alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1211 CAF 16-00605 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF STACEY WYNN MOREY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
SONJA ANKE FRANKLIN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF SONJA ANKE FRANKLIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V
STACEY WYNN MOREY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BURGETT & ROBBINS, LLP, JAMESTOWN (LYDIA ALLEN CAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DAVID M. CVILETTE, P.C., DUNKIRK (DAVID M. CIVILETTE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
JOHN JAMES WESTMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, JAMESTOWN.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered September 2, 2015 in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded the parties joint custody of the subject child. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
TS-ASLT40/50 

Attachment #6

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 3 

Environmental Release and Disposal Information on the New Chemical Substance 

at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
#### STATE of Wyoming, ex rel. Jetty Lee HARVEY, Petitioner, v. The COUNTY COURT OF SWEETWATER COUNTY, and Samuel A. Soulé, Sweetwater County Court Judge, Respondents.

No. 89-166.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Sept. 18, 1989.

ORDER DISSOLVING ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This matter came before the Court upon petition for writ of prohibition of Jetty Lee Harvey and the Court, on August 1, 1989, having entered an order granting alternative writ of prohibition staying further proceedings in the County Court of Sweetwa-ter County before the Honorable Samuel A. Soulé, Judge, and the Court having heard arguments presented by petitioner and respondents and having examined the records and files in this cause and being fully advised finds that the alternative writ of prohibition should be dissolved and the petition for writ of prohibition denied. Wherefore it is hereby

ORDERED that the alternative writ of prohibition and stay provided therein, entered and filed herein on August 1,1989 be, and the same is hereby, dissolved; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of prohibition of Jetty Lee Harvey be, and the same is hereby, denied.

URBIGKIT, J., would have granted the writ of prohibition.
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of New Source Energy Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                          
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2012 |  | /s/ Richard D. Finley                    
|                      |  | Richard D. Finley Chief
Financial Officer
HATTIESBURG-LAUREL REGIONAL AIRPORT <PIBJ May7, 2012 Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590 " i ; . I

Reference;**DOT-OST-2008~0209,** 2001-10685, 2009-0305, 2000-7856 Greenville, MS, Laurel/Hattiesburg, MS, Tupelo, MS and Muscle Shoals, AL EAS Dear Mr
. DeVany, 1002 Terminal Drive Moselle, MS 39459 Phone (601) 545-3111 (601) 649-2444 Fax (601) 545-3155

That Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport Authority in Moselle, Mississippi wishes to lend its support to the proposal of Silver Airways to provide essential air service at Hattiesburg-Laurel (PIB), Mississippi as replacement forcurrent Delta Air Lines service. Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air transportation system is critical to the economic well being ofthe Hattiesburg-Laurel, Mississippi area. The Silver Airways proposals offer us a modern 34-seat turboprop aircraft and flights to Atlanta, which is not only the largest hub airport in the world but also a popular business and leisure travel destination from Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport. We believe the Silver air service proposals represent the best option for retaining our local air service long term and building uptraffic so thatgovernmentsubsidies can eventually be reduced oreliminated
. We urge the Department ofTransportation to award Silver Airways the designation to provide
_ Hattiesburg-Laurel (PIB), Mississippi essential airservice. Best regards,

.

# ~--

# ~~e, Executive Director Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional AirportAuthority
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Reproduction, Andrology, and 
Gynecology Subcommittee.
    Date: March 5, 2012.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D. Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2717, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#08646d7b726b716c486569616426666160266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa969f898099839eba979b9396d4949392d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 7, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3439 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.24


 


		Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (Canada) Ltd.
 9500 Glenlyon Parkway,
 Burnaby, BC Canada V5J 0C6

                            

	 	 
	 	778.331.5500   Fax 778.331.5501
	 	rbauclion.com


 


	To:	Rob McLeod
	From:	Ravi Saligram
	CC:	Personnel file
	Date:	July 7, 2015
	Re:	Transfer
	 	 


 


Dear Rob,


 


This will confirm the details of your transfer to the following
position.


 


	 	·	Effective Date:	July 6, 2015
	 	 	 	 
	 	·	Position:	Chief Business Development Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 	·	Manager:	Ravi Saligram, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 	·	Direct Reports:	Vic Pospiech, Senior Vice President, Sales Performance
	 	 	 	Dino Mollo, Project Lead, Corporate Development


 


All other terms and conditions of your employment will remain
the same.


