alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francine M. Allen, as Administratrix of the Estate of *472Herbert W. Allen, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v County of Westchester et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated January 26, 1989, which granted the respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The facts underlying this appeal were set forth in former Justice Weinstein’s opinion on the parties’ prior appeal *(see, Allen v County of Westchester,*109 AD2d 475), wherein it was determined that the plaintiff possessed no cause of action sounding in common law negligence for the injuries sustained by her husband as a result of his voluntary intoxication. On the instant motion the plaintiff has correctly conceded that none of her remaining causes of action are predicated upon a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; *see, e.g., Bongiorno v D.I.G.I., Inc.,*138 AD2d 120) as liability attaches thereunder only for unlawful sales of alcohol. In this case, the plaintiff’s decedent simply voluntarily over-indulged at a Christmas party at which he was a guest *(see, D’Amico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76). Accordingly, since the plaintiff’s decedent, had he survived, would possess no viable cause of action to recover for the injuries he sustained as a result of his voluntary intoxication, his estate now possesses no viable cause of action for wrongful death *(see,*EPTL 5-4.1; *Prink v Rockefeller Center,*48 NY2d 309; *see also, McDaniel v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist. No. 1,*110 AD2d 349; *cf, Tepper v Feldman,*117 AD2d 595). Judgment was thus properly awarded to the defendants as a matter of law on this cause of action, as well as on the plaintiff’s derivative claim for loss of consortium *(see, Siskind v Norris,*152 AD2d 196, 198; *Young v Robertshaw Controls Co.,*104 AD2d 84).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Harwood and Miller, 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 Annual Report of Potomac Bancshares, Inc. (the
company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert F. Baronner, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer 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:

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 result of operations of the company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert F. Baronner, Jr.          
|Robert F. Baronner, Jr.              
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|April 30, 2009                       



8
----

| Name of Entity                          |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                    |   |                          |
| 407664 British Columbia Ltd.            |   | British Columbia, Canada      |
| APACO, Inc.                             |   | Delaware                      |
| Boniface Engineering, Ltd.              |   | United Kingdom                |
| Century Holdings, Inc.                  |   | Tennessee                     |
| Champion Carrier Corporation            |   | Delaware                      |
| Chevron, Inc.                           |   | Pennsylvania                  |
| F.G. Russell Truck Equipment Ltd.       |   | British Columbia, Canada      |
| Jige International S.A.                 |   | France                        |
| Miller Financial Services Group, Inc.   |   | Tennessee                     |
| Miller/Greeneville, Inc.                |   | Tennessee                     |
| Miller Industries Distributing, Inc.    |   | Delaware                      |
| Miller Industries Europe B.V.           |   | Netherlands                   |
| Miller Industries International, Inc.   |   | Tennessee                     |
| Miller Industries Towing Equipment Inc. |   | Delaware                      |
| RRIC Acquisition Corp.                  |   | Delaware                      |
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 26 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 00-1387
v. (D.C. No. 00-CR-38-D) GUSTAVO AVILA-RIVAS, also known as Hector Rivas-Trujillo, also known as Hecotor Avila-Rivas, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , McKAY, and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Defendant pled guilty to one count of unlawful reen try of an alien after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Th e district court sentenced him-2-

to forty-one months in prison followed by a three-y ear term of supervised release. Defendant’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and has subsequently filed a brief pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.4(B)(1) and Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), accompanied by a request for leave to withdraw. Anders holds that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advis e the court and request permission to withdraw.” Id. at 744. Counsel must also submit a brief “referri ng to anything in the record that might arguably suppo rt the appeal.” Id. The appellant must be furnished with a copy of counsel’ s brief and must be allowed time “to raise any points that he chooses; the court . . . then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide wheth er the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. If the court finds the case frivolous, it may gra nt counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. The only potentially appealable issue raised in cou nsel’s Anders brief is whether Defendant’s sentence was correctly calculat ed under the Sentencing Guidelines. We find that issue to be frivolous. O ur review of the record and the relevant sentencing guidelines reveals nothing thatwould indicate a miscalculated sentence in the instant case. Counsel’s brief cont ains a certificate of service certifying that Defendant was furnished with a copy of the brief by United States mail on December 5, 2000. Aplt. Br., at 12. We have received no indication that-3-

Defendant wishes to raise additional issues. We th erefore grant counsel leave to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
#### Paul Melko, Respondent, v Town of Islip et al., Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered August 4, 1989, which denied their separate motions for summary judgment.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the defendants’ motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when, as he slid toward home plate during an amateur softball game, he came into abrupt contact with a depression in the surface of the field. In their motions for summary judgment, the defendants produced evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged depression on the field, and that he had in fact complained about it before the game. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the risk presented to the players by this defect in the playing surface cannot be viewed as a concealed one, and that it must, therefore, be considered as one which was consciously assumed by the plaintiff *(see, Hoffman v City of New York,*172 AD2d 716 [decided herewith]; *cf., Henig v Hofstra Univ.,*160 AD2d 761). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III, as Chief Executive Officerof New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)          the Quarterly Report ofthe Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated November 10, 2006 | By: /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, III |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Paul J. B. Murphy, III         |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                    | Principal Executive Officer    |

 

----
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 757 

To provide for the implementation of the multispecies habitat conservation 

plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, and Lincoln County, Nevada, to 

extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public land, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2013 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the implementation of the multispecies habitat 

conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, and Lincoln County, Nevada, to extend the authority to purchase 

certain parcels of public land, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multispecies Habitat 

5 Conservation Plan Implementation Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 757 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTISPECIES HABITAT 

2 CONSERVATION PLANS. 

3 (a) VIRGIN RIVER, NEVADA.—Section 3(d)(3)(B) of 

4 Public Law 99–548 (100 Stat. 3061, 116 Stat. 2018) is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘and implementation’’ after ‘‘devel6 opment’’. 

