alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Theresa A. Denning, Respondent, v City of Pough*980keepsie, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Benson, J.), entered November 16, 1989 in Dutchess County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The complaint in this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleges that on January 24, 1986 while crossing Market Street in front of lot No. 50 in the City of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, plaintiff tripped on a broken, uneven excavation patch and fell. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that prior written notice of the alleged defective condition had not been served on it as required by its Charter Laws. Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of whether defendant created the claimed defective condition (CPLR 2218). After the hearing the court denied the motion, giving rise to this appeal by defendant.

The proof at the hearing showed that closed cuts for utility repairs in the asphalt pavement extending in front of both 50 and 52 Market Street existed and that closing and recovering openings was defendant’s responsibility. Defendant’s Assistant Superintendent of Public Works testified that the same crews which close utility openings also repair all potholes. Defendant’s records show that a permit had been issued for a utility repair cut in front of 52 Market Street on October 27, 1982 and that defendant was solely responsible for both the opening and closing. Plaintiff alleges that this particular opening had been filled; that the patch had eroded and deteriorated; that repairs had been made by placing more blacktop around the edges; and that she tripped on the blacktop that had been added to the patch. Two public utilities and the owner of 50 Market Street were ruled out as responsible for the opening and closing of the subject cut and defendant’s witness testified that openings by defendant were not always recorded. Based on this proof, Supreme Court concluded that the repair work around the patch had been undertaken by defendant and that plaintiff satisfied her burden of proving that defendant had created the condition, thereby excusing her compliance with the prior written notice requirement. We agree *(see, Kiernan v Thompson,*73 NY2d 840, 842; *Rehfuss v City of Albany,*118 AD2d 987).

Plaintiff demonstrated that the cause of her fall was a defect in the street created by defendant. Defendant has not made a showing that the patch was properly made or was *981subject to a change due to deterioration caused by wear and tear, time and weather *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853). These issues remain for resolution at trial. Accordingly, denial of summary judgment was proper.

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 10 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00648- CV

IN RE LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-86095



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 26, 2019, relator Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel
the Honorable Steven Kirkland , presiding judge of the 334th District Court of Harris2

County, to vacate his Jun e 11, 2019 order striking the counter

- affidavit of Matthew Koepplinger, D.O.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.
Because relator has not provided our court with a transcript of the hearing on the motion to strike the counter-affidavit or a statement that that no testimony was adduced at the hearing in connection with the matter complained, as required by Rule 52.7(a)(2), we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, without prejudice to filing a new petition that complies with Rule52.7(a)(2).

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Exhibit 32.1


**CERTIFICATION
OF CO-PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER**
**PURSUANT
TO**
**18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
**AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
**SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
officer of American Technology Corporation (the “Company”), that, to his
knowledge, the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K
for the fiscal ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such
report.



Dated: March
  17, 2005


/s/Elwood G.
Norris
Elwood G. Norris, Chairman of the
Board
(Co-Principal
Executive Officer)

/s/Kalani
Jones
Kalani
Jones, President and Chief Operating Officer
(Co-Principal
Executive Officer)



/s/Michael
A. Russell
Michael A.
Russell, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal
Financial Officer)
xlgroup-12.31.2013-EX_10.6




Exhibit 10.6




AMENDMENT TO XL GROUP PLC
1991 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PROGRAM 
(as amended and restated on May 6, 2011)


WHEREAS, Section IX.A. of the XL Group plc 1991 Performance Incentive Program, as amended and restated on May 6, 2011 (the “Program”) provides that the Board of Directors of XL Group plc (the “Company”) may amend the Program from time to time, as it may deem appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company wishes to amend the Program to clarify the scope of the authority that may be delegated by the Committee (as defined in the Program) to other persons; 
NOW, THEREFORE, Section II.A. of the Program is amended, effective immediately, to read in its entirety as follows:  “The Company and the Committee may delegate their authority to perform any of their functions relating to administration of the Program to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company or his or her delegates with respect to Awards granted to Participants who are not officers or directors of the Company for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.”
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                            THE TIMES MIRROR COMPANY
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    FOURTH QUARTER
                                                                   ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                              ---------------------------
                                                                 1997            1996
                                                              -----------    ------------
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
BASIC
Average shares outstanding..................................   88,106,246      98,183,269
                                                              ===========    ============
Net income..................................................  $    72,169    $     78,679
Preferred dividend requirements.............................       (5,424)        (10,912)
                                                              -----------    ------------
Earnings applicable to common shareholders..................  $    66,745    $     67,767
                                                              ===========    ============
Basic earnings per common share.............................  $       .76    $        .69
                                                              ===========    ============
 
DILUTED
Average shares outstanding..................................   88,106,246      98,183,269
Common shares assumed issued upon conversion of Series B
  preferred stock...........................................                    7,789,276
Common shares assumed issued upon conversion of LYONs.......    2,914,000
Dilutive stock options based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price................................    2,350,629       3,595,123
                                                              -----------    ------------
          Total.............................................   93,370,875     109,567,668
                                                              ===========    ============
Net income..................................................  $    72,169    $     78,679
Preferred dividend requirements.............................       (5,424)         (8,236)
Interest expense on LYONs, net of tax.......................        1,403
                                                              -----------    ------------
Earnings applicable to common shareholders..................  $    68,148    $     70,443
                                                              ===========    ============
Diluted earnings per common share...........................  $       .73    $        .64
                                                              ===========    ============
</TABLE>
 