 


We would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for your contribution and look forward to another successful year. If you have any questions, please contact Caroline Mitchell,
Human Resources Business Partner or myself.


 


	Yours truly,	 	 
	 	 	 
	Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (Canada) Ltd.	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Ravi Saligram	 	/s/ Rob McLeod
	Ravi Saligram	 	Rob McLeod
	Chief Executive Officer	 	Chief Business Development Officer
	 	 	 
	July 7, 2015	 	July 9, 2015
	Date	 	Date
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-108948, 333-112043 and 333-122026) of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-102042, 333-82477 and 333-20777) pertaining to the 1996 StockIncentive Plan, the 1989 Incentive Stock Option, Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan, the 1989 Special Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan and the Executive Stock Plan, of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report datedJuly 27, 2004, with respect to the financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP                 

San Diego, California 

March 13, 2006
April 29, 2015

The Honorable John F. Kerry The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx

Secretary of State Secretary of Transportation

US Department of State US Department of Transportation

2201 C Street NW 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20520 Washington, DC 90590

Dear Secretaries Kerry and Foxx:

I’m writing to you today about an important step we can take to ensure a level playing field 

for American businesses. I am reaching out to ask that the U.S. government open 

consultations with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to discuss the issue of 

subsidies provided by these governments to their airlines. 

We firmly support Open Skies and recognize the considerable benefits that the policy has 

brought to U.S. travelers and the U.S. economy. We are not seeking to end the agreements 

with Qatar and the UAE. We are simply requesting the consultations which are provided for 

within the Open Skies agreements. 

Concerns have been raised that subsidized competition by the Gulf carriers is contributing 

to excess capacity and lower fares which draw passengers and revenue from U.S. airlines. 

In response to these concerns, some have stated that American, Delta and United must 

simply do more to compete and offer better services. As someone who is familiar with these 

airlines and their services in our region, I know that they are prepared to compete with other 

airlines in the world as long as they are competing on an equal playing field.

As provided for in the Open Skies policy, we are asking you to open consultations on this 

issue as requested by the U.S. carriers. 

We look forward to continuing this conversation and would be happy to discuss our views 

with you in further detail. 

Sincerely,

Gary Toebben

President & CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 12 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 133
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 12

                          [Report No. 113-76]

  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2013

Mr. Schatz (for himself and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

                             July 15, 2013

                Reported by Mr. Wyden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS.

    In accordance with section 4 of Public Law 86-3 (73 Stat. 4) 
(commonly known as the ``Hawaii Statehood Admissions Act, 1959'') and 
section 204 of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act (48 U.S.C. note 
prec. 491; Public Law 104-42), the United States amends sections 208, 
209, and 215 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, 
chapter 42) by giving its consent to the following amendments by the 
State of Hawaii adopted in the manner required for State legislation:
            (1) Act 107, Section 1, of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 
        2000.
            (2) Act 12, Section 1, of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 2002.
            (3) Act 16, Section 1, of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 2005.

                                                       Calendar No. 133

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 12

                          [Report No. 113-76]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 15, 2013

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Charles Azzue, Appellant, v Galore Realty, Inc., Doing Business as Hwa Yuan Restaurant, et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Loren Brown, J.), entered January 18, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict, found in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged that he sustained an ear injury as a result of a fireworks explosion in front of defendant restaurant located at 40 East Broadway during celebration festivities of the Chinese New Year in 1988. Plaintiff was an invited guest at a party given at the restaurant by defendant Chen-Lieh Tang, a corporate officer of the restaurant.

*468Contrary to plaintiffs contention, he was not entitled to a directed verdict on the ground that defendants admittedly possessed fireworks without having obtained the requisite permit *(see,*Penal Law § 405.00). Having failed to move for a directed verdict on the issue of liability in this bifurcated trial, plaintiff must be deemed to have admitted that an issue of fact was presented for determination by the jury. *(Gutin v Mascali & Sons,*11 NY2d 97, 98.)

