alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Moore et al., Respondents, v Anthony Eyzenberg, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 624]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July 11, 2001, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike his answer for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery of documents.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision unconditionally granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery of documents, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion to the extent of striking the defendant’s answer unless he produces documents in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 26, 2001, and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant’s time to produce the documents is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order.

The record indicates that the defendant experienced difficulty *543in retrieving the relevant documents from a former attorney, that he had complied with previous discovery demands and court orders, and that he had already submitted to a deposition. Under the circumstances of this case we substitute our discretion for that of the trial court (see, *Brady v Ottaway Newspapers,*63 NY2d 1031, 1033; *Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities,*70 NY2d 831, 833), to provide the defendant with one last opportunity to produce the documents in question and thereby avoid the striking of his answer. Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### TAYLOR v. COOK.

No. 38473.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 218 So.2d 494.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN A. T. CROSS COMPANY FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,530
<INVENTORY>                                     27,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,734
<PP&E>                                         105,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,296
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,093
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,071
<SALES>                                         36,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,325
<CGS>                                           19,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                       434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7088 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ‘‘Senator Jack Hill 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. FERGUSON, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. LEWIS, Mrs. MCBATH, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. 

AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, and 

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as 

the ‘‘Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATOR JACK HILL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, 

6 Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Senator 

7 Jack Hill Post Office Building’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7088 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Jack Hill 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Rodney HAZELTINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
255 La. 787

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Adam LAWRENCE v. William C. PERCY.

No. 50453.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1970.

In re: Adam Lawrence applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The trial judge has reduced bail and relator’s application is thus made moot.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 02, 2017. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 02, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0560. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS et al. v. MARIANA MARCIAL LOPEZ.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV287840
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          31,924
<SECURITIES>                                     2,391
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,679
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,957
<PP&E>                                          39,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,199
<SALES>                                        290,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,942
<CGS>                                          228,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,577
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### William Donald BISHOP, Appellant, v. William G. SHIMER, and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellee.

No. R-498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1973.

Carlton L. Welch, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Lloyd C. Leemis, of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, Jacksonville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

The record, briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties having been considered and it appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed herein is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., SPECTOR, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW, Associate Judge, concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

HECTOR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ANDSUBSIDIARIES

Chief Financial Officer Certification

I, Charles A. Braun, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of HectorCommunications Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|                         |   | By     | /s/Charles A. Braun     |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   |   | Charles A. Braun        |
| Date:  December 1, 2003 |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----