is the parties’ “Agreed Motion of Voluntary Dismissial (sic)

and Settlement.” The Court finds that the motion complies with the requirements of Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) & (2) and that granting the motion will not prevent any 

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the 

Court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. The 

motion reflects that the parties have agreed to have all costs be assessed against the 

party incurring them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be 

entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7630
In Re: ROY HORTON, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-40) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Horton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roy Horton has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to provide him with a copy of a detention order. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Horton has not made such ashowing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 18.70 Motions for dispositive action. ( a ) *In general.* When consistent with statute, regulation or executive order, any party may move under § 18.33 for disposition of the pending proceeding. If the judge determines at any time that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the judge must dismiss the matter.
( b ) *Motion to remand.* A party may move to remand the matter to the referring agency. A remand order must include any terms or conditions and should state the reason for the remand.
( c ) *Motion to dismiss.* A party may move to dismiss part or all of the matter for reasons recognized under controlling law, such as lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or untimeliness. If the opposing party fails to respond, the judge may consider the motion unopposed.
( d ) *Motion for decision on the record.* When the parties agree that an evidentiary hearing is not needed, they may move for a decision based on stipulations of fact or a stipulated record.
#### In the Matter of John M. Weiss et al., Respondents, against Alfred B. Jones et al., Constituting the New York City Tunnel Authority, Appellants.

Argued April 27, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*551
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Paxton Blair*and *Willard M. L. Robinson*of counsel), for appellants.

*Maurice Weiss*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4857 

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

275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 23 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HOWARD ARTHUR TIBBS POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, 

6 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Howard Ar7 thur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4857 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0557 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0557

**2000/557/EC: Commission Decision of 7 September 2000 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community (notified under document number C(2000) 2497) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 235 , 19/09/2000 P. 0030 - 0030 *

Commission Decision

of 7 September 2000

amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community

(notified under document number C(2000) 2497)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/557/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(2), as last amended by Decision 2000/344/EC(3), establishes a list of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for the export of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community.

(2) The competent veterinary services of Australia have forwarded a request for amendment to the list of teams officially approved in their territories for the export of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community. It is therefore necessary to amend the list of approved teams. Guarantees regarding compliance with the requirements specified in Article 8 of Directive 89/556/EEC have been received by the Commission.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Commission Decision 92/452/EEC, in the list concerning Australia the following team is added:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 September 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 119, 20.5.2000, p. 38.
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT ON INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-119491,  333-104230,  333-82230,  333-60294, 333-53657 and 333-92003 on Form
S-3  and  Registration  Statement  Nos.  333-119474,  333-53765,  333-40472  and
333-79151  on Form S-8 of our report  dated  February  28, 2005  relating to the
financial  statements and financial  statement  schedule of KeySpan  Corporation
[which report expresses an unqualified  opinion on the financial  statements and
includes an  explanatory  paragraph  related to (i) the adoption of Statement of
Financial  Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets"  discussed in Note 1(G), (ii) the adoption of SFAS No. 148,  "Accounting
for Stock-Based  Compensation-Transaction and Disclosure" in Note 1(N) (iii) the
adoption of SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement  Obligations" in Note
1(P), (iv) the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 46 "Consolidation of Variable
Interest  Entities,  an Interpretation of ARB No. 51" (FIN 46) in Note 1(P)] and
our report on management's  report on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial  reporting  appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of KeySpan
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 28, 2005
New York, New York
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.955 Portable ladders and platforms. ( a ) *General.* Requirements for portable ladders contained in subpart X of this part apply in addition to the requirements of this section, except as specifically noted in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Special ladders and platforms.* Portable ladders used on structures or conductors in conjunction with overhead line work need not meet § 1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12). Portable ladders and platforms used on structures or conductors in conjunction with overhead line work shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) *Design load.* In the configurations in which they are used, portable platforms shall be capable of supporting without failure at least 2.5 times the maximum intended load.
( 2 ) *Maximum load.* Portable ladders and platforms may not be loaded in excess of the working loads for which they are designed.
( 3 ) *Securing in place.* Portable ladders and platforms shall be secured to prevent them from becoming dislodged.
( 4 ) *Intended use.* Portable ladders and platforms may be used only in applications for which they are designed.
( c ) *Conductive ladders.* Portable metal ladders and other portable conductive ladders may not be used near exposed energized lines or equipment. However, in specialized high-voltage work, conductive ladders shall be used when the employer demonstrates that nonconductive ladders would present a greater hazard to employees than conductive ladders.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0738 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0738

**2000/738/EC: Commission Decision of 17 November 2000 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (notified under document number C(2000) 3318) **

*
Official Journal L 298 , 25/11/2000 P. 0024 - 0026 *

Commission Decision

of 17 November 2000

concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste

(notified under document number C(2000) 3318)

(2000/738/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(1), in particular Article 15,

Whereas:

(1) Article 15 of Directive 1999/31/EC requires Member States to send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this Directive.

(2) This report shall be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC(2).

(3) The first report will cover the period from 16 July 2001 to 2003.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The questionnaire in the Annex is hereby adopted.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2000.

For the Commission

Margot Wallström

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 377, 23.12.1991, p. 48.

ANNEX

>PIC FILE= "L_2000298EN.002502.EPS">

>PIC FILE= "L_2000298EN.002601.EPS">
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Susan Santage, Chief Executive Officer and  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:
 
 1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.
 
 Dated: August 12, 2010
 
 
 S/Susan Santage
 Susan Santage
 CEO & CFO
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Yummies, Inc. and will be retained by Yummies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
 
 THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
# Indented Bill of Materials

**V PCB - Batt Fan Level** **Sy mbol Name**  **Number Qty**  **Material Piece Cost**  **Weight Piece Cost**  **(Total) V PCB - Batt Fan-Functional**  **V PCB - Batt 1**  **$8.11 0.0250 lb**  **Test Fan-Functional**  **Test 1** **V PCB - Batt Fan-Depannel V PCB - Batt**  **1 $8.11**  **0.0250 lb Fan-Depannel**  **2 V PCB - Batt Fan-Conformal**  **V PCB - Batt 1**  **$8.11 0.0250 lb**  **Coat Fan-Conformal**  **Coat 3**  **V PCB - Batt Fan-Thru Hole V PCB - Batt**  **1 $7.81**  **0.0250 lb Fan-Thru Hole**  **4** V PCB - Batt Fan-SMT - Bare V PCB - Batt **1 $0.34**  **0.0250 lb** Board Fan-SMT **4 BOTTOM SIDE - SURFA** **CE BOTTOM SIDE -**  **1 $4.23**  **0.0000 lb MOUNT**  **SURFA CE**  **MOUNT 5**  IC - Voltage Regulator UA78L05ACDRE 4-ND **1** Commodity Price **$1.17 0.0000 lb**  5 IC - Transciever SN65MLVD200D 1 Commodity Price $1.72 0.0000 lb 5 Transistor - Surface Mount BC848C-TPMSCT-ND 7Commodity Price $0.07 0.0000 lb Transistor - Surface Mount BC848C-TPMSCT-ND Commodity Price 0.0000 lb 5 Zener Diode - Surface Mount DL5244B-TPMSCT-ND 1 Commodity Price $0.07 0.0000 lb 5 IC IC fan control bpard 1 Commodity Price $0.50 0.0000 lb 5 Capacitors Capacitors-1 3Commodity Price $0.01 0.0000 lb 5 Resistors Resistors-1 27Commodity Price $0.01 0.0000 lb **4 TOP SIDE - SURFA** **CE MOUNT 1**  **$3.23 0.0000 lb**  **5** MOSFETs - Surface Mount SP8M8TBCT-ND **2** Commodity Price **$0.32 0.0000 lb**  5 IC PIC16F684 1 Commodity Price $0.75 0.0000 lb 5 Fuse - Surface Mount F2933CT-ND 1 Commodity Price $0.86 0.0000 lb 5 Diode - Schottky - Surface Mount B340A-FDITR-ND 3Commodity Price $0.19 0.0000 lb 5 Transistor - Surface Mount BC848C-TPMSCT-ND 1 Commodity Price $0.07 0.0000 lb 

### 5 Zener Diode - Surface Mount DL5244B-TPMSCT-ND 

### 1 Commodity Price $0.07 0.0000 lb 5 Diode - Schottky - Surface Mount SS3P3-E3/84AGICT-ND 1 Commodity Price $0.14 0.0000 lb 5 Capacitor - Surface Mount P930-ND 1 Commodity Price $0.03 0.0000 lb 5 Capacitors Capacitors-1 5Commodity Price $0.01 0.0000 lb 5 Resistors Resistors-1 7Commodity Price $0.01 0.0000 lb 3 4 pin connector 4 pin connector 1 Commodity Price $0.30 0.0000 lb



## Assembly Totals 

## Report Totals **Preassembled Totals**
**An aly**  **zed Subs:** 6 

### Piece Cost (Total): **Analyzed Subs:** 0 **Unanaly zed Subs:** 0 

### Unanalyzed Subs: 0 

### Weight (Total): 0.0250 lb
**Parts:** 66 

### Parts:0**Fasteners:** 0 

### Fasteners: 0 **Parts+Unanaly**

**zed:**66 

### Parts+Unanalyzed: 0



## Design Profit®

Page 2of2 Copyright 2005© Munro & Associates, Inc.

### Weight

**(Total)**

**$8.11 0.0250 lb** 

**# 0.0250 lb** 

**$8.11 0.0250 lb** 

**$7.81 0.0250 lb** 

**$0.34 0.0250 lb** 

**$4.23 0.0000 lb** 

**$1.17 0.0000 lb**  $1.72 0.0000 lb $0.48 0.0000 lb $0.07 0.0000 lb $0.50 0.0000 lb $0.03 0.0000 lb $0.27 0.0000 lb **$3.23 0.0000 lb**  **$0.63 0.0000 lb**  $0.75 0.0000 lb $0.86 0.0000 lb $0.57 0.0000 lb $0.07 0.0000 lb $0.07 0.0000 lb $0.14 0.0000 lb $0.03 0.0000 lb $0.05 0.0000 lb $0.07 0.0000 lb $0.30 0.0000 lb
500 New Jersey Avenue, NW

7

th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20001

December 17, 2010

Mr. Keith Barnett

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: NESHAP Issues/Meeting Request to Discuss

Dear Keith, 

Attached please find an Excel spreadsheet which identifies a number of issues 

addressed in the NESHAP, published on September 9, 2010, which PCA believes need 

clarification and/or revision. This is the list that we have spoken about previously and is in 

addition to those issues addressed by the petition for reconsideration PCA sent to EPA on 

November 5, 2010. 

PCA would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues at 

your earliest convenience in January 2011. I may be reached at (202) 408-9494 or 

aohare@cement.org to make arrangements for such a meeting. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew T. O’Hare

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, EPA-OAQPS