                                       65
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
     (Form S-8 No. 33-96424) pertaining to: (i) AmeriLink Corporation 1994 Stock
     Incentive Plan, (ii) the Stock Option Agreement dated as of August 19,
     1994, between AmeriLink Corporation and Joseph L. Govern, and (iii) the
     Stock Option Addendum to Executive Employment Agreement dated August 19,
     1994, between AmeriLink Corporation and Larry R. Linhart; (Form S-8 No.
     333-79423) pertaining to AmeriLink Corporation 1994 Stock Incentive Plan
     and (Form S-3 No. 33-96422) pertaining to registration of 100,000 shares of
     its common stock of our report dated May 11, 1999, except for Note 12 as to
     which the date is May 21, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
     statements of AmeriLink Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form
     10-K) for the year ended March 28, 1999.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Columbus, Ohio
June 2, 1999




                                      -86-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7661

JAMES R. HICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusMARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden, Tyger River Correctional Institution; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2236-6-20-AK) Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James R. Hicks appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and the district court’s order denying Hicks’ motion to alter or amend the judgment and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hicks v. Wannamaker , No. CA-00-2236-6-20-AK (D.S.C. Sept. 6 and Oct. 20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 

EXHIBIT A 
 SCOTT B. MALAT 

 

			
	Start Date:	  	February 9, 2016
		
	Employee:	  	Scott B. Malat
		
	Position:	  	Chief Strategy Officer of the Company
		
	Reporting Person:	  	Chief Executive Officer of the Company
		
	Base Salary:	  	$500,000
		
	2015 Bonus:	  	$650,000
		
	2015 Additional Bonus:	  	$1,000,000
		
	Target Bonus:	  	100% of Base Salary
		
	Prior Agreement:	  	Employment Agreement effective as of September 20, 2011, by and between the Company and Employee
		
	Sections of Prior Agreement
that survive with respect to
Equity Compensation
granted under the Prior
Agreement:	  	Section 3(c) and Section 3(d)
From: Bean, Greg [mailto:greg.bean@weyerhaeuser.com] 

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:05 PM

To: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov

Cc: PPSURVEY; Schrock.Bill@epa.gov; Bradfield.john@epa.gov; Woock, Steve; Crapo, Ann; Wood, Brian; 

Wood, Mike; Johnson, Ken; Haynes, Tim

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR 2007 0544

The attached files are being submitted for corrections to Subpart S data & Facility-Wide Risk Modeling Results for

Weyerhaeuser NR Company, Longview, WA.

An explanation of the corrections is included in the attached cover letter (scanned pdf copy of the signed letter, 

plus a clean pdf copy without the signature). Two NCASI guidance documents are also included for reference. The 

corrected data is in the attached Excel spreadsheet.

Gregory R. Bean

Sr. Environmental Engineer

Weyerhaeuser NR Company

greg.bean@weyerhaeuser.com

(360)578-4445
Exhibit 32.1





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





RE:     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Trust.





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





/s/ Sarah Newell


Sarah Newell


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I








November 12, 2020
----

----

|   | (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/ MARK L. FAUPEL |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | Name: Mark L. Faupel |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|

|   |           Acting Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlo Rivera, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), rendered December 20, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by discharging a juror who called in sick. The court returned the juror’s call, and determined that the juror had been ill with the flu for at least three days, and expected to be ill and unable to serve on the following day. Under these circumstances, it was apparent that the juror would not be readily available to continue with the trial *(see, People v McDonald,*143 AD2d 1050). Accordingly, the requirements set forth in *People v Page*(72 NY2d 69) had been satisfied *(see also, People v Lawrence,*143 AD2d 1045).

Further, we find that the defendant was not denied his right of confrontation by the court’s refusal to permit him to cross-examine a police detective concerning an alleged agreement whereby the defendant was to serve as a confidential informant. This agreement, which never came to fruition, was not initiated until after the detective had already testified before the Grand Jury, and the defendant had been indicted. The mere existence of such an agreement does not suggest that the *571detective had any hostile feelings toward the defendant, or provide a motive for the detective to fabricate his testimony. Since the proffered evidence of alleged hostility toward the defendant in this case was too remote and speculative to have warranted admission, the court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion by limiting the cross-examination *(see, People v Stanard,*42 NY2d 74, *cert denied*434 US 986; *Schultz v Third Ave. R. R. Co.,*89 NY 242, 250).

It was not error for the trial court to adjudicate the defendant a persistent felony offender in view of his prior convictions, which he failed to controvert although afforded ample opportunity to do so *(see, People v Oliver,*96 AD2d 1104, *affd*63 NY2d 973; *People v Terry,*117 AD2d 761). Moreover, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 3**  **58**

ANDRE FIDEL HOPKINS , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. S. K. YOUNG, Warden; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections , Respondents

– Appell ee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Anthony J
. Trenga , District Judge. ( 1 : 0 9

- c v - 0 0 9 01

- AJT

- JFA )

Submitted : June 1 7 , 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and K ING , Cir cuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
. Andre Fidel Hopkins , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andre Fidel Hopkins seeks to appeal th e district
court ’ s order d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealab ility will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists w ould find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
gr ounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record

an d conclude that Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Hopkins’ motion s for leave to file all district court documents and to order the record
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cardo Medical, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Derrick Romine, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  §1350, as adopted pursuant to  §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, 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.



| | /s/ Derrick Romine
                      Derrick RomineChief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  March 31, 2011

---