7 (b) LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.—Section 5(b)(1)(B) 

8 of the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000 (Public Law 

9 106–298; 114 Stat. 1048), is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

10 implementation’’ after ‘‘development’’. 

11 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND WITH12 DRAWALS. 

13 Section 3 of Public Law 99–548 (100 Stat. 3061, 

14 113 Stat. 1501A–166) is amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (e)— 

16 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘For 

17 a period of 12 years after the date of the enact18 ment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘Until Novem19 ber 29, 2021’’; 

20 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘Not 

21 later than 10 years after the date of the enact22 ment of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘Not 

23 later than November 29, 2021’’; and 

24 (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘the date 

25 that is 12 years after the date of the enactment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 757 IS

1 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘November 

2 29, 2021’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ‘‘the date 

4 that is 12 years after the date of the enactment of 

5 this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘November 29, 

6 2021’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 07-16-00348-CR

Bernardo Luis Avila

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 287th District Court

of Bailey County

August 1, 2017

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 1, 2017

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Emerging Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.








Date: February 8, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please attach the following grant letter to Alan Core (Docket No. FAA-2015-5275)
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
and in the related prospectuses (Form S-3 No. 33-96756, Form S-3 No. 
33-95952, Form S-3 No. 333-17805, Form S-3 No. 333-19879, Form S-3 No. 
333-19879-01 and Form S-8 No. 33-90668) of Evans Withycombe Residential, Inc. 
of our report dated January 31, 1997, with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of Evans Withycombe Residential, Inc. 
included in this Annual Report (Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-K/A) for the year 
ended December 31, 1996.
    
                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

   
Phoenix, Arizona
March 24, 1997
*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.

*

*

*

*

*

*
• Hi. 

• 

• 

2 

Factual Summary 

signed preliminary agreements (Tab E/Exhs.l, 2,4 with the 

Government of Ukraine "GOU" , re resented by the Ministry of Defense 

In 1993, the foun 

G/Exh.6) were signed, an ntered 

· o a series of agreemen

In August, 1994, as 

negative news article was 

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.

*

*

*

*
*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
*

*Information has temporarily been redacted, including to protect the safety of implementing partners.
----

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Camper, S.L., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-43/05)

(2005/C 106/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Camper, S.L., established in Inca, Mallorca (Spain), represented by I. Temiñ o Ceniceros.

JC AB established in Mölnlycke, (Sweden) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Finishing Touches Home Goods Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RavilyaIslyntieva, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

| (3) |   | The  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                 |
|-----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (4) |   | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 

| Dated:  July 22, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Ravilya  Islyntieva                                                 |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Ravilya  Islyntieva

Chief  Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

----
----

----

I Comunicações

Comissão

----

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

8 de Abril de 2005

(2005/C 87/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

----

III Informações

Comissão

----

Alteração ao anúncio de concurso semanal para a redução do direito de importação de milho proveniente de países terceiros

(«Jornal Oficial da União Europeia» C 325 de 31 de Dezembro de 2004)

(2005/C 87/02)

Na página 8, no título I «Objecto», o ponto 2 passa a ter a seguinte redacção:

----
XCEL EX 10.21 Q4 2013






EXHIBIT 10.21
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
XCEL ENERGY INC. 2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 2010)
WHEREAS, according to Section 14(h) of the Xcel Energy Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective February 17, 2010) (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors has the authority to amend the terms of the Plan, and


WHEREAS, the Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors has recommended to the Board that the Plan be amended in certain respects.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended by this First Amendment, to be effective May 21, 2013, as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 8, subsection (d) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 




“Payment Values of earned Performance Awards shall be distributed to the Participant, or, if the Participant has died, to the Participant’s Designated Beneficiary, after the expiration of the Performance Cycle and the Committee’s determination under paragraph (c) above, but in no event later than the March 15th of the year following the performance period. The Committee shall determine whether Payment Values are to be distributed in the form of cash, Shares, or a combination thereof as determined by the Committee.”


		
	2.
	Section 14, subsection (m) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as 




“The Committee may require or permit Participants to elect to defer the issuance of Shares or the settlement of Awards in cash under such rules and procedures as it may establish under the Plan.  It may also provide that deferred settlements include the payment or crediting of interest or dividends on the deferral amounts.”  


Except as hereinabove set forth, the Xcel Energy Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective February 17, 2010) shall continue in full force and effect.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7443

In Re: DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Scire Facias

(CA-03-1259)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 23, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Ray Graves petitions this court for writ of scire

facias. Having failed to obtain authorization from this court to

file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),

we find that Graves is not entitled to relief. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the

petition for writ of scire facias. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Pinewood Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2010 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 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.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: February 16, 2011