alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mae Dickman, Respondent, v Stewart Tenants Corp. et al., Defendants, and P.S. Marcato Elevator, Inc., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 35]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J., and a jury), entered May 1, 1995, awarding plaintiff damages and bringing up for review an order of said court and Justice entered on or about April 7, 1995, denying defendant P.S. Marcato Elevator, Inc.’s motion to set aside the jury verdict which included a finding of damages for future pain and suffering in the amount of $150,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award for future pain and suffering based upon a seven year life expectancy is not excessive.

The jury’s verdict as to liability should not be disturbed. Defendant elevator company was contractually obligated to repair and maintain the elevator in plaintiff’s residential building. Contrary to defendant-appellant’s contention, negligence could have been inferred from its failure to take any corrective action to repair the elevator after receiving complaints regarding misleveling ranging from two weeks to the day before plaintiffs fall *(Rogers v Dorchester Assocs.,*32 NY2d 553, 559-562). Defendant’s negligence was also established through the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The three to six inches of misleveling ordinarily would not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, the elevator was within defendant-appellant’s exclusive control, and plaintiff did not in any way contribute to the misleveling *(see, Burgess v Otis El. Co.,*114 AD2d 784, 785-787, *affd*69 NY2d 623).

Defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to testify regarding the various causes of misleveling and the amount of time it should take to check an elevator for misleveling is unpreserved *(Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes,*28 NY2d 410,413). In any event, the expert was qualified to testify regarding these matters as he had 44 years of experience in the installation, maintenance and repair of elevators, includ*159ing his tenure as one of four Staff Field Engineers with Otis Elevator Company.

We have considered defendant-appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8531

ORLANDO SMITH, 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (6:07-cv-00327-RBH) 

Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, 

Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney 

General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Orlando Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT FELIX S. VANN, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-413 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Felix S. Vann, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 812.135(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009); Staley v. State, 934 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Edward Boote et al. *v.*United States

No. 7480.

Entry No. 744143, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, February 21, 1946, etc.

Certified February 21, 1946,-etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 11, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1947)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in the reappraisements listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

*336In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the. importers by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the British purchase tax, so-called.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Edgar Munson and others, *Respondents, v.*The Syracuse, Geneva and Corning Railway Company and another, *Appellants.*

— Motion for reargument denied.
| Fighting Proliferation**New Concerns for the Nineties***Edited by***Henry Sokolski**      The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,      Washington, D. C.Air University Press      Maxwell Air Force Base, AlabamaJanuary 1996**DISCLAIMER**This publication was produced in the Department of Defense      school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement      of national defense-related concepts. The views expressed in this      publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy      or position of the Department of Defense or the United States government.  This publication has been reviewed by security and policy authorities      and is cleared for public release.  
**
Contents*AU Press Home | AirUniversity LibraryAir University Home Page
 
Feedback? E-mail your comments or suggestions to AirUniversity Press 

Contents of this Web site reviewedand approved by AU/PA  (334) 953-2014   DSN 493-2014This page maintained by Thomas C.Lobenstein (AUL/LP)  (334) 953-6452  DSN 493-6452Report problems or send  comments about this page  to: Webeditor, Air University Press.

  ThisAir Force web site is compliant with Section 508 standards.* |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 41829.

#### Protest 462044-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that the Normandy laces in question are 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8575 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to revise the definition 

of institution for mental diseases under the Medicaid program to exclude 

from such definition institutions having 36 beds or less if such institutions meet certain standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2024 

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, 

and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to revise 

the definition of institution for mental diseases under 

the Medicaid program to exclude from such definition 

institutions having 36 beds or less if such institutions 

meet certain standards. 

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 ‘‘Michelle Alyssa Go 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8575 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVISING THE DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION FOR 

2 MENTAL DISEASES UNDER THE MEDICAID 

3 PROGRAM TO EXCLUDE FROM SUCH DEFINI4 TION INSTITUTIONS HAVING 36 BEDS OR 

5 LESS IF SUCH INSTITUTIONS MEET CERTAIN 

6 STANDARDS. 

7 Section 1905(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 1396d(i)) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(i) INSTITUTION FOR MENTAL DISEASES.—The 

10 term ‘institution for mental diseases’ means a hospital, 

11 nursing facility, or other institution that is primarily en12 gaged in providing diagnosis, treatment, or care of persons 

