alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 18, 2002 Session

CAROLYN STOVALL, ET AL. v. LOIS E. CLARKE, M.D., ET AL.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

No. 97652 Russ Heldman, Judge

No. M2001-00810-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 20, 2002

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., concurring.

I concur with the results of the court’s opinion but write separately to amplify the basis for

upholding the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Robert W. McCain.

In opposition to Dr. McCain’s motion for summary judgment, Ms. Stovall presented the

affidavit of Dr. Peter Tuteur, a pulmonologist like Dr. McCain, who testified that Dr. McCain

deviated from the applicable standard of acceptable professional practice by failing to “take an

appropriately detailed and meaningfully complete and pertinent history of Gail Dewayne Stovall.”

Even if we accept this opinion as correct for the purposes of the summary judgment motion, it does

not address another necessary ingredient of any medical malpractice claim.

Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases must prove that the practitioner caused his or her

patient to suffer injuries that would not have otherwise occurred. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-

115(a)(3) (2000). Ms. Stovall’s causation expert, Dr. Ronald Krone, testified unequivocally that Mr.

Stovall should have had cardiac by-pass surgery by no later than January 1997. Thus, at least

according to Dr. Krone, the die was cast by the time that Dr. McCain examined Mr. Stovall on

February 28, 1997. I find nothing in Dr. Tuteur’s affidavit or in any of the other evidentiary

materials submitted by Ms. Stovall that explains how Dr. McCain’s failure to take a better history,

if in fact the history he took was inadequate, caused Mr. Stovall to suffer injuries that he would not

otherwise have suffered. Without this evidence, Ms. Stovall’s claim against Dr. McCain must fail.

_____________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
#### George Bakes, Doing Business as Bakes Associates, Respondent, v Nick Maverson, Doing Business as Maverick Motion Graphics, Appellant.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered May 31, 1989 and June 30, 1989, respectively, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment in the amount of $19,194.13, plus interest and costs, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this action in or about January 1986, to recover monies allegedly due under an oral agreement pursuant to which he leased camera equipment to defendant from June 1982 through the latter part of 1985. The complaint alleged that the terms of the agreement required defendant to pay $1,000 per month, and that he had failed to do so for a period of 31 months. In addition, claims for the alleged illegal use of other equipment were asserted. In all, plaintiff sought to recover a total of $77,500 plus interest and costs. Issue was joined with service of defendant’s verified answer on or about July 17, 1986.

In or about May 1988, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that defendant had acknowledged, through his accountant, that he owed plaintiff $19,194.13. In support of this motion, plaintiff annexed a schedule allegedly prepared by defendant’s accountant, Herman Gerstman. Defendant opposed the motion and submitted an affidavit from Mr. Gerstman, who denied the authenticity of portions of the schedule which plaintiff claimed he had authored. Relying upon plaintiffs submissions, the IAS part granted him partial summary judgment in the amount of $19,194.13. We reverse.

It is well established that summary judgment should not be *358granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact. *(Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos,*46 NY2d 223.) The record before us establishes that, in addition to the validity of the schedule submitted in support of plaintiffs motion, there exist material issues of fact with respect to a $10,000 check tendered by defendant to plaintiff. Defendant claims that this check, on which he subsequently stopped payment, was for the purchase of equipment, a transaction which was ultimately not realized. Plaintiff contradicts this and asserts that the stopped check had been intended as partial payment on the claimed rental arrears. Another significant factual dispute centers on plaintiffs contention that the equipment rental rate was $1,000 per month, while defendant claims the amount was $650 per month.

In light of these material and interrelated issues of fact, it was error for the trial court to have granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
## Comments in Response to "Final rule; request for comments" Docket: FAA-20 

### i

# 0 -0198 Directorate Identifier ZQ

## I0- N

# 1--\- 174--AD Comments have been received in response to: 

### ~'Finalrule; request/or comments." Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine 

### ifadditional action is warranted Once you have madeyour determination, please 

## fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. include additional information/allowing the appropriate re::.ponse, 

## ifnecessary. Then include your name and 

### tire date ;nthe spaces provided. and return it to the AD directorate (ocal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

## 80e"'''3 AMe.-HcCH'\ A?r~~V\e.c.., (Please check one) /
~ These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change ofthis AD. 

# o These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory action. 

## (SEEAirworthiness DirectivesManual F AA-IR-M-8040,I FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION,) 

# J: keJ,('j 

# HCGu 

## vie-v\' Name: i(()- 

# \"6- d-O \

# 0 Date:
(This form is part oftbe official docket file for this AD action.)

Rev 0 (9/08)
# L_2006207EN.01001401.xml

| 28.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 207/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/14

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1147/2006

of 27 July 2006

granting no refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 25 July 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 25 July 2006.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 25 July 2006, no refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2006 (OJ L 71, 10.3.2006, p. 5).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

3

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1908 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sports footwear for women. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sports footwear 

for women. 

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 SPORTS FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1908 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Tennis shoes, basketball 

shoes, gym shoes, training 

shoes and the like, with outer 

soles of rubber, plastics, 

leather or composition leather 

and uppers of leather (other 

than with uppers of pigskin), 

covering the ankle, the foregoing for women (provided 

for in subheading 

6403.91.90) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Charles Edison OVERSTREET Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-350.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 10, 1987.

*1201Johnie O’Neal, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty.RJen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph Luis Ruffin, Legal Intern, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Charles Edison Over-street, Jr., appeals from a conviction in the Tulsa County District Court of Larceny of an Automobile After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, a violation of 21 O.S.1981 § 1720, Case No. CRF-84-2565.

A van belonging to Sheila and Gerald Campbell was stolen from the Riverside Baptist Church on the morning of July 15, 1984.

.Later that morning, Ray Bowline was driving down 31st Street when he observed a van parked behind some rental houses owned by his mother. Bowline entered the driveway to investigate and saw three (3) black men near a white Lincoln Continental, standing fifteen (15) feet from the van. Noticing Bowline, the men jumped into the Continental and sped away. Bowline followed the Continental until he came upon a police officer at which time he notified the officer of what he had observed. The officer, with the assistance of other police officers, pursued the Continental and after a short chase on foot, apprehended the three men, one of whom was the defendant.

That afternoon, the Campbells identified the van which was behind the rental house as their van. A wing window had been broken and a small calculator was missing. One of the three men, but not the defendant, was found to be in possession of the calculator. Defendant was charged with acting in concert with others to commit larceny.

In his sole assignment of error, defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of larceny of an automobile. We disagree. A conviction can rest solely upon circumstantial evidence where that evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. *Fiorot v. State,*641 P.2d 551 (Okl.Cr.1982).

In the instant case, the defendant was positively identified as one of three men trespassing on private property in the vicinity of a van which had been stolen only a few hours before. When discovered, these men sped away from the scene. Their persistence in attempting to avoid the police is a strong indication of their culpability. Furthermore, one of the men was in possession of a calculator which had been removed from the van.

Considering the scenario which the evidence depicts, every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the defendant is clearly excluded. The defendant’s assignment is without merit.

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., concurs, and PARKS, J., dissents.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raul Ortiz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered October 31, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *3Vi*to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The complainant testified at trial that he was the victim of a hold up attempt as he sat in his car waiting for a red light. After co-defendant Sostre pointed a gun at the complainant’s head, defendant tried to grab the gold chains that the complainant was wearing. When another car approached the intersection, Sostre withdrew the gun and the complainant escaped. Defendant and Sostre then fled, but a short time later they were pointed out by the complainant to plainclothes officers. After a brief chase they were captured.

*385Defendant’s argument that the complainant’s testimony was not credible rests on his acquittal of attempted robbery committed by means of a gun. The record, however, contains evidence of sufficient quantity and quality to support his conviction for attempted robbery under the theory that he was aided by a person actually present. Bearing in mind that credibility is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact, we are of the view that the jury properly weighed the complainant’s testimony. *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.)

Defendant’s claim, that the trial court’s supplemental charge permitted the jury to find him guilty on insufficient proof, has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. Were we to reach this argument in the interest of justice, we would affirm. The court’s use of the phrase "each or both” was no more than a grammatical device by which the trial court emphasized that the jury had to render separate verdicts as to each defendant with respect to the charges. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60389 Summary Calendar

GHEORGHE DUMBRAVEANU, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

USDC No. A70 569 803

- - - - - - - - - - March 20, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: * Gheorghe Dumbraveanu petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Mr. Dumbraveanu argues that he was denied due process because a Board of Immigration Appeals transmittal letter he received indicates that the Immigration Judge who decided his case also sat on the panel who ruled on his appeal. A review of the supplemental record reveals that Mr. Dumbraveanu's impression is erroneous;No. 95-60389 -2- the Immigration Judge before whom he appeared for his asylum hearing was not a member of the panel who decided the appeal.Mr. Dumbraveanu also contends that he established a wellfounded fear of persecution based on his political opinion. We have reviewed the record, the BIA's decision, and the briefs and determine that the evidence does not compel reversal of the BIA's determination. Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). PETITION DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7569

ROBERT LAWRENCE TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-00-1188)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lawrence Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lawrence Taylor appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Taylor v. Director Va. Dep’t of

Corrections, No. CA-00-1188 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 5, 2000; entered

Oct. 6, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (3.26 MB)

Tags:Loglines, November 2017

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
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 of Resource Capital Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan Z. Cohen, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 August
      7, 2009
              /s/
      Jonathan Z. CohenJonathan
      Z. CohenChief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1981

WARREN K. GLADDEN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, John McHugh, Secretary,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-01793-PJM)

Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren K. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren K. Gladden appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Gladden’s 

action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Gladden v. U.S. Dep’t 

of the Army, No. 8:10-cv-01793-PJM (D. Md. July 13, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED