alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Julie Carroll, Respondent, v Ar De Realty Corp., N. V., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered May 5, . 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant Ar De Realty Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

Plaintiff was injured when she was raped and sodomized by an unknown assailant on the 38th floor of the premises owned by defendant located at 150 East 58th Street. The mere existence of an intervening criminal act by a third person will not completely absolve a defendant landlord from liability where the defendant should have reasonably anticipated a risk of harm from criminal activity to persons on the premises. *(Gilmartin v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*162 AD2d 275.) A review of the record reveals there are questions of fact as to the reasonableness of the landlord’s security measures, in view of the extensive criminal activity in the subject premises during the 15-month period preceding the incident complained of.

Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5034 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5034

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rooftop cargo bags.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Ms. DeLauro introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rooftop cargo bags.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ROOFTOP CARGO BAGS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Cargo bags that     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          affix to the roof                                                 12/31/2015
                          rack of a
                          vehicle, with an
                          outer surface of
                          textile materials
                          of man-made
                          fibers (provided
                          for in subheading
                          4202.92.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000010117-JAN-201211:00 AM
Exhibit
32(a)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Southwestern Electric Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael
G. Morris, the 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, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Michael G.
Morris_____


Michael
G. Morris


Chief
Executive Officer








May 1,
2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

DAVID MEARA
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 1491

[ October 22, 2014 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Sherwood Bauer

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472010CF000638B

.

David J. Meara, Carrabelle, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, fo r appellee.

W ARNER
, J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s postconviction relief motion in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey his acceptance of the state’s plea offer. He has not met

the requirements of Alcorn v. State , 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013).

In cases where a defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to convey a plea offer, 1 Alcorn requires that the defendant show a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that : (1) he would have accepted the offer; (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer; (3) the court would have accepted the offer; and (4) the conviction or sentence would have been less severe than what was imposed. 121 So. 3d at 430. Appellant ’s motion

1 We equate the failure to convey the acceptance of the plea offer to the state as

“ta nta mount to failing to communicate a plea offer” to the defendant. See Brown

v. State , 138 So. 3d 510 , 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)

.2

does not show a reasonable probability that the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer had counsel immediately conveyed appellant’s acceptance of it. It is clear from his own motion that the prosecutor was negotiating to obtain testimony against appellant’s co

- defendants in exchange for a more lenient sentence. When the prosecutor obtained an agreement with a defendant in an unrelated case to testify against the appellant and his co

- defendants in this case, he withdrew the offer to appell ant. The state may withdraw its offer at any time prior to acceptance by the court. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.172(g)

. These circumstances do not show a reasonable probability that the state would have maintained its offer when it no longer needed the testim ony of appellant.

Appellant also contend s that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a downward departure sentence and to present mitigating evidence to support it. The trial court properly rejected this claim, as the court was presented with all of the mitigating evidence in support of appellant’s request for a youthful offender sentence. The sentencing judge rejected it for that purpose, and appellant cannot show that there was any reasonable probability that the judge would have then d ownwardly departed based upon the same reasons.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS and C ONNER

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00182-CV

THOMAS SATTERTHWAITE JR. AND 

JESSICA SHAW, Appellants

V.

FIRST BANK D/B/A FIRST BANK 

MORTGAGE AND ITS SUCCESSORS AND 

ASSIGNS, Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from 

County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2020-00263-JP)

July 30, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Illinois Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
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 this Annual Report of
Akers Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Raymond Akers Jr., Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |     |                                                             | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: March 28, 2014 | By: | /s/ Raymond Akers Jr.                                       | 
|                     |     | Raymond Akers Jr.                                           | 
|                     |     | Principal Executive Officer
        Akers Biosciences, Inc. | 
|                     |     |                                                             |
#### COOK v. STATE.

No. 23522.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1946.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area and assessed a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented to this court for review.

The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing . opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 33.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, C. E. Andrews, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution orservicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered bythis annual report, of SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-3

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, theinformation in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, thedistribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee bythe servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and upon theannual compliance statement included in the report and required to be deliveredto the trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, orsimilar, agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

 

5.             The reports disclose allsignificant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with the minimumservicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent publicaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in thesereports.

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

/s/ C.E. ANDREWSC.E. AndrewsPresident and Chief Financial OfficerSLM Funding LLC,as the Depositor for SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-3

 

----
#### Douglas Fritzen, Appellant, v Allstate Indemnity Co., Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant failed to show, by proof of an office practice or procedure followed in the regular course of business, that the policy of insurance issued to plaintiff was duly addressed and mailed *(see, Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray,*46 NY2d 828). The mere assertion by one of defendant’s agents that the policy "was sent”, supported by the agent’s reference to an ambiguous notation on a microfiche record purporting to document the mailing, is insufficient to give rise to the presumption that attaches to notices duly addressed and mailed *(see, Friedman v Allcity Ins. Co.,*118 AD2d 517; *cf., Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Preisigke,*139 AD2d 900). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 21     | 23     | 45     | 91     | 297    | 233    | 63     | 12     | 44     | 124   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 158    | 30     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023