13 with mental diseases, including medical attention, nursing 

14 care, and related services, unless such hospital, facility, 

15 or other institution— 

16 ‘‘(1) has 36 beds or less; and 

17 ‘‘(2) meets nationally recognized, evidence18 based standards for mental health programs (and, in 

19 the case of an institution for mental diseases that 

20 provides treatment for substance use disorders, 

21 meets nationally recognized, evidence-based stand22 ards for substance use disorder programs, such as 

23 the latest standards set forth by the American Soci24 ety of Addiction Medicine) approved by the Sec25 retary, including standards that establish the types 

26 of services offered, hours of clinical care, and staffVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:32 Jul 17, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8575.IH H8575

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8575 IH

1 ing credentials for such an institution, and any other 

2 standards as the Secretary may require.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

5 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act and shall 

6 apply to State plans beginning on such date. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-QSB/A
 þ
    
    Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006
 o
    
    Transition Report pursuant to 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the transition period          to
 Commission File Number 000-50550
 
 GREAT WALL ACQUISITION CORPORATION
  Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction of 
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    20-0178991(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
 660 Madison Avenue  15 th Floor  New York, New York 10021
 (212) 753-0804
 þ o
 þ o
  o þ




---



##### 



TABLE
OF CONTENTS
 PagePART
I  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    
    
    2Item 3.
Controls and Procedures
    
    
    2PART
II  OTHER INFORMATION
    
    
    2Item 6.
Exhibits
    
    
    2EXHIBIT 31.1EXHIBIT 31.2
    i




---



##### Table of Contents



Item 3.
Controls and Procedures.
    
 Item 6. Exhibits.
 31.1
    
    Certification of the Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.1
    
    Certification of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 2




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  GREAT WALL ACQUISITION CORPORATION
(Registrant)Date:
November 30, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Kin Shing LiName: Kin Shing LiTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officerand Secretary (Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 3
No. 54747.

#### Amtorg Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144658-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5019 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 567
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5019

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2024

 Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                           November 20, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``United States Representative Elijah E. 
Cummings Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``United 
States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 567

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 5019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 20, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. EDWARD BOGGAN, Jr., Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

6 USCMA 111, 19 CMR 237

No. 6315

Decided June 24, 1955

Lt Col Edward Duvall, U. S. Army, Lt Col George M. Thorpe, U. S. Army, Capt Albert C. Malone, Jr., U. S. Army, and 1ST Lt Leslie D. Scharf, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col Thomas J. Newton, U. S. Army, Maj Clayton B. Tasker, U. S. Army, 1st Lt James G. Duffy, U. S. Army, and 1ST Lt A. Kenneth Pye, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial of two offenses of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 686; and assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 722. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement for two years. The convening authority disapproved the findings as to failure to obey, but approved both the finding as to assault and the sentence. A board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army, composed of three members but with only two participating, affirmed. We granted the petition for review only because other cases were pending which involve the same issue, namely, whether a board of review with two members sitting, possessed the power to act.

The principles set forth in United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff, 5 USCMA 824, 19 CMR 120, dispose of the only'issue in this case.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4985

_____________________________

KEVIN JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

May 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion 

under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

Kevin Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000594 23-DEC-2015 08:22 AM
(Reap. Dec. 9183)

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. for a/c Naftone, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 946928-1/2.

(Decided July 8, 1958)

*Eugene B. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

MollisoN, Judge:

The above-entitled appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement invoiced as Zusatzmittel SM (Additive A-9) consists of sulpho-nated castor oil, a non-coal tar product, which merchandise was appraised on the basis of United States value as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, at $0.68 per pound, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the foreign value of the said merchandise, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is DM 4.50 per kilo, net weight, packed, and that there is no freely offered export value of the said merchandise, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On the agreed facts I find foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value is DM 4.50 per kilo, net weight, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6388
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEVE WILLIAM FRAZIER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-130-4-BO) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 3, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleve William Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Cleve William Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Frazier , Nos. CR-96-54- BO; CA-99-130-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Robert Gillon et al., Appellants, v Merrill Lynch Interfunding, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 956]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered September 30, 1994, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Shainswit, J., without costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the quarterly
report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Peter A. Lacey, Interim Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and 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 Exchange Act; 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: August 17, 2012

| | By: | /s/
      PETER A. LACEY       
| | --- | -------------------------------
| |     |                                
| |     | Peter A. Lacey                 
| |     | Interim Chief Executive Officer

---