alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Hill et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Corning Incorporated et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[654 NYS2d 524]

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained by John Hill (plaintiff), an independent trucking contractor, when he slipped and fell on snow and ice as he walked from his truck toward the job trailer provided by defendant Bianchi Trison Corp. (Bianchi). Bianchi was the general contractor on the demolition project and defendant Corning Incorporated was the owner of the work site. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their common-law duty to provide a safe workplace, as codified in Labor Law § 200 (1) *(see, Hammond v International Paper Co.,*161 AD2d 914).

Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting undisputed proof that the slippery conditions at the work site were apparent to plaintiff. "[Defendants had no duty to protect plaintiff against a condition that may be readily observed” *(Ramski v Zappia Enters.,*229 AD2d 990; *see, Brezinski v Olympia & York Water St. Co.,*218 AD2d 633, 635; *Mc*
      *882
      *Grath v Lake Tree Vil. Assocs.,*216 AD2d 877, 877-878). We therefore modify the order by granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend the bill of particulars to allege violations of Labor Law § 241 (6). To establish defendants’ liability under that statute, plaintiffs had to show that defendants violated a regulation setting forth "a specific standard of conduct as opposed to a general reiteration of common-law principles” *(Adams v Glass Fab,*212 AD2d 972, 973). 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 is a general safety standard that does not "mandat[e] compliance with concrete specifications” *(Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 505). Thus, the alleged violation of that provision is not a basis for liability under section 241 (6) *(see, McMahon v Durst,*224 AD2d 324). Section 23-1.7 (d), although sufficiently specific *(see, Durfee v Eastman Kodak Co.,*212 AD2d 971, 972, *Iv dismissed*85 NY2d 968), has no application to the facts of this case because the open area where plaintiff fell is not a "floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [d]; *see, Ramski v Zappia Enters., supra; Stairs v State St. Assocs.,*206 AD2d 817, 818). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3733

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

George Johnson, also known as George * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dewey Johnson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 5, 1999

 Filed: May 10, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Johnson was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and

was sentenced as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). He

appealed, and on the government’s motion we remanded for resentencing. United

States v. Johnson, No. 98-1006, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 1998) (unpublished per

curiam). After a hearing, the district court1

 reimposed the original sentence. Johnson

again appeals, now arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying the
-2-

motion for mistrial he made immediately following a government witness’s unsolicited

statement that Johnson had “been in prison all his life.” Johnson argues that he had

stipulated to his status as a previously convicted felon and foregone his right to testify,

the witness’s statement was clearly prejudicial, and the court’s curative instruction was

insufficient. The government argues that Johnson waived this issue by not raising it in

his first appeal, and alternatively, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying a mistrial after striking the testimony as unresponsive and instructing the jury

to disregard it.

We agree with the government that Johnson waived this issue. See United States

v. Santonelli, 128 F.3d 1233, 1238 (8th Cir. 1997). In any case, Johnson has failed to

show that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial.

See United States v. Hall, 1999 WL 170678, at *12 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 1999).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Dick WAGNER, Appellant, v. Frances LIVINGSTON, Appellee.

No. 71-527.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 24, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Schneider Electric1Manufacturer Stance –National Impact Analysis●Proposal – using EL2●Equipment Class 4 (DL7 and DL8)●Quads of savings– EL2 1.09– EL4 1.24●NPV 3% ($ billions)– EL2 7.51– EL4 8.00●NPV 7% ($ billions)– EL2 1.88– EL4 1.85●Manufacture expensesDouble between EL2 and EL4●NEMA PREMIUM = TSL7 (EL3 & EL2)●Equipment Class 4 (DL7 and DL8)●Quads of savings– TSL7 1.10– TSL2 1.25●NPV 3% ($ billions)– TSL7 2.08– TSL2 8.45●NPV 7% ($ billions)– TSL7 2.05– TSL2 2.08●Manufacture expensesDouble between TSL7 and TSL2Schneider Electric2Change Manufacturer Stance to below(with scaling factor modified for 15, 750, and 1000kVA)kVA Efficiency kVA Efficiency15 97.70% 15 97.37%25 98.00% 30 98.24%37.5 98.20% 45 98.41%50 98.30% 75 98.60%75 98.50% 112.5 98.73%100 98.60% 150 98.82%167 98.70% 225 98.95%250 98.80% 300 99.02%333 98.90% 500 99.14%750 99.26%1000 99.33%Equipment Class 3 Equipment Class 4Efficiency @ 75°C and 35% LoadingSchneider Electric3Manufacturer Data●DL7 @ EL3 or TSL7●LCC savings: 1630 mean and 1567 median (EL4: 1695/1630)●97.6% of consumers would see benefit (EL4: 97.3%)●Allows manufactures to build with multiple materials but also strive for lowest cost solution which would lead toEL4 units being offered into market based on modeling data●DL8 @ EL2 or TSL7●LCC savings: 2448 mean and 2297 median (EL4: 2632/2400)●94.54% of consumers would see benefit (EL4: 84.59%)Schneider Electric4Modeling Data for Lowest Cost(using the exclusion scenario)●dEL 3●Still allows M6 for smallermanufactures●M4 and M3 cost very similar givinglarger manufacturers options formaterial●M4 and M3 allow manufacturers tooffer dEL 4 and dEL 5 to market forearly adoptersSchneider Electric5Modeling Data for Lowest Cost(using the exclusion scenario)●dEL 2●Still allows M6 for smallermanufacturers●M5, and M3 cost very similar givinglarger manufacturers options formaterial(M4 also an option)●M3 allow manufacturers to offer dEL 4to market for early adoptersSchneider Electric6Modeling Data for Lowest Cost●Comments●New materials and process are low cost solutions for DL7 and DL8●Manufacturer have ability to use the H0 and SA1 material and if model is correct – will migratetowards since shows as lowest cost products at dEL2/3 and dEL3
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2806.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1977.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ„ concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer ofDiedrich Coffee, Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of his knowledge:

 

•                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 17, 2003 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

•                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| Dated:   January 30, 2004 | /s/ Roger M. Laverty                  |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                     | Roger M. Laverty                      |
|                                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Note:  A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retainedby Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Jason BYRD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-555.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

Phillip Hubbart, Public Defender, and Robert Buchard, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the defendant seeks review of his conviction of breaking and en*727try of a truck with intent to commit grand larceny. He was also convicted of petit larceny.

We affirm the breaking and entry conviction. The proof was sufficient to establish a breaking and entry of the vehicle owned by the entity alleged in the information, and we do not find any merit in the contention that the larceny occurred of property owned by another. Edwards v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d *47;*§ 810.-05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

As to the misdemeanor conviction, pursuant to § 6(3), Article V, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A. review of this conviction must be held in the circuit court. This cause will be transferred to the circuit court by separate order. Spina v. State, Fla.App.1966,186 So.2d 808.

Therefore, finding no error in the conviction on the felony count, said judgment and sentence thereon is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
10.1


 


EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT


 


This
Exchange Agreement is made this 2nd day of June, 2020 by and between Bullfrog AI Holdings, Inc. a Nevada corporation (“Holdings”),
and Vininder (Vin) Singh.


 


W
I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS,
Vininder Singh (“Shareholder”) desires to exchange his shares in Bullfrog AI, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Bullfrog Delaware
for shares in Holdings;


 


WHEREAS,
Holdings desires to accommodate this exchange;


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the Shareholder hereby transfers and assigns to Holdings all rights, interest and title to his shares in Bullfrog Delaware
in exchange for 10,918,755 shares of Holdings common stock.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their respective hands and seals this 2nd day of June, 2020.


 


	 	
	 	Shareholder
	 	 	 
	 	BULLFROG AI HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	By:
    	
	 	 	Vin
    Singh, President
#### Edward J. SZOT, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., and Florida Department of Commerce, Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 70-535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Tad M. Ballantyne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Capsalus Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Capsalus Corp..


Date: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/ Steven M. GrubnerSteven M. Grubner, Chief Operating Officer
  
 I, Patrick G. Sheridan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Capsalus Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Capsalus Corp..


Date: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/ Patrick G. SheridanPatrick G. Sheridan, Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel., Robert L. GREENWOOD, Relator, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas Corpus dismissed.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  First Quarter 2002 and 2001




                                     First      First     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2002       2001     2002 rate  difference

United States.....................      67.8       67.5        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.0       65.8        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      51.5       51.6        0.3         0.4
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.6       74.3        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.5       74.7        0.3         0.5

 Northeast........................      63.9       63.6        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      73.1       73.2        0.3         0.5
 South............................      69.9       69.3        0.2         0.4
 West.............................      62.2       62.0        0.3         0.5
Exhibit 4.1



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


October 25, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 587 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon
is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in the Registration
Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on October 24, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New
York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-266193) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this
consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
POSITION AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED
INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              46
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      518
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                         77
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   789
<PP&E>                                          12,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,059
<BONDS>                                          4,709
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,070
<SALES>                                            499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   499
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     39
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 31
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        31
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
#### Luther L. CREEL, Appellant, *v.*STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 7, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smith Micro Software,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: May 5, 2011
    /s/ William W. Smith, Jr.William W. Smith, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             306
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,633
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,412
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,965
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,661
<LOANS>                                         52,466
<ALLOWANCE>                                        155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,015
<DEPOSITS>                                      67,866
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                833
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  97,015
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,057
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  636
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   158
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,851
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,518
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,768
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,082
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    443
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         443
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.75
<LOANS-NON>                                        171
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    695
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   131
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  155
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               140
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             15
        

</TABLE>