alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Susan Oppenheim, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 645]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated March 28, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The New York City Transit Authority "owes no duty to protect a person on its premises from assault by a third person, absent facts establishing a special relationship between the *589authority and the person assaulted” *(Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*55 NY2d 175, 178; *Harrell v New York City Tr. Auth.,*221 AD2d 591; *Tidd v New York City Tr. Auth.,*218 AD2d 694; *Alleyne v New York City Tr. Auth.,*208 AD2d 666).

Here, there are no facts establishing a special relationship. Although a transit employee observed the plaintiff when she was engaged in a verbál dispute with another passenger, and that passenger later assaulted the plaintiff, the plaintiff was "owed no special duty of care by defendant to protect her from the sudden and unforeseeable assault” *(Katz v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*233 AD2d 231, 232). Because "there was no warning or indication that the assailant would engage in physical violence against the * * * plaintiff [t]he alleged failure of the [transit employee] to anticipate the * * * assault * * * cannot, therefore, be held to constitute negligence” *(Rabadi v County of Westchester,*160 AD2d 858, 859). The plaintiff’s claim that the transit employee must have viewed the assault is based on speculation and conjecture, and is insufficient to defeat the motion *(see, Morgan v New York Tel.,*220 AD2d 728; *Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Jacobs,*185 AD2d 913). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

People of Ml v Maran Christopher Simmons 

Docket No. 32 19 15 

LC No. 13-003313-FH 

Patrick M. Meter 

Presiding Judge 

Kurtis T. Wilder 

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Judges 

The Court orders that the November 24, 2015 concurring opinion is hereby AMENDED. 

The opinion contained the fo llowing clerical error: RONAYNE KRAUSE, J ., (dissenting). It should read, 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J., (concurring). 

In all other respects, the November 24, 20 15 concurring opin ion remains unchanged. 

A true copy entered and certifi ed by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr .. Chier Clerk. on 

JAN O 7 2016 

Date 

~tVhic~ ~
Explanation of preamble reference in EPA’s 2015 Significant New Use Rule for 

Hexabromochlorododecane, (HBCD) Final Rule

Reference name: "EPA. 2012b. Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential 

Business Information Tracking System (CBITS). February, 2012.”

Explanation: EPA’s Economics and Policy Analysis Branch researched Significant New Use 

Notifications in the EPA’s CBI Tracking System database in February, 2012.
nhwcommutationagreementf






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A5AA7A9-8F9C-4522-B808-D018223BC011
Exhibit 4.18


 


Schedule
of ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASE Agreements


 


As these agreements are identical in every case except for pricing,
quantities and term, we have, for ease of reference, filed only one standard agreement and provided this schedule to indicate the
agreements that we have omitted from filing as exhibits to this registration statement on Form 20-F.


 


		1.	First Amended and Restated Electric Energy Purchase Agreement (2 Years), dated as of July 29, 2020, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A., Greenyellow Serviços e Comercialização de Energia Ltda. and Companhia Brasileira de Distribuição.
# C_2021278EN.01003501.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Starkinvest SRL

(Case C-291/21)

(2021/C 278/49)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Starkinvest SRL

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a judgment which has been served, ordering a party to make a penalty payment in the event of breach of a prohibitory order, constitute a decision requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a judgment which has been served, ordering a party to make a penalty payment in the event of breach of a prohibitory order, constitute a decision requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure? (1)

| 2. | Does a judgment ordering a party to make a penalty payment, although enforceable in the country of origin, fall within the meaning of ‘judgment’ in Article 4 of Regulation No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order where there has been no final determination of the amount in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a judgment ordering a party to make a penalty payment, although enforceable in the country of origin, fall within the meaning of ‘judgment’ in Article 4 of Regulation No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order where there has been no final determination of the amount in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (2)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2014 L 189, p. 59).

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 12, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00818

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.C. , A Child

,

Fr om the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 1390

- CV

- A Honorable Dulce Madrigal, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 2, 2020, appellant requested a copy of the appellate record and appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants indigent criminal defendants the right to counsel, but only in criminal cases, not civil cases. Culver v. Culver , 360 S.W.3d 526, 535 n.17 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2011, no pet.). The clerk’s record indicates this case is a modification of child support case that does not involve circumstances that would trigger statutory rights to counsel, such as the termination of parental right s or enforcement of arrearage through civil or criminal contempt. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 107.012

- .013 (termination of parental rights); see id. § 157.163 (enforcement of arrearage through civil or criminal contempt). We therefore DENY appellant’s requ est for appointment of counsel and GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the record.

______ ___________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of February, 2020

.

_____ ______________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CHRISTINE CANNON,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM J. MACNEAL, JR., AND ROSEMARY MACNEAL,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 303 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metromedia International
Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Harold F. Pyle III, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer 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,
that:  a)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
andb)
    
    the Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Dated this 17th day of June 2004.
    METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC./s/ HAROLD F. PYLE, IIIHarold F. Pyle, IIIExecutive Vice President Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer) 61
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFIK MNATSAKANYAN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72173

Agency No. A071

- 117

- 549

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges.

Rafik Mnatsakanyan , a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Con vention Against Torture (“CAT”) . We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72173

review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Silaya v. Mukasey

,

524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) , and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that M natsakanyan

failed to establish his and his brother’s Iranian birth was one central reason for any

past mistreatment he suffered in Armenia or for his brother’s death

. See

Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (th e REAL ID Act

“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum

applicant’ s persecution”) . Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s

determination that Mnatsakanyan failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear

of f uture persecution on account of his Iran ian birth or his ties to the United States.

See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future

persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to

Mnatsakanyan’s claim for asylum.

Because Mnatsakanyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

See Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Mnatsakanyan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be3 14

- 72173

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government if

re turned. See Silaya , 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. L. V. ROBERTSON et al., Respondents.

No. 40624.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### HOLIDAY DINNER THEATRES OF AMERICA, INC., Appellant, v. Frank BARTKE, Individually, and Causeway, Properties, Inc., trading as Bartke’s Dinner Theatre, Appellees.

No. 72-964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 1, 1973.

Lemuel S. Hunnicutt, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

William E. Thompson, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Holiday Dinner Theatres of America, Inc., plaintiff in the trial court, has appealed from an order dismissing with prejudice its third amended complaint. The question presented is whether the said complaint alleges ultimate facts to sufficiently apprise the appellees of the nature of the cause of action and to withstand the attack of the motion to dismiss the said complaint filed by appellees.

FRCP 1.110(b), 30 F.S.A., requires that a claim for relief must state a cause of action, and, further, provides that a minimum complaint consists of a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts justifying the relief.

FRCP 1.120(b) requires that “. [i]n all averments of fraud . . . the circumstances constituting fraud shall be stated with such particularity as the circumstances may permit. . . .”

In viewing the allegations of the third amended complaint in which is incorporated therein by reference certain allegations contained in the original and second amended complaint, we hold that the foregoing pleading standards have been satisfied.

Further, in considering the motion to dismiss, movant is deemed to admit, as true, for the purposes of the motion only, material facts well pleaded therein. This proposition of law is supported by a plethora of case law too numerous to cite herein.

We submit that, in our judgment, the eminent trial judge erred in his decision to terminate the case sub judice at this stage of the proceedings. We hold that the subject complaint stated a cause of action and appellants should have the opportunity of *377attempting to prove its case, i. e., to its day in court.

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
[No. 587-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

October 18, 1971.]

#### Lettie La Faun Taylor, *Appellant,*v. La Don’s Parkettes, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King *921County, No. 694298, Soli'e M. Ringold, J., entered March 4, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Tronox Pigments (Savannah), Inc. 

BART Exemption Modeling 

Stack Data 

I I I UTM East UTM North I Stack Height I Stack Diameter I Exhaust Velocity I Exhaust Temperature I Exhaust Flow 

Note: 

The "Chloride Finishing Line ATanks" and "Chloride Finishing Line B Tanks" exhaust through the same stack. The "Chloride Finishing Line B Tanks" are not a BART-eligible source. 

Tronox - BART Exemption Modeling Data.xls Stack Data 
Tronox Pigments (Savannah), Inc. 

BART Exemption Modeling 

Emission Source Data 

Stack ID Sources PMIO H2S04 

Sulfuric Acid Plant 0.174 See Notes 0.15 

Notes: 

The emissions from "Chloride Finishing Line A Tanksn and "Chloride Finishing Line B Tanks" exhaust through the same stack. The "Chloride Finishing Line B Tanks" are not a BART-eligible source. Emissions data for the "Chloride Finishing Line B Tanks" are provided for information purposes only, and 

should not be incorporated into the BART exemption modeling runs for Stack ID 1024. 

For the Chloride Finishing Line A Tanks, PMI 0 emissions are conservatively assumed to be equal to PM emissions. PM emissions were estimated by scaling the PM emissions data reported in the annual emission statement for calendar year 2003. 

For the Sulfuric Acid Plant, NOx emissions are estimated based on an emission factor used in the annual emission statements. 

For the Sulfuric Acid Plant, SO2 and H2S04 emissions are estimated based on the emission standards specified in 40 CFR 60 Subpart H (Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants). The emission standards for SO2 and H2S04 are 4.0 lblton and 0.15 Iblton, respectively. 

For the Sulfuric Acid Plant, it is assumed that PMI 0 emissions are equal to H2S04 emissions. For modeling purposes, emissions of PMlO and H2S04 are not additive. 

Tronox - BART Exemption Modeling Data.xls Emission Source Data
#### Alberta BOHANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-705.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ray HAMILTON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-237, 73-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 8, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05349]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request; National Endowment for the Arts Panelist Profile Form

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and the Humanities.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program helps 
to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed 
information collection of: National Endowment for the Arts Panelist 
Profile Form. A copy of the current information collection request can 
be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address 
section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication 
in the Federal Register. The NEA is particularly interested in comments 
which:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity 
of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond.

ADDRESSES: Email comments to plowitzk@arts.gov or mail to Kathy 
Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., 
Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5691 (this is not a 
toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5049.

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2015-05349 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
Exhibit99.1

 

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

                (1)    The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

                (2)    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

/s/ John H. SottileJohn H. Sottile Chairman of the Board of Directors,    President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2002
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 Golden  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended November 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.

Dated:      January 11, 2008



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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


                                       22
September 8th, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 12258 ­ Regulatory Docket No.

FAA–2015–2059 to included Closed­Set Motion Picture Filming

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to the Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Reform

Act"), Patrick Heaphy (the "applicant"), operator of an Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("UAS")

seeks to Amend Exemption No. 12258 to additionally permit closed set motion picture and

filming.

Applicant:

Patrick Heaphy

Liberty Post, LLC

2 Hartshorn Lane

West Nyack, NY 10994
#### GREATER MIAMI BEACH MOTEL ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., Appellants. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 72-908.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1973.

Fuller & Feingold, Miami Beach, and Howard M. Neu, North Miami, for appellants.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and St. Ju-lien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and McCAIN, DAVID L„ Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

See Bearden v. Metropolitan Dade County, 258 So.2d 344 (Fla.App.3d, 1972).

Affirmed.
[No. 270-3.

Division Three.

July 14, 1971.]

#### Delores M. Welch, *Respondent,*v. Francis E. Welch, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 192608, John J. Dally, J., entered September 26, 1969. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.