alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Quality Custom Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Ranisha McMeo, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Country Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein of counsel), for appellant.Rossillo &amp; Licata, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered December 7, 2016, deemed from a judgment of that court entered March 13, 2017 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the December 7, 2016 order, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. By order entered December 7, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered on March 13, 2017, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (<i>see </i>CPLR 5501 [c]).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant's proof was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim form had been properly mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). In addition, the peer review report submitted by defendant sufficiently set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue and plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence to rebut the conclusions set forth in the peer review report. Plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur. </p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>July 12, 2019<br>Decision Date: July 12, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2011 of Superior Venture Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Michael MooreMichael MooreChief Executive Officer/s/ Michael MooreMichael MooreChief Financial OfficerDated: August 12, 2011   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Superior Venture Corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1









CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)












Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Accelerated Acquisitions I, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.












Date: June 27, 2011









/s/ Timothy J. NeherTimothy J. NeherPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS XIV, INC. and will be retained by ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS XIV, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(a)

[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP LETTERHEAD]

                   CONSENT OF SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

    We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the Prospectus filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 to
Form N-4 (File No. 33-43654) for ML of New York Variable Annuity Separate
Account A of ML Life Insurance Company of New York. In giving this consent, we
do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required
under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                    <C>  <C>
                                                       SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

                                                                      /s/ KIMBERLY J. SMITH
                                                            -----------------------------------------
                                                                     Kimberly J. Smith, Esq.
</TABLE>

Washington, D.C.
April 27, 2001
No. 43006.

#### Protests 842081-G, etc., of Marr Duplicator Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that the subject of *Marr*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 435, C. D. 173). The claim at 15 percent and 5 cents per pound as surface-coated paper was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Landis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.
 
 Date: March 21, 2012
By:

/s/     Kevin LandisKevin Landis

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2007180EN.01000402.xml

| 2.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4774 — Adecco/Torrita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 180/06)

On 25 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4774. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4774. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Case Mo. 6,403.

#### GIBSON et al. v. WILLIAMS.

[Brunner, Col. Cas. *19;*
      *1*
      **2 Hayw. N. C. 281.]

Circuit Court, D. North Carolina.

1803.

Heir—Liability roit Debts *of*Ancestor.

If an heir pay debts of his ancestor, so much of the land which descended to him, as is equal to - such payments, shall be deemed to have been purchased by the heir. The surplus of such land shall be charged to him at its value at the time he sold it; not what it was worth at the time it descended to him. The heir is not liable to other creditors of the ancestor for interest on such surplus.

This was a scire facias [against the heir of Williams] to subject him to the payment of a debt recovered against the executor of Wm. Williams, his ancestor. He pleaded that he had nothing by devise, and as to what he had by descent, that he had in 1796 mortgaged the lands descended, to certain creditors of his ancestor for eighteen hundred dollars, and had paid bond debts besides to the value of the lands. It appeared he had in 1801 sold the equity of redemption, and these questions arose as to the value above the debts paid for his ancestor—First, shall he pay interest for the surplus ? and it was held by MARSHALL, Circuit Justice, and POTTER, District Judge, that he should not; secondly, as to the value, shall it be estimated at its worth at the death of the ancestor, or at the time of the mortgage, or at the time of sale in 1801?

PER CURIAM.

So much of the lands, as the money secured by the mortgage was worth, shall be deemed to have been purchased by the heir, by payment of the debts of the ancestor; the surplus of the land shall be estimated at its worth at the time of sale in 1801. It must not be valued at its worth at the time of descent to the defendant, for the intermediate profits are a recompense for the expenses incident to holding the land, such as taxes and the like. Verdict and-judgment accordingly.
# C_2007155EN.01004001.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

---

Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Celltech Pharma (Cellutrim)

(Case T-169/07)

(2007/C 155/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Longevity Health Products Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J.E. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | declaration that the application is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declaration that the application is admissible;

| — | annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 March 2007 and dismissal of the application by Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG that Community trade mark registration No 3979036 be declared invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 March 2007 and dismissal of the application by Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG that Community trade mark registration No 3979036 be declared invalid; and

| — | order that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Cellutrim’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35 (Community trade mark No 3979036).

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The word mark ‘Cellidrin’ for goods in class 5.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Cancellation of the Community trade mark concerned in relation to goods in class 5.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Faulty reasoning of the Board of Appeal, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

Pleas in law:

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD BLOODWORTH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122 

 Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,

et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss “plaintiff’s third amended

complaint.” Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 39. Defendants’ motion refers

specifically to Doc. No. 34. In response, plaintiff filed a motion to

strike defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, arguing that he has not filed a

third amended complaint. Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 45.

Plaintiff’s history of filing illegible documents has resulted in

some confusion in the record of this case. Nevertheless, it is clear

that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss addresses the complaint appearing at

Doc. No. 34. Moreover, even plaintiff acknowledges that that filing

represents the operative complaint in this action. Under these

circumstances, plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 45, is DENIED.

Plaintiff has also asked for an extension of time in which to make

substantive response to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Motion Requesting

Extension of Time, Doc. No. 47. That motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may

have until December 30, 2011 to make substantive response to the Motion

to Dismiss.

December 8, 2011 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/08/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 2:11-CR-63(8) 

v. 

CALINDA WILLIS, JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

Defendant Magistrate Judge Kemp 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on upon Defendant Calinda Willis's ("Defendant" or 

"Willis") unopposed Motion to Modify Conditions ofProbation/Alter Judgment, (Doc. 202). On 

December 2, 2011, this Court entered judgment as to Willis, (Doc. 170), sentencing her to three 

(3) years' probation. The conditions of Defendant's probation include a requirement to complete 

208 hours of community service by December 2, 2012. Due to serious medical difficulties in the 

past year, Defendant asks that this Court to grant her until February 28, 2013 to complete her 

required hours. Plaintiff United States of America does not oppose this request. Defendant's 

motion is therefore GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2012 

1 

s/ Algenon L. Marbley 

Algenon L. Marbley 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cr-00063-ALM-NMK Doc #: 203 Filed: 12/05/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 34.1








ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH




SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES











REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy Arkansas, Inc.


Little Rock, Arkansas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP




New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2012
# C_2007170EN.01002101.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Parlante v Commission

(Case T-432/04) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Promotions procedure 2003 - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Consideration of comparative merits - Equal treatment - General implementing provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Legitimate expectations)

(2007/C 170/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Walter Parlante (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of (1) the Appointing Authority's decision of 5 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that same authority's decision to refuse him promotion to Grade C1 under the 2003 procedure and (2), in so far as it is necessary, the decision which was the subject of that complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

1

---
No. 48629.

#### Petition 6107-R of Montgomery Ward & Co. (Denver).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The petition was therefore dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 JohnsonDiversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



|(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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                              
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward F. Lonergan                                       
|                      |  | Edward F. Lonergan, President and Chief Executive
Officer    
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Joseph F. Smorada                                        
|                      |  | Joseph F. Smorada, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):

Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053

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 Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Myers, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Broder Bros., Co., certify, 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 Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2006



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/ THOMAS MYERSThomas Myers Interim Chief Executive Officer