alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brenda Boodram et al., Appellants, v NYU Downtown Hospital et al., Respondents.

[737 NYS2d 277]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered July 24, 2001, dismissing the complaint upon the parties’ respective motions for, inter alia, summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 4, 2001, July 31, 2001 and October 31, 2000, respectively, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

No genuine issues of fact exist as to either defendant hospital’s ownership of the subject housing accommodations through the former Mitchell Lama holding company that holds title to the accommodations, or defendant’s operation of the accommodations through the holding company’s board of directors, which is composed entirely of defendant’s officers and directors. Accordingly, the accommodations are exempt from rent stabilization under section 5 (a) (6) of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4, as amended [McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8625 (a) (6)]). Furthermore, assuming in plaintiffs’ favor that section 8625 (a) (6) exempts only accommodations that are both operated by a hospital and run on a nonprofit basis, plaintiffs fail to adduce any evidence that the accommodations are not run on a nonprofit basis, as the holding company’s filings indicate. It makes no difference *390that the accommodations generate a profit for defendant (N-PCL 204; *see, Kemp’s Bus Serv. v Livingston-Wyoming Ch. of NYSARC,*267 AD2d 1085, 1086), and no evidence is adduced to support plaintiffs’ bare speculation that profits are being used for the personal use of defendant’s directors and officers. Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments are also without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.
# C_2015287EN.01000301.xml

| 1.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/3

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 287/04)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Lorient (Lann-Bihoué) – Lyon (Saint-Exupéry) |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation | 28 June 1996 |
| Date of entry into force of the changes | 1 January 2016 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Order of 6 August 2015 amending the Order of 13 June 2013 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Lorient and Lyon
  NOR : DEVA1519062A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:





  Direction générale de l’aviation civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Lorient (Lann-Bihoué) – Lyon (Saint-Exupéry)

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation

28 June 1996

Date of entry into force of the changes

1 January 2016

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Order of 6 August 2015 amending the Order of 13 June 2013 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Lorient and Lyon

NOR : DEVA1519062A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction générale de l’aviation civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
June 10, 2015

Mr. Leif Murray 3707 N County Road 1050W Fairbanks, IN 47849

Dear Mr. Murray:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1781), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Eleanor VENGEL, Appellant, v. Carl C. VENGEL, Appellee.

No. 72-1354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Trig Acquisition 1, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2012 (the “Report”), I, David Danhi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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), as applicable, 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.



|Date: November 26, 2012 | /s/ David Danhi                                              
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | David Danhi                                                  
|                        | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
from within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Jack GREEN v. Jessie GREEN.

No. 39269.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 228 So.2d 112.
#### D & N MOTORS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. G. D. BUMPAS, Appellee.

No. 46554.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 28, 1972.

Maynard, Fitzgerald, Maynard & Bradley, O. L. Garmon, III, Clarksdale, for appellants.

Brewer, Luckett & Shackelford, Jon M. Barnwell, Clarksdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table of Contents
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         738,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                 199,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,121,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       512,754
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,121,641
<SALES>                                        158,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,075
<CGS>                                          133,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,312
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,368
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
# C_2015077EN.01000801.xml

| 5.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/8

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2015/C 77/07)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1000 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than 3 months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Polyethylene terephthalate | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1030/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 300, 17.11.2010, p. 1). | 18.11.2015 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Polyethylene terephthalate

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1030/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 300, 17.11.2010, p. 1).

18.11.2015

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Reprimand filed by the Petitioner, the

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

, and Respondent, Celestine Tatung

, on

August 9, 2023, in the above

- captioned case, in which the parties advise that the

Respondent agrees that his conduct, as described in the Joint Petition

, violat ed Rule 1.15

(safekeeping property) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and

Federal Immigration Rules of Professional Conduct of Practitioner s , 8 C .F.R. §

1003.102(n) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), (q)(1) and (2)

(diligence), and (r)(1)

- (3) (communication) and that the Respondent consents to a

reprimand, it is this 15th day of August 202 3

ORDERED

, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the Respondent, Celestine

Tatung , is REPRIMANDED for violating Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property) of the District

of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and Federal Immigration Rules of Professional

Conduct of Practitioners, 8 C .F.R. § 1003. 102(n) (conduct prejudicial to the administration

of justice), (q)(1) and (2) (diligence), and (r)(1)

- (3) (communication)

.

Shirley M. Watts

Senior Justice ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

CELESTINE TATUNG *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 38

September Term, 20 22
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 PinstripesNY, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clifford Teller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





/s/ Clifford Teller_______

Clifford Teller

Principal Financial Officer

February 14, 2011
#### Avery N. STRAUSS, Petitioner, v. LOUIS SWED DISTRIBUTING COMPANY and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37804.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 19, 1969.

George H. Brown, III, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

E. O. Palermo, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, to review the order of the Florida Industrial Commission in said cause, bearing date August 19, 1968, and the Petitioner having failed to show that the essential requirements of law have been violated, it is ordered that said Petition be and the same is hereby denied.

Petition for attorney’s fees is also denied.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, ADKINS, BOYD and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
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 on Form 10-Q/A of CFC
International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory M. Jehlik, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 and 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.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ Gregory M. Jehlik                
|                     |  | Gregory M. Jehlik                    
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



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



31
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6968

BRANDON ROBERTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE DEFENDANT; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; JEFFREY NINES, Warden of NBCI; WAYNE WEBB, former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden of MCTC , Defendants

- Appellees

.

No. 23

- 6232

BRANDON ROBERTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE; JEFFREY NINES, Warden at N.B.C.I.; WAYNE WEBB, Former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warde n of MCTC , Defendants

- Appellees

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00340

- ELH )

Submitted : July 20, 2023 Decided: August 1, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brandon Roberts , Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Samuel Thomas Wolf , MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA , Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Brandon Roberts appeals the district court’s order s in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing the claims against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. , and denying Roberts’ motion for discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order s
. Roberts v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. , No. 1:20

- cv - 00340

- ELH (D. Md. filed July 26,
2022 & entered July 27, 2022 ; Dec. 7, 2022; filed Feb. 10, 2023 & entered Feb. 13, 2023 )

. We deny Roberts’ motion for clarification and correction of filings and dispense with oral

argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3097

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research on the

effects that environmental factors have on women’s health.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1993

Ms. FURSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for

research on the effects that environmental factors have

on women’s health.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3097 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Health Envi3 ronmental Factors Research Act of 1993’’.

4 SEC. 2. RESEARCH ON EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FAC5 TORS ON WOMEN’S HEALTH.

6 Subpart 12 of part C of title IV of the Public Health

7 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285), as amended by section 1301

8 of Public Law 103–43 (107 Stat. 169), is amended by

9 adding at the end the following section:

10 ‘‘EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON WOMEN’S

11 HEALTH

12 ‘‘SEC. 463B. (a) The Director of the Institute shall

13 carry out research on the effects that environmental fac14 tors have on women’s health conditions (as defined in sec15 tion 486), including the effect of such factors on breast

16 cancer, immune disfunction, and estrogen-like compounds

17 (and related compounds).

18 ‘‘(b) For the purpose of carrying out subsection (a),

19 there are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for

20 fiscal year 1994, and such sums as may be necessary for

21 each of the fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Such authoriza22 tion is in addition to any other authorization of appropria23 tions that is established with respect to such purpose.’’.

Æ
#### HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK IN NEW ORLEANS v. Dave DEGRAAUW a/k/a David M. DeGraauw and Sherie A. Conrad.

No. 60407.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 1977.

In re: Hibernia National Bank in New Orleans applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus. 351 So.2d 1223.

Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is correct. The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans is ordered to act on the writ application.
#### Anne MEISELMAN and Bruce Meiselman, Appellants, v. Hyman WEBMAN and Sylvia Webman d/b/a Ben-Ro Apartments, Appellees.

No. 73-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
250 La. 97

#### HUMBLE PIPE LINE COMPANY v. WM. T. BURTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

No. 48548.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1967.

In re: Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc., applying for writs of certiorari and review.

Writs denied. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of an adverse judgment on the merits.

McCALEB, J.,

is of the opinion that a devolutive appeal is an inadequate remedy in expropriation cases when there is an issue of necessity and public purpose involved. Therefore, the writ should be granted.
No. 00-7394.

#### Fordjour *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.