alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert G. Wecht et al., Respondents, v Dial Chevrolet Inc. et al., Appellants. General Motors Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Imperial News Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Dial Chevrolet Inc., Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Boyertown Auto Body Works, Inc., Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 13, 1989, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff Robert Wecht judgment against defendants Dial Chevrolet Inc., Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors Corp., and General Motors Corp. (the GM/Dial defendants) totalling $2,540,735.10, awarded plaintiff Alice Wecht judgment against GM/Dial totalling $272,902.50, awarded GM/ Dial a third-party judgment against defendant Boyertown totalling $1,547,568.00, and awarded GM/Dial a third-party judgment against Imperial totalling $619,000.27, and order of the same court entered on or about July 6, 1989, which denied the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict, and order of the same court entered on or about July 31, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion for retrial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s foot was crushed in the narrow foot-well of the truck in which he was driving when the truck collided with the pole. At the trial of this products liability action against *329the manufacturers of the vehicle, and third-party actions, the IAS Court properly declined to charge the jury on the issue of crashworthiness, also known as the second collision doctrine *(see, e.g., Garcia v Rivera,*160 AD2d 274, *lv denied*77 NY2d 801). The collision between the truck and the telephone pole cannot be regarded as a separate collision from that between the interior of the truck and Mr. Wecht’s foot. Even if the "second collision” doctrine did apply, the evidence shows that the defect in the foot-well enhanced Mr. Wecht’s injuries by preventing him from removing his foot in time.

The evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that the truck was unsafe. *(See, Cover v Cohen,*61 NY2d 261.) The conflict in the testimony of the various experts was a matter for the jury to resolve *(Laniado v New York Hosp.,*168 AD2d 341).

The IAS Court should have allowed defendants to inquire into plaintiff’s complaint to Imperial about the truck, since the testimony was sought, not for the truth of the statement, but rather to show Mr. Wecht’s knowledge on a certain subject (Richardson, Evidence § 205 [Prince 10th ed]). Nevertheless, there was competent evidence elsewhere in the record that only general complaints were made to Imperial about the trucks, and none about the excessive narrowness of the foot-well. Accordingly, the error was harmless.

The jury’s award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]).

We have reviewed all of the remaining arguments of the various defendants, and find them to be without merit. Concur —Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1752 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1752

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to provide wartime disability compensation for certain 
                   veterans with Parkinson's disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2009

  Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to provide wartime disability compensation for certain 
                   veterans with Parkinson's disease.

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

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE 
              FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WHO SERVED IN THE REPUBLIC OF 
              VIETNAM.

