alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alice M. Chamberlin et al., Respondents, v Suffolk County Labor Department et al., Respondents, and Isaac G. Bolden, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 202]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the defendant Isaac G. Bolden appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 4, 1994, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as they are asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the plaintiffs’ complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as they are asserted against the defendant Isaac G. Bolden.

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish his defense sufficiently to warrant a court awarding judgment in his favor as a matter of law *(see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966; *Rebeechi v Whitmore,*172 AD2d 600). The opposing parties must then produce sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact warranting a trial *(see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra; Rebecchi v Whitmore, supra).*It is the court’s burden to determine whether a triable issue of fact exists *(see, Barr v County of Albany,*50 NY2d 247; *Rebeechi v Whitmore, supra).*Upon our review of the record, we find that no triable issues of fact exist which preclude granting the appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

This appeal arises out of a multi-vehicle collision during heavy traffic in which the vehicle operated by the plaintiff Alice Chamberlin was propelled into the appellant’s vehicle after her vehicle was hit in the rear by the vehicle operated by the *581defendant-respondent Gerald Marchisotto, whose vehicle was in turn hit in the rear by the vehicle operated by the defendant-respondent John Ryan. The appellant presented evidence that Alice Chamberlin was able to come to a complete stop behind him without coming into contact with his vehicle before her vehicle was propelled into his. Once Alice Chamberlin’s vehicle stopped behind the appellant’s vehicle, the appellant was not the proximate cause of the rear-end collision between the vehicle operated by Gerald Marchisotto and the plaintiff’s vehicle *(see, Smith v Cafiero,*203 AD2d 355). Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 42 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-898]


Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katharine Huang or Charles Riggle, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1271 
or (202) 482-0650, respectively.

Background

    On July 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from the People's 
Republic of China, covering the period December 16, 2004, through May 
31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 42626 
(July 27, 2006). The preliminary results are currently due no later 
than March 2, 2007.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
or finding for which a review is requested and a final determination 
within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination 
is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 
Department to extend the 245-day time limit for the preliminary 
determination to a maximum of 365 days and the time limit for the final 
determination to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not 
extend the time limit for the preliminary determination) from the date 
of publication of the preliminary determination.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review

    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary 
results of this review within the original time limit. Additional time 
is required to analyze complicated issues raised by the parties 
regarding possible affiliation. Therefore, the Department is extending 
the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 60 days 
until no later than May 1, 2007. We intend to issue the final results 
no later than 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results 
notice.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: February 20, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-3791 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
SERVED JULY 1,2010 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EMPIRE AIR WAYS, 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP 1 OEA0002 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-20I0-0191 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER ON 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

Counsel for the FAA has sent me a second notice that it is 

withdrawing its complaint. In an order served on June 23, 2010, I granted 

his first motion to withdraw the complaint and, pursuant to § 13.215 of the 

Rules of Practice, I dismissed this proceeding. Once is enough. I cannot 

now act on the latest notice because there is no longer a pending proceeding 

in this docket - at least not one that is assigned to me. 

So I am herewith dismissing the notice of withdrawal of the complaint 

without action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Administrative Law Judge 

", i. 
FAA Docket No. CPI0EA0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COpy 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COpy 

Charles J. Casolaro, Respondent's Counsel 

Casolaro Sussman, LLP 

1050 Franklin Avenue, Suite 402 

Garden City, NY 11530 

TEL: 516-248-1399 

FAX: 516~248-2257 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

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 E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-0437 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal A viation Administration, 600 Independence A venue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WI000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

United States of America, Case No. 3:06CR719

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Mohammad Zaki Amawi, et al,

Defendant.

This is a criminal case in which the government has filed a motion for entry of a protective

order regulating the dissemination and distribution of photographs or other depictions of a

government witness. The government expects to provide such materials to defense counsel during

the course of pretrial discovery. 

For the reasons that follow, the motion shall be granted, without prejudice to the defendants’

right to seek reconsideration or clarification of this order, if such appears appropriate in light of

developments as they occur during the course of this case.

The government wants to take what steps it can to ensure that depictions of its principal

witness [whose identity is already known to the defendants, and whose identity and photograph have

possibly been disseminated by the press from publicly available sources] will not become publicly

available. To that end, it desires that a protective order restricting dissemination of the photos be

entered.

I agree with the government that the opportunity for completely unrestricted distribution of

the photos might pose unacceptable dangers to its cooperating witness and, possibly, other

individuals. While I am also confident that no inappropriate distribution would, under any
circumstance be made by defense counsel, it is appropriate to underscore the importance of proper

handling of the materials that the defense will be receiving from the government. 

It is not the purpose of this order, or of the government’s request, to impair the ability of the

defense to prepare for trial. All that this order does and requires is to prevent distribution of copies

of the photographs to persons other than the defendants, their counsel and investigators, and others

materially participating or assisting in the preparation of the defendants’ defenses. 

Nothing in this order shall prohibit the above-designated individuals from displaying copies

of the photos or other images to other individuals, provided they do so in the ordinary course of their

work on behalf of the defense in this case. 

If distribution of copies beyond the group designated herein is desired, the defendants may

seek leave to do so.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED THAT: Any photograph or image containing a likeness of an individual

designated by the government as the cooperating witness referenced in the indictment as “The

Trainer” shall not be distributed in any form or by any method to any person, entity or organization,

except the defendants, their counsel and investigators, and others materially participating or assisting

in the defendants’ preparation for trial.

So ordered.

s/James G. Carr

James G. Carr

Chief Judge
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

February 13, 2008



By /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President & Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certifies that:

     (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 results of operations of the
     Corporation.

/s/ RICHARD MACCHIA
--------------------------------
Richard Macchia
Senior Vice President Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer

November 5, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Internet Security Systems, Inc.
and will be retained by Internet Security Systems, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc., a NewJersey Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Tossavainen, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| /S/ THOMAS J. TOSSAVAINEN                  |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas J. Tossavainen                      |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| November 10, 2005                     |

 

----
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2227 DFL KJM P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On July 19, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty

days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 29, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

epps2227.fnrs

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ALLEN BUTLER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1049 EJG GGH P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court’s March 30, 2005,denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 40 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issue presented in the instant petition: Whether this action is barred by the statute

of limitations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

 /s/ Edward J. Garcia 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

but1049.coa

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 40 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-01974-GEB-PAN   Document 90    Filed 05/10/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-01974-GEB-PAN   Document 90    Filed 05/10/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T23:12:16-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41957-41958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17012]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of briefing and business meeting.

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

DATE AND TIME: Friday, July 25, 2014; 9:00 a.m. EST.

PLACE: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.

Briefing Agenda--9:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

    This briefing is open to the public.
    Topic: Enforcement of Sexual Harassment Policy at Educational 
Institutions by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil 
Rights (OCR)

[[Page 41958]]

and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman Castro.
II. Issue Panel I--9:05 a.m.-10:35 a.m.: OCR/DOJ Guidance Speakers' 
Remarks and Questions from Commissioners.
III. Issue Panel II--10:35 a.m.-11:56: Data on Sexual Harassment 
Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners.
IV. Issue Panel III--11:56 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Pros/Cons on OCR/DOJ 
Guidance Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners.
V. Adjourn Briefing.

Business Meeting Agenda--2:00 p.m.

I. Program Planning.
    a. Discussion and Vote on Part A & Part B of the briefing report: 
Increasing Compliance with Section 7 of the NVRA.
    b. Consideration and Vote on Commission letter regarding Federal 
Response to the Unaccompanied Minor Immigrants.
    c. Discussion and Vote on the FY2015 Statutory Enforcement Report 
topic.
    d. Discussion and Vote on two briefing topics for FY2015.
II. Management and Operations.
     Staff Director's Report.
III. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments
     Arizona.
     Missouri.
     Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-17012 Filed 7-16-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```