alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Javier Sanchez, an Infant, by Purifina Hernandez, His Parent, et al., Appellants, v Wallkill Central School District, Defendant, and Clayton Marshall, an Infant, by Jean Carver, His Parent, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 871]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Vogt, J.H.O.), entered July 20, 1994 in Ulster County, which granted defendant Clayton Marshall’s motion to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and dismissed the complaint.

In a classroom confrontation, defendant Clayton Marshall deliberately punched plaintiff Javier Sanchez, knocking him to the ground and causing personal injuries. This action, charging defendants with negligence and seeking damages for Sanchez’s injuries, ensued. At the conclusion of the trial, Marshall moved to dismiss the action against him or, alternatively, for a directed verdict, asserting that because the evidence established only that he had committed the intentional torts of assault and battery, it was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding of negligence. Although Supreme Court initially reserved on the motions and submitted the matter to the jury under a negligence theory, it eventually concluded that the resulting verdict, holding Marshall 70% at fault and Sanchez 30% at fault, was unsupported by the evidence, and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm. Plaintiffs’ proof supports no conclusion but that Marshall intentionally provoked and then attacked Sanchez, striking him in the face, knocking him to the floor and causing the injuries for which he seeks compensation. There is no basis in the record to support a finding that the touching was inadvertent, accidental or anything but willful *(see, Mazzaferro v Albany Motel Enters.,*127 AD2d 374, 376). There is no such thing as a negligent assault *(supra;*Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 10, at 46 [5th ed]); once intentional offensive contact has been established, the aggressor is liable for assault, not negligence *(see, Ferran v Williams,*194 AD2d 962, 964; *Trott v Merit Dept. Store,*106 AD2d 158, 160). Inasmuch as the record is bereft of support for plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence, the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any rational interpretation of the evidence *(see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, *858499) and dismissal of the complaint was proper *(see, Olszowy v Norton Co.,*159 AD2d 884, 886, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 704).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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 annual report of The Liquid Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities 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:  April 17, 2006

/s/ Stephen Murphy
Stephen Murphy, Chief Financial Officer
6829

#### KENNEDY v. COLUMBIA, NEWBERRY & LAURENS R. R.

*Ruled by Stroud against same defendant, post,*447.

Before Watts, J., Laurens,

May, 1907.

Affirmed.

Action by Clarence F. Kennedy and Norwich- Union Fire Insurance -Society against 'Gofambia, Newberry and Laurens Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

*Messrs. Wm. H. Lyles*and *Dial & Todd,*for appellant.

*Messrs. W. R. Richey*and *Ferguson & Featherstane,*contra.

March 30, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Pope.

This action- was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Laurens County, on the 7th day of March, 1906, by the regular service of summons and complaint for the recovery of seven hundred dollars damages on account of destruction of a dwelling-house belonging to the plaintiff, C. E. Kennedy, by fire alleged to have been *446communicated 'by an- engine of the defendant on the night of the *20’bkoi*October, 190)5. The plaintiff,'Norwich Union! Fire Insurance Society, claims' an interest in the amount sued for by its co-plaintiff, Kennedy, it having insured the dwelling in the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars, which amount it had paid to C. E. Kennedy. The case was tried before Judge Watts and a jury at Laurens, on May 22, 1907 and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs in the sum of four hundred and ninety-five dollars, upon which verdict judgment was duly entered. Thereupon the defendant has appealed upon the same grounds which were interposed by the defendant in the action of Emma G. Stroud against the defendant.

This 'Court, relying upon its judgment in said Stroud case, overrules this appeal and affirms the judgment of the Circuit Court.
(Reap. Dec. 10769)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 978123-1/8; 706613-2.

(Decided June 9, 1964)

*Brooks & Brooks*for tlae plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycle tires, tubes, and rimbands, imported from Holland and identified on the invoices accompanying the entries with the letter “A” and initials “JK” by Examiner Joseph Kaufman.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, •charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered.