In any event, a directed verdict would have been unwarranted, as an issue of fact existed as to whether defendants’ failure to obtain a fireworks display permit was a proximate cause of the events which produced the claimed injury. *(Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, *rearg denied*52 NY2d 784, 829.) Mere violation of the statute does not give rise to an inference of negligence without proof that a party has sustained injury proximately caused by the breach. *(Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners,*76 NY2d 172.) Since the jury’s verdict is adequately supported, we will not disturb it. *(Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs.,*126 AD2d 424, *lv denied*70 NY2d 602.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial simply because the trial court refused to separately charge statutory liability and common law negligence. Examination of the subject interrogatory, to which plaintiff did not except, in the context of the court’s charge indicates that the jury could not have been substantially confused so as to be unable to reach a proper determination upon adequate consideration of the evidence. *(Cf., Booth v Penney Co.,*169 AD2d 663, 665.)

We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00529- CV
Corwin McCorm ick, Appellan t

v. Gr een Tre e Servic ing, L LC, Appellee
F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 10- 0082 12, H ONO RAB LE ERIC SH EP P ERD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pellant Corwin McCormick has filed a motion to dismiss his appea l, statin g that the parties have agree d to settle their dispute. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2012
Exhibit 10(q)-7





AMENDMENT NO. 6


 


TO


 


PPL EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


 


WHEREAS, PPL Services Corporation ("PPL")
has adopted the PPL Officers Deferred Compensation Plan ("Plan") effective July 1, 2000; and


WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated
effective November 1, 2003, and subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; and


WHEREAS, PPL desires to further amend the
Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended
as follows:


 


		I.	Effective January 1, 2016, the following sections of Article IV is
amended to read:






 


Article IV


Deferred
Cash Compensation and Deferred Cash Awards


 


4.11The Account of any Participant hired on or after January
1, 2012, with Deferred Cash Compensation and Deferred Cash Awards for the calendar year shall be increased by a Matching Contribution
and a Fixed Contribution. The Matching Contribution shall be an amount equal to 75% of the aggregate Deferred Cash Compensation
and Deferred Cash Awards that do not exceed 6% Cash Compensation, minus the maximum amount of Matching Contributions that could
have been made to the Participant’s Accounts in the PPL Retirement Savings Plan for that calendar year if the Participant
made the maximum employee contributions permitted. The Fixed Contribution shall be an amount equal to 3% of Cash Compensation and
Cash Award minus the amount of the Fixed Contribution made to the Participant’s Accounts in the PPL Retirement Savings Plan
for that calendar year.


 


		II.	Except as provided for in this Amendment No. 6, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 6 is executed this _____
day of _____________________, 2015.


  


 





	 	PPL SERVICES CORPORATION
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Stephen R. Russo
	 	 	Sr. Vice President – Human Resources &
	 	 	Services and Chief HR Officer
#### Hector M. Bravo et al., Appellants, v Victor’s Cafe, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 8, 1989, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs brought this negligence action against the owner and operator of a vehicle which rear ended their vehicle, which had come to a complete stop at an intersection, behind a third vehicle. Plaintiff Hector Bravo asserted that he sustained a knee injury as a result of the collision impact. Defendants, however, claimed that the brakes on their vehicle failed to work properly and demonstrated through the testimony of expert witnesses, an orthopedist and an accident reconstruction engineer, that plaintiff’s knee injury was not caused by the subject accident.

The jury’s finding has support in the record and will not be disturbed. *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493.) Although plaintiff’s medical expert concluded that the knee injury was causally related to the incident, the weight accorded to conflicting testimony of experts is a matter " 'peculiarly within the province of the jury’ ”. *(Furia v Mellucci,*163 AD2d 88, 89.) Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the trial court did not *298unduly interject itself into the proceeding concerning the admissibility of several defense exhibits, as the Court was merely clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of trial. *(Cf., People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 57; *Gombas v Roberts,*104 AD2d 521.) Furthermore, no abuse of discretion can be discerned from the trial court’s decision to admit into evidence the testimony of defense witness Rossini, an expert on accident reconstruction, on the issue whether the impact of the subject crash could have caused plaintiffs knee injury. *(See, Selkowitz v County of Nassau,*45 NY2d 97, 101-102.)

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without, merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 1056 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- NE

- 32

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### TAY L PF blade s and disk replacement 12

- 0185

- E 4.0 $ 340.00 $ 340.00 

### 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The k nown number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate a viation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :