alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mario Feola, Appellant, v Moore McCormack Lines, Inc., Defendant, and Quinn Lumber Company, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered October 1, 1990, dismissing the complaint against defendant Quinn Lumber Company (Quinn) for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by him on June 24, 1975 while he was employed by Quinn as a stevedore aboard Moore McCormack’s vessel mormacvega which was moored at the 23rd Street Pier in New York. This action was commenced in April of 1977 by service of a summons and complaint upon Moore McCormack. Thereafter, on August 15, 1978, Moore McCormack, pursuant to CPLR 3019 (d), served Quinn with a summons and amended answer containing cross-claims for breach of contract and indemnification.

Although plaintiff never served a summons and complaint upon it, Quinn, by serving its reply to Moore McCormack’s cross-claims upon Moore McCormack and plaintiff in 1978 and, thereafter, participating fully in the defense of the action for almost eleven years without raising any jurisdictional objection until its present motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), must be deemed to have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and waived any objection regarding in personam jurisdiction.

As succinctly stated by Professor Siegel in his treatise on New York practice: "The consequence of the informal appearance is that while it is a full submission to jurisdiction, and in fact perfects a jurisdiction otherwise lacking, it is also a waiver of any jurisdictional objection the defendant might otherwise have had.” (Siegel, NY Prac § 112, at 178 [2d ed].)

Despite the fact that Moore McCormack is no longer in the action, having been discharged in bankruptcy, and its cross-claims against Quinn have fallen, plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and failure to provide a safe place to work against both Moore McCormack and Quinn. *257Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 17, 2010



/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### In the Matter of Mary L. Impellizeri, Appellant, v Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered February 7, 1990, which denied and dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul and vacate respondent Teachers’ Retirement System’s determination denying her accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a former special-education classroom teacher, argues that her emotional disorder and right eye dysfunction are causally related to the physical injuries and stress she suffered while employed. We disagree.

Petitioner bears the burden of proving that a service-related "accident” caused her disabilities *(see, Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees,*37 AD2d 378, *affd*32 NY2d 852). She has presented no medical opinion linking her present disabilities to physical injury received during the course of her employment. Indeed, we note petitioner’s own doctors, even with respect to petitioner’s eye ailment, concluded that on-the-job stress was likely the cause of petitioner’s overall disabilities.

*390Insofar as petitioner argues entitlement to accident disability benefits on the ground that accumulated on-the-job stress caused her present disabilities, this Court has ruled that injury which occurs in the absence of an unexpected event and is the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment, as here, does not constitute accidental injury within the meaning of section 13-551 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York *(Matter of Hipple v Ward,*146 AD2d 201, *lv denied*74 NY2d 614). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
# **EXHIBIT 99.1**

Annual Statement as to Compliance

                The undersigned, the duly appointed Controller and Treasurer, respectively, of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, aredelivering this Officer’s Certificate pursuant to Section 4.10(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2002 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) among Caterpillar Financial Asset Trust 2002-A, Caterpillar FinancialFunding Corporation and Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Servicer”), and hereby certify to the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee and the Rating Agencies that:  (i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during thepreceding period from the Closing Date to December 31, 2002 and of the Servicer’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under our supervision; and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer hasfulfilled in all material respects all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such year.

Dated: March 20,2003                                                        /s/ Ken C. Springer                                       _                                            

                                                                                               Name:                  Ken C. Springer

                                                                                               Title:                    Controller

                                                                                               

                                                                                               /s/ Jim A. Duensing                                         _                                                                                                                                                                Name:                   Jim A.Duensing                                                    

                                                                                               Title:                     Treasurer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00074-CR

JERRY LEE EDWARDS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-F-0068-202

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
O R D E R

Appellant Jerry Lee Edwards was convicted of driving while intoxicated, third offense or 

more, and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. On September 26, 2018, Edwards’ courtappointed appellate counsel, Butch Dunbar, filed an Anders1 brief, and on October 3, 2018, 

Edwards filed his pro se motion for access to the record. Pursuant to Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), we are now required to enter an order specifying the 

procedure to be followed to ensure Edwards’ access to the record. This order is intended to 

accomplish that goal.

Dunbar advised this Court that on October 9, 2018, he mailed a complete paper copy of the 

appellate record to Edwards. Allowing a generous fifteen days for that record to be delivered to 

Edwards and giving Edwards thirty days to prepare and file his pro se response, we hereby set 

November 26, 2018, as the deadline for Edwards to file his pro se response to Dunbar’s Anders

brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

DATE: October 10, 2018

 

1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51186

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE M. MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CR-401-ALL

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

May 16, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose M. Medina challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his conviction. Medina was convicted under the

Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, for being intoxicated

while operating a motor vehicle in a public place within the

confines of Fort Sam Houston. 

We review the evidence to determine whether the finding of

guilt made by the trier of fact is supported by substantial
No. 01-51186

-2-

evidence. United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir.

1995). We view all evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government and defer to all reasonable inferences drawn by the

trier of fact. Id.

The evidence established that Medina had been drinking, that

he had been driving, and that he had been involved in a traffic

accident. Medina lacked the ability to speak in a normal speech

pattern. Medina emitted a noticeable odor of alcohol, had glassy

eyes, had a disheveled appearance, and was argumentative. The

evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was

sufficient to convict Medina of being drunk while driving on Fort

Sam Houston. See Ybarra, 70 F.3d at 364. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1753 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase assistance for disabled 

veterans who are temporarily residing in housing owned by a family 

member, and for other purposes. 

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 increase assistance 

for disabled veterans who are temporarily residing in 

housing owned by a family member, 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 ‘‘Disabled Veteran Care5 giver Housing Assistance Act of 2009’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1753 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED VETERANS 

2 RESIDING IN HOUSING OWNED BY A FAMILY 

3 MEMBER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2102A of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking 

8 ‘‘$14,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$28,000’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘$5,000’’; 

11 (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub12 section (f); and 

13 (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol14 lowing new subsection (e): 

15 ‘‘(e) ADJUSTMENT.—(1) Effective on October 1 of 

16 each year (beginning in 2010), the Secretary shall increase 

17 the amounts described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of sub18 section (b) in accordance with this subsection. 

19 ‘‘(2) The increase in amounts under paragraph (1) 

20 to take effect on October 1 of a year shall be by an amount 

21 of such amounts equal to the percentage by which— 

22 ‘‘(A) the residential home cost-of-construction 

23 index for the preceding calendar year; exceeds 

24 ‘‘(B) the residential home cost-of-construction 

25 index for the year preceding the year described in 

26 subparagraph (A). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1753 IS

1 ‘‘(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the Sec2 retary shall use the residential home cost-of-construction 

3 index established under section 2102(e)(3) of this title.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act and shall apply with respect to payments made 

7 in accordance with section 2102A of title 38, United 

8 States Code, on or after that date. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00503-CV

In re Ronald D. Patton

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition is denied. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Filed: August 26, 2015
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

DEERWESTER, HACKEL, and KIRKBY

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Micah D. WILLIAMS

Airman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202200086

_________________________

Decided: 27 September 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Donald R. Ostrom

Sentence adjudged 14 January 2022 by a general court-martial convened at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 180 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.1

For Appellant: 

Major Brian L. Farrell, USMC

 

1 Appellant was credited with 156 days of pretrial confinement credit.
United States v. Williams, NMCCA No. 202200086

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

 

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00583-CV

In re Eric Drake

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion to stay are denied.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justice Puryear, Pemberton and Field

Filed: September 17, 2014
MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303-8960

November 7, 2014

SUBJECT : MOVES Modeling Files for Federal Register Document EPA-R04-0AR-2014- 0267 ; Approval ofImplementation Plans and Designation ofAreas ; Georgia; Redesignation ofthe Georgia Portion ofthe Chattanooga, 1997 PM2 .s Nonattainment Area to Attainment FROM: Joydeb Majumder

# -j'\ Regulatory Development Section TO: File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2014-0267 Due to the MOVES modeling file type, the Region was unable to upload the MOVES files from Georgia's submittal to the Federal Docket Management System. An electronic copy can be viewed at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, ifat all possible, you schedule your inspection. Please contact Joydeb Majumder, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, ofthe Federal Register notice for an appointment. The Regional Office's official hours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

Internet Address (URLl • http:/fwww.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1837 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to cover hearing aids 

and auditory rehabilitation services under the Medicare Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to cover 

hearing aids and auditory rehabilitation services under 

the Medicare Program. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Hearing En5 hancement and Auditory Rehabilitation (HEAR) Act of 

6 2009’’. 

7 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF HEARING AIDS AND AUDI8 TORY REHABILITATION SERVICES. 

9 (a) COVERAGE OF HEARING AIDS.— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1837 IS

1 (1) ELIMINATION OF EXCLUSION FROM COV2 ERAGE.—Section 1862(a)(7) of the Social Security 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(7)) is amended by striking 

4 ‘‘hearing aids or examinations therefor,’’. 

5 (2) COVERAGE OF HEARING AIDS.—The Sec6 retary of Health and Human Services shall establish 

7 national coverage determinations for hearing aids 

8 under title XVIII of the Social Security Act based 

9 on the coverage offered by other Federal benefit pro10 grams, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs 

11 and Department of Defense, in consultation with 

12 hearing health professionals and trade organizations. 

13 (b) COVERAGE OF AUDITORY REHABILITATION

14 SERVICES.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social 

16 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— 

17 (A) in subsection (s)(2)— 

18 (i) in subparagraph (DD), by striking 

19 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

20 (ii) in subparagraph (EE), by adding 

21 ‘‘and’’ at the end; and 

22 (iii) by adding at the end the fol23 lowing new subparagraph: 

24 ‘‘(FF) auditory services (as defined in sub25 section (ll)(2));’’; and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1837 IS

1 (B) in subsection (ll)(2), by inserting ‘‘and 

2 such rehabilitation and treatment services’’ 

3 after ‘‘hearing and balance assessment serv4 ices’’. 

5 (2) CONFORMING PAYMENT AMENDMENT.—Sec6 tion 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

7 4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(2)(FF),’’ after 

8 ‘‘(2)(EE),’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

11 or after January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Kenneth D. Laub & Company, Inc., Respondent, v Olympia & York Tower B Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on October 23, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Shirley Fingerhood, J., with costs. No opinion. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5423]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 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 Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Ruth L. Kirschstein National 
Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Grants 
(Parent T32).
    Date: March 30, 2012.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/
NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 
301-594-0985, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d0b1417150e3d13141c141953131415531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0c6d9dad8c3f0ded9d1d9d49eded9d89ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5423 Filed 3-5-12; 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>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID SCOTT DITTBRENNER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 605 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.