Upon the agreed facts of record, tbe court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. -§ 1401a(b)), is the proper basis of value for the items of bicycle tires, tubes, and rimbands in issue, marked and initialed on the invoices as *587aforesaid, and that said value is represented by the invoiced unit prices as entered.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2008151EN.01001202.xml

| 17.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/12

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version)

COM(2007) 768 final — 2007/0270 (COD)

(2008/C 151/04)

On 19 December 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 441st plenary session of 16 and 17 January 2008 (meeting of 16 January), by 127 votes in favour with one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 January 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: M.X.O., A MINOR 

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 342 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

IN RE: A.M.O., A MINOR 

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 343 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 9th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30186 Conference Calendar

COURTNEY SOLOMON MCKENZIE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus CARL CASTERLINE, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1280

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Courtney Solomon McKenzie, federal prisoner # 14900-057, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. McKenzie argues that his claims fall under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because that section is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his imprisonment. His savings clause arguments are premised upon his contention that the jury did not determine drug quantity and therefore his constitutional rights were violated when theNo. 03-30186 -2- sentencing court determined quantity and used its quantity determination when it sentenced McKenzie to life imprisonment. “[T]he savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). While McKenzie does not cite Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), in his brief, his arguments are nonetheless based on principles set forth in Apprendi

. Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, Tx. , 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003). McKenzie’s reliance on Sawyer v. Whitley , 505 U.S. 333 (1992), is also misplaced. Sawyer was decided before McKenzie was convicted and did not legitimize drug-trafficking crimes. Therefore, McKenzie cannot use Sawyer to avail himself of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Reyes-Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. McKenzie has not met either prong of the Reyes-RequenaNo. 03-30186 -3- test, and thus he cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to bring his habeas corpus claims challenging his federal sentence. See id. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. McKenzie’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
No. 41811.

#### Protest 98733-G of Abraham & Straus, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found certain items consist of Normandy laces .similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DEBRA L. SHEPPARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CIH VENTURES, INCORPORATED; CIH WOODMORE, INCORPORATED; CIH WOODMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; CIH PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; CIH No. 96-2073 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and FOURPAR CORPORATION; THE CIH COMPANIES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-2252) Argued: June 4, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL ARGUED: Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas Bennett Mishkin, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Lisa A. Lavelle, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Debra L. Sheppard appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment against her in her Title VII sexual harassment action against her former employer, CIH. 1 CIH hired Sheppard in October 1992 as a sales associate. Sheppard claims that beginning in October 1992 her supervisor at CIH, William Scott, engaged in an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment against her until she left in January 1994. Sheppard initiated three separate courses of action. She first filed a sexual harassment charge with the EEOC. While her EEOC charge was pending, she filed an action alleging common law claims againstCIH in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. Later, Sheppard's state court action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Sheppard then filed this Title VII sexual harassment suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Thedistrict court granted CIH summary judgment, holding (1) that Sheppard's Title VII and common law claims were part of the same cause of action and (2) that Sheppard's action in federal court was barred by res judicata because her Title VII claims could have been (but

_________________________________________________________________ 1 CIH Ventures, Inc.; CIH Woodmore, Inc.; CIH Woodmore Limited Partnership; CIH Properties, Inc.; and CIH Development Corporation. These corporations and partnership are an affiliated group engaged in real estate development and sales in the Washington, D.C., area. 2were not) litigated with her common law claims in state court. Sheppard's appeal is now before us for decision. After considering the joint appendix, the briefs, and the argumentsof counsel, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See Sheppard v. CIH Ventures, Inc. , No. JFM-95-2252 (D. Md. June 24, 1996). AFFIRMED 3
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2020 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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, 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/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. CohenDate:July29, 2020
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00070-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. D372-S-14054-18

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE: THE COMMITMENT OF TERRY HORNBUCKLE
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 6, 2023, we received a document entitled “Notice of Appeal 

Pursuant to Provisions of §[ ]841.146, Texas Health [and Safety] Code.” That same 

day, we sent the parties a letter informing them that we had received a copy of the 

notice of appeal in this case but that it appeared that the notice of appeal was 

premature because the trial court judge had not signed an order. See Tex. R. App. P. 

26.1(a), 27.1. We gave the parties reasonable time to correct the defect in the record, 

see Tex. R. App. P. 44.3, 44.4(a)(2), but did not receive a signed order.

