alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phillip R. Sergio et al., Respondents, v Benjolo N.V., Appellant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and Pushcart, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendant and Second Third-Party Defendant.

Appeal from the order of Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered August 17, 1989, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 3212, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the order entered April 3, 1990, without costs. Order of the same court entered *236April 3, 1990, which granted reargument and adhered to the initial determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of a contractor constructing a new elevator in 412 Fifth Avenue, was allegedly injured in the basement of the building when stacked cartons fell beneath the wheels of his tool box, causing it to come to a sudden stop and throw plaintiff to the ground. The building is owned by defendant Benjolo, and was leased at the time of the accident to defendant Job Lot Trading Co., Inc. under an instrument which obligated the tenant to repair and maintain the premises. The IAS court denied Benjolo’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the out-of-possession landlord retained responsibility for the safe maintenance of the premises under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-128 and its right under the lease to reenter the premises to make repairs.

We need not pass upon the rationale employed by Supreme Court in denying the motion as it is clear to us plaintiff has a viable cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) rule 23-1.7 (e). Neither the owner’s lack of control over the work nor over the premises vitiates this statutory responsibility *(Sperber v Penn Cent. