alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William V. Mueller, Appellant-Respondent, v Village of Greenwood Lake et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[631 NYS2d *397443]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Barone, J.), dated June 9, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated June 20, 1994, which is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint. The defendants cross-appeal from stated portions of the order and the judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, as the defendants are not aggrieved either by the order or the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

After his arrest, the plaintiff was placed in a holding cell in the defendant Village of Greenwood Lake police station with another individual. Both men were handcuffed. The plaintiff’s cellmate requested a cigarette, but his request was denied by a police officer. His cellmate then attempted to light a cigarette with a lighter that he had managed to retrieve from his own pocket. Unable to do so, he asked for the plaintiff’s assistance. While assisting his cellmate, the plaintiff’s shirt ignited and he was burned. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action and the defendants moved for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff to guard against the extraordinary and remote event which occurred *(see, Fellis v Old Oaks Country Club,*163 AD2d 509; *Silver v Sheraton-Smithtown Inn,*121 AD2d 711). Further, in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff did not come forward with sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent in failing to come to his aid in a timely manner, thereby exacerbating his injuries. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. P66/25.

protests 256380-K and 222115-K (New York).

No. P66/26.

protests 324756-K, etc. (New York).

#### Charles Garcia & Co., Inc., and Vandegrift Forwarding Co. *v.*United States, Markt & Hammacher Co. and Air Express International Agency, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nylon fishing line similar in all material respects to that the subject of *J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. and Alltransport, Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 324, Abstract 60183), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: gracemainello@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:56:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Grace Mainello

Troy, NY 12180
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL CORDERO,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5705FDB

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, MIKE DION;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, MIRIAM SCHWARTZ;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation

Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable FRANKLIN D BURGESS

Date: OCTOBER 3, 2007

Time: 9:00 A.M.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

September 26, 2007.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05705-BHS Document 36 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 1
|    |                                                                               |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Immune Design Corp.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |
|                                           |
| /s/ Stephen Brady                              |
| Stephen Brady                                  |
| Executive Vice President, Strategy and Finance |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                  |
From: etat@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:12:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay by patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization, business.

or individual who has moral or religious objection to providing such insurance to their employees, or

buying such insurance. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which prohibit

government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or religious

grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance. We can only hope they will refuse to follow federal orders.

In addition, there is no protection for the conscience rights of individuals who refuse on moral grounds

to be participants in the murder of children,

or the perversion of human bodies.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they judge to be great evils. I again urge you in

the strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list

of mandatory preventive services.

By the way, contraception, sterilization, and abortion are NOT "healthcare".

Sincerely,

Edmund Tynan

Scottsdale, AZ 85251
From: rboyse@boysecpa.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Boyse

Rochester, MI 48306
From: HMattingly@novacorporation.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:15:55 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Henry Mattingly

, 61126-7958
Order entered January 26, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00940 - CV FIVE STAR GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL. , Appellant s V. MARK HULME , ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal f

rom the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 20 - 08643

ORDER Before the Court is appellees’ January 22, 2021 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 16, 2021

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1  Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 302)  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Steve Bergstrom, certify that:  (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Silver Hill Mines, Inc., (ARegistrant@).  (2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;  (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;  (4) The registrant=s other certifying officers and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant=s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  (5) The registrant=s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the 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.   Dated: March 27, 2009.  By:  /s/ Steve Bergstrom Steve Bergstrom Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 34.2**

[Letterhead of KPMG LLP] 

KPMG LLP 

303 East Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601-5212 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board of Directors 

Citibank, N.A.: 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that the Agency andTrust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Franklin Auto Trust Platform, comprised ofpublicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities, issued on or after January 1, 2006, (the “Platform”) as ofSeptember 30, 2008, and for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008, excluding servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i) through 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii) through 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i) through 1122(d)(4)(xv), whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on theCompany’s compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company*’*s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary inthe circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed thoseselected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as ofSeptember 30, 2008 and for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21604]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Research Training.
    Date: November 2, 2023.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 7201, 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 0MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer 
,National Institute on Aging, Scientific Review Branch, Gateway 
Building 7201, Wisconsin Avenue, (2W218), Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
827-3101, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbdfdac9d2d495dfd2dedccedec1fbd5d2d395dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7e7b687375347e737f7d6f7f605a747372347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21604 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>