We sent the parties a second letter on May 12, 2023, informing them that upon 

review of the record, it appeared that the trial court judge had sent the parties an 

emailed letter ruling on “Respondent’s Unauthorized Petition for Release” and had 

asked the State’s attorney to prepare an order for the judge to sign. We further stated 

that this order is not contained in the clerk’s record, however, and that the trial court 

clerk had informed this court that no order was ever signed. We permitted the parties 

another opportunity to correct the defect in the record, giving them until June 1, 

2023, to furnish this court a signed copy of the order that Appellant seeks to appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3, 44.4(a)(2). We stated that if no order was signed and 

furnished by that date, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

The deadline has passed, and we have not a received a signed copy of a final 

judgment or appealable order. We thus dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 
3

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001) (explaining that an appellate court has jurisdiction over appeals from final 

judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute).

Per Curiam

Delivered: June 29, 2023
A2 Flight Controller Settings for N919UV (S900)
A2 Flight Control Channel Mapping 
Zenmuse Settings for the S900Settings
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4786 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4786

 To cancel Federal oil and gas leases held by persons that manipulate 
  the market price of oil or gas in violation of Federal law, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2024

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To cancel Federal oil and gas leases held by persons that manipulate 
  the market price of oil or gas in violation of Federal law, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CANCELLATION OF OIL OR GAS LEASES HELD BY PERSONS THAT 
              MANIPULATE THE MARKET PRICE OF OIL OR GAS IN VIOLATION OF 
              FEDERAL LAW.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Federal oil and gas lease.--The term ``Federal oil and 
        gas lease'' means an oil and gas lease issued or authorized by 
        the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to applicable Federal 
        law.
            (2) OPEC country.--The term ``OPEC country'' means Algeria, 
        the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, 
        Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab 
        Emirates, or Venezuela.
            (3) OPEC plus country.--The term ``OPEC plus country'' 
        means Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, 
        Mexico, Oman, Russia, South Sudan, or Sudan.
    (b) Finding by the Federal Trade Commission.--If the Federal Trade 
Commission issues a final order that finds that a person that holds a 
Federal oil and gas lease coordinated with an OPEC country or an OPEC 
plus country to manipulate the market price of oil or gas in violation 
of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or the Clayton Act (15 
U.S.C. 12 et seq.)--
            (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall, to the extent 
        allowable by law--
                    (A) cancel each Federal oil and gas lease held by 
                that person; and
                    (B) not renew or extend any Federal oil and gas 
                lease held by that person; and
            (2) that person may not bid on any Federal oil and gas 
        lease beginning on the date on which the Federal Trade 
        Commission issues the final order.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4883 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to issue a report on interference by Islamic Republic of Iran in United States domestic politics, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Mr. COTTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Select Committee on Intelligence 

A BILL 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to issue 

a report on interference by Islamic Republic of Iran 

in United States domestic politics, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unmasking Networks 

5 of Virtual Election Interference and Lies Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4883 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON INTERFERENCE BY ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 

2 OF IRAN IN UNITED STATES DOMESTIC POLI3 TICS. 

4 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 30 days 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 

6 of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional 

7 intelligence committees (as defined in section 3 of the Na8 tional Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003)) a report 

9 detailing the interference by the Islamic Republic of Iran 

10 in United States domestic politics that occurred during the 

11 period beginning on October 7, 2023, and ending on the 

12 date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (b) CONTENTS.—The report submitted pursuant to 

14 subsection (a) that include the following: 

15 (1) A list of the social media accounts being 

16 run by the Islamic Republic. 

17 (2) A description of United States protestors to 

18 whom the Islamic Republic has provided financial 

19 support. 

20 (3) A list of the protests in the United States 

21 organized by the Islamic Republic. 

22 (4) A description of any Iran-led e-mail cam23 paigns targeted at officials of the Federal Govern24 ment, the government of a State, or United States 

25 voters. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4883 IS

1 (5) Such additional information about the inter2 ference described in subsection (a) as the Director 

3 finds relevant. 

4 (6) A description of which entities within the 

5 government of the Islamic Republic of Iran are in6 volved in the actions described in paragraphs (1) 

7 through (5). 

8 (c) FORM.—The report submitted pursuant to sub9 section (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but 

10 may include a classified annex. 

11 (d) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Not later than 30 days 

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 

13 shall make available to the public on a website of the Of14 fice of the Director of National Intelligence the unclassi15 fied portion of the report submitted pursuant to sub16 section (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB