alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas F. Keane, Appellant, v Samuel Tile Corporation, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 573]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered July 14, 1994, which, upon an order entered July 7, 1994, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order entered July 7, 1994, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

*419Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The gravamen of the plaintiffs complaint is that the motor vehicle accident which resulted in the death of Emad Samuel was caused by the defendant’s negligence in overloading the van Samuel was operating at the time of the accident. In light of the plaintiffs failure to comply prior to trial with the defendant’s discovery demand seeking the names and addresses of all of the witnesses the plaintiff expected to call to testify at trial, it was proper to preclude the plaintiff from introducing any such testimony *(see, Hughes v Elias,*120 AD2d 703). In the absence of any such testimony, the plaintiff could not establish that the van was overloaded or that this condition was the proximate cause of the accident. Thus, the plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case of negligence, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly granted *(see, De Vito v Katsch,*157 AD2d 413, 418). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
# Appendix 3-2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

The Court, having considered the recent appointment of Recalled United

States Magistrate Charlene H. Sorrentino, finds the necessity for reassignment of

this action, and for notice to be given to the affected parties. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

This action is hereby reassigned to Magistate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino, for all

further proceedings. The District Judge currently assigned to the case will remain

unchanged. The new case number for this action, which must be used on all future

documents filed with the court, is reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing

accompanying this order. 

All dates currently set in this reassigned action shall remain pending subject to

further order of the court. 

Dated: November 13, 2008 

 

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 22 Filed 11/13/08 Page 1 of 1
No. 45006.

#### Protest 802241-G of Greenberg *&*Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb. P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tambourines or so-called noisemakers in chief value of paper similar to those the subject of *Dessart*v. *United States*(T. D. 45169) and Abstract 36935. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32(a)Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350     I, Joseph P. Keithley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of KeithleyInstruments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006which this certification accompanies 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Joseph P. Keithley Joseph P. Keithley  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  December 28, 2006  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Keithley Instruments, Inc.and will be retained by Keithley Instruments, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Margulies, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Margulies

Richard MarguliesChief Executive OfficerDated: October 11, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: April 16, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-1- 

STIPULATION & REQUEST TO MOVE TRIAL DATE

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

ADRIAN L. RANDOLPH, ESQ. (SBN: 133577) 

WILLIAM H. POHLE JR, ESQ. (SBN: 43043) 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

Law Department 

10031 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 200 

Roseville, CA 95747-7101 

General: (916) 789-6400 

Direct: (916) 789-6220 

Fax: (916) 789-6227 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE 

CHARTER SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 

CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES INC., 

RENZENBERGER INC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV S-04-1999-LKKEFB 

STIPULATION AND REQUEST 

TO MOVE TRIAL DATE 

Trial Date: March 27, 2007 

Time; 10:30 a.m. 

Courtroom: 4 

Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton 

Due to Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company’s unavailability 

on March 27, 2007, the date set by the Court on January 4, 2007, 

Plaintiff, Stockton Executive Limousine Charter Services, Inc., and 

Defendant, hereby respectfully stipulate and request that the trial date be 

moved to one of the following dates available to counsel: 1) April 30, 

2007; 2) April 9, 2007; or, 3) June 11, 2007. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 106 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

STIPULATION & REQUEST TO MOVE TRIAL DATE

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

Dated: January 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

Agreed and stipulated. 

 ADRIAN L. RANDOLPH, ESQ. 

 WILLIAM H. POHLE JR. 

 By: /s/ By William H. Pohle Jr.

WILLIAM H. POHLE JR. 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

 By: /s/ By Karen K. Brandon 

KAREN K. BRANDON 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE 

 CHARTER SERVICES, INC. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date of March 27, 2007 is 

continued to: June 12, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. . 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 17, 2007 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 106 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4906 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected 

from passengers as aviation security fees are used to help finance the 

costs of aviation security screening by repealing a requirement that 

a portion of such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected from passengers as aviation security fees 

are used to help finance the costs of aviation security 

screening by repealing a requirement that a portion of 

such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4906 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Funding for Aviation 

3 Screeners and Threat Elimination Restoration Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘FASTER Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT REGARDING CREDITING 

6 AND DEPOSIT OF A PORTION OF AVIATION 

7 SECURITY FEES. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Section 44940 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3); 

11 (2) in subsection (f)— 

12 (A) by striking the heading and all that 

13 follows through ‘‘title 31,’’ and inserting ‘‘DE14 POSIT AND AVAILABILITY OF FEE.—Notwith15 standing sections 1341, 1512 through 1519, 

16 and 3302 of title 31,’’; 

17 (B) by striking paragraph (1); 

18 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

19 (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and 

20 (D) by amending paragraph (1), as so re21 designated, to read as follows: 

22 ‘‘(1) shall be deposited into a separate account 

23 in the Treasury, which shall be available to the Ad24 ministrator for expenditure notwithstanding any 

25 other law, including any provision of section 

26 1341(a)(1) of title 31 (commonly referred to as the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4906 IS

1 ‘Anti-Deficiency Act’), only to pay the costs of ac2 tivities and services for which the fee is imposed; 

3 and’’; and 

4 (3) by striking subsection (i). 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d)(4) 

6 of such section is amended by striking ‘‘, other than sub7 section (i),’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer, 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 comply 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/ Gabriel Kabazo





Gabriel Kabazo, 
Chief Financial Officer





Dated: May 16, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[AAG/A Order No. 007-2007]


Privacy Act of 1974; Removal of a System of Records Notice

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), the Department of Justice (DOJ) is removing a published notice 
of a Privacy Act system of records: the Deputy Attorney General's (DAG) 
``Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records System, JUSTICE/DAG-011,'' 
last published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1985 at 50 FR 
42613.
    The information contained within this system of records is now 
covered by two applicable notices of systems of records of the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM): ``General Personnel Records, OPM/GOVT-
1,'' last published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2006 at 71 FR 
35342; and ``Records of Adverse Actions, Performance Based Reduction in 
Grade and Removal Actions, and Termination of Probationers, OPM/GOVT-
3,'' last published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2006 at 71 FR 
35342, 35350. The DAG ``Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records 
System'' records are also covered by a Department-wide system notice, 
``Personnel Investigation and Security Clearance Records for the 
Department of Justice, DOJ-006,'' last published in full text in the 
Federal Register on September 24, 2002 at 67 FR 59864, and amended in 
part on November 10, 2004 at 69 FR 65224.
    Therefore, the notice of ``Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records 
System, JUSTICE/DAG-011'' is removed from the Department's listing of 
Privacy Act systems of records notices, effective on the date of 
publication of this notice.

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
Lee J. Lofthus,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4776 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-PB-P
May 17, 1948

No. 52335.

Suit 4577.

#### United States *v.*O. Brager-Larsen.

C. D. 1042 affirmed April 2, 1948. C. A. D. 388.
Before the Second Division,

June 27, 1940

No. 44036.

#### Protest 13784-K of Mabarak Bros. (New York).

*266Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of finished handkerchiefs in chief value of vegetable fiber other than cotton, valued at 80 cents or more per dozen. On the agreed facts the claim at 2 cents each and 30 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1529 (b) and T. D. 48093 was sustained.
# C_2007121EN.01000201.xml

| 1.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/2

---

Ex-post publicity of Eurostat grants in 2006

(2007/C 121/02)

In accordance with Article 110(2) of the Financial Regulation and Article 169 of its implementing rules, the public is hereby informed of the actions subsidised by Eurostat in the year 2006.

The electronic file showing the actions concerned can be found in list form on the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int). You can access this list via ‘Services’, ‘Grants’, ‘Statistics’, ‘Eurostat Grants ’and the file ‘List of grants awarded in 2006’.

List of grants awarded in 2006

The list gives the file number, the unit concerned, the name and country of the beneficiaries, the title of the action, the amount of the grant and the rate of Community co-financing for the action.

---
No. 60826.

#### The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 270091-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the *531same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting company of DAM Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Klein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Company.








Date: November 8, 2010








By: /s/ MARK KLEIN


Mark Klein


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James A. Yost, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HLI Operating Company, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 15, 2004                                /s/ James A. Yost   James A. Yost   Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer  
39
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0124. ANTHONY MATTHEW GAGLIANI v. THE STATE.

Anthony Matthew Gagliani, who was convicted of several offenses in

September 2021, has filed a pro se application for discretionary appeal.

1 Gagliani

appears to be seeking appellate review of his convictions. A judgment of conviction,

however, is subject to direct appeal.

We will grant a timely filed application for discretionary appeal if the lower

court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED, and Gagliani shall have ten days from the date of

this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. If he has already filed a timely

notice of appeal in the trial court, he need not file a second notice. The clerk of the

trial court is directed to include a copy of this order in the appeal record transmitted

to this Court. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Gagliani filed his application in the Supreme Court, which transferred the

case here.

November 19, 2021

11/19/2021
Before the Third Division,

January 16, 1943

No. 47920.

#### Protest 91445-K of Maray Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
#### Richard A. Moore et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, Respondent-Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 577]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ first through sixth, ninth, and eleventh causes of action. The court erred, however, in failing to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action alleging breach of a contract of employment and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff Richard A. Moore was an at-will employee whose employment could be terminated for any reason *(see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug,*69 NY2d 329, 333; *Rock v Sear-Brown Assocs.,*136 AD2d 894, 895). Defendant’s personnel manual does not contain an express provision limiting defendant’s right to terminate at-will employees *(cf, Weiner v McGrawHill, Inc.,*57 NY2d 458, 465-466). Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action seeking punitive damages must be dismissed as no causes of action remain upon which compensatory damages may be awarded *(see, Bishop v Bostick,*141 AD2d 487, 489). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.—Dismiss Causes of Action.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
No. 56470.

protest 152875-K (New York).

#### Durlacher & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of woven fabrics in the piece, with fibers wholly of silk, bleached, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.