    Section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(I) Parkinson's disease becoming manifest to a degree of 
        disability of 10 percent or more.''.
                                 <all>
```
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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart Truck Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert Cashman, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

May 15, 2006                    /s/ Robert Cashman
                                -----------------------
                                Robert Cashman
                                Chief Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY RUGGIERO and CHRISTINA RUGGIERO,

Appellants,

v.

SOUTHERN OAK INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1729

[June 9, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-016308.

Randall Shochet of Shochet Law Group, Trenton, for appellants.

Evan A. Zuckerman of Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood,

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH, and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Ref: 8RA

MEMORANDUM for RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Western Resource Advocates (WRA) on A ugust 19, 2013 regarding

EPA’s proposed action on Wyoming’s Regional Haze St ate Implementation Plan

FROM: Shaun L. McGrath Regional Administrator

TO: Docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0026

At this meeting, members of US EPA met with employe es of WRA to discuss WRA’s perspective on EPA’s proposed action on Wyoming’s R egional Haze State Implementation Plan. In attendance from WRA were Karin Sheldon, John Nie lson, Gary Graham, David Abelson, Steve Michael, Bart Miller, and Joro Walker; and fr om EPA Shaun McGrath, Regional Administrator and Bob Ward, Office of Regional Coun sel from EPA Region 8. We informed WRA that the public comment period was still open f or another week, and that, because we are in a decisional phase, we were not able to discuss specifics about the issue. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
DENVER, CO 80202-1129

Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08
#### STATE of Alaska, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Ralph E. MOODY, Judge of the Superior Court and the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Respondent. John Lekanof, Real Party in Interest.

No. S-203.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. 26, 1986.

Peter A. Michalski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioner.

Tina Kobayashi, Asst. Public Defender, Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for respondent.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

John Lekanof was sentenced by the Honorable Ralph E. Moody in a manner deemed illegal by the state. Pursuant to Appellate Rule 402, the state petitioned the Court of Appeals for review, which was denied. The state then petitioned this court for hearing, and the petition was granted. Alaska R.App.P. 302.

Our recent decision in *State v. Andrews,*723 P.2d 85 (Alaska, 1986) (aff’g., 707 P.2d 900 (Alaska App.1985)) disposes of the issues in this appeal. Under the *Andrews*analysis of AS 12.55.-025(e) and (g), Judge Moody had the authority to impose a concurrent sentence for the assault conviction. The effect of imposing a consecutive sentence and then suspending it is the same as imposing concurrent sentences. The sentence is therefore AFFIRMED.

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,

with whom COMPTON, Justice, joins, dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in *State v. Andrews,*723 P.2d 85, 86-88 (Alaska, 1986). I believe the statute should be interpreted as authorizing concurrent sentences only if one of the criteria set out in AS 12.55.-025(g)(l)-(3) are met.

The two crimes for which Lekanof was sentenced were first degree sexual assault involving a sexual assault on his girlfriend’s twelve-year-old daughter on October 29, 1982, and second degree assault involving an attack on his girlfriend on November 11, 1982. I conclude that the requisite criteria of AS 12.55.025(g) are not *195met. The two crimes do not violate similar societal interests, (g)(1), they were not part of a single, continuous criminal episode, (g)(2), and there was a substantial change in the objective of the criminal episode (two different crimes occurring at different times, involving different victims), (g)(3).

I would hold that the superior court did not have authority to impose concurrent sentences in this case and therefore its imposition of a suspended consecutive presumptive sentence was illegal. *See*AS 12.-55.125(g).
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**




**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Platinum Energy Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
      that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
      2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date: May 15, 2006,
                
                By: /s/ Mark
                  NordlichtMark
                    NordlichtChairman
                    of the Board


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.




19
Exhibit 32.1

10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 iShares Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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.

Date: August 21, 2006



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    LEE T. KRANEFUSS                                                
|Lee T. Kranefuss* Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Muehlethaler, Eveleen T." <eveleenm@ptpc.com>

To: Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Ann Crapo\(NCASI\)" <acrapo@src-ncasi.org>, "Anna Henolson" 

<ahenolson@trinityconsultants.com>, "DeLeo, Val" <vald2@ptpc.com>

Date: 05/03/2012 04:55 PM

Subject: PTPC Submittal of Corrections to P&P RTR Modeling Input Data

BillHere is the information you and I discussed on Monday. My understanding is that since the docket is closed for 

direct submittal, that you will be sure to include this data in the record of the docket. Thank you.

Attached is the report by Trinity Consultants summarizing the reasons for the submittal of the revised data for the 

Port Townsend Paper Mill. The excel revision sheet is also attached. We have highlighted the revisions in yellow. 

We believe that risk evaluations should be done with the most accurate information available. We have had Trinity 

simulate the modeling using the HEM3 version. This work demonstrates that the original MIRs for the mill are 

overstated. We would encourage EPA to consider rerunning the model you are presently using incorporating these 

revisions. 

I appreciate your willingness to accept this data. Let me know if you have any questions or need any more 

information.

SincerelyEveleen Muehlethaler

Vice President - Environmental Affairs

Port Townsend Paper Corp.

100 Mill Road

Port Townsend, WA 98368

(360) 379-2112

eveleenm@ptpc.com

This email and any attached files are the exclusive property of Port Townsend Paper Corporation 

and its affiliates ('PTPC'), are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended solely for the 

use of the party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a named recipient or believe that you 

have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and 

any attachments. Any unauthorized use, reproduction or dissemination of this email is strictly

prohibited. PTPC cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's 

own and not expressly made on its behalf.(See attached file: mact_1626-

1_facility_NEI42357.xls)(See attached file: PTPC Residual Risk Revision EPA Cover Letter 

v3.00.pdf)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 28, 2020

a0720

Order 

Clerk

July 28, 2020

160300(17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160300

COA: 350088

Wayne CC: 08-001672-FC

RICHARD MERLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 3, 

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
EXHIBIT 13.1



906 CERTIFICATION



April 10, 2009



Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies and Gentlemen:



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Telecom Italia S.p.A. Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2008, (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code.



Franco Bernabè, the
Chief Executive Officer, and Marco Patuano, the Chief Financial Officer, of Telecom Italia S.p.A., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Telecom Italia S.p.A.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    FRANCO BERNABÈName:

Franco BernabèTitle:

Chief Executive Officer


By:

/s/    MARCO PATUANOName:

Marco PatuanoTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Sept. 11, 2021It’s okay to ask for help
        This commentary reflects one Airman’s personal experiences seeking mental health treatment throughout his time in the Air Force, and the positive impact it has had on his life and career.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (668)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,711
<PP&E>                                          11,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,342)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,975
<BONDS>                                         88,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                     187,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,911
<SALES>                                         94,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,161
<CGS>                                           70,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,004
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                     692
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1889 

To extend the temporary duty suspension on glass bulbs, designed for 

sprinkler systems and other release devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary duty suspension on glass bulbs, 

designed for sprinkler systems and other release devices. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GLASS THERMO BULBS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.26 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (releating 

6 to glass bulbs, designed for sprinkler systems and other 

7 release devices), is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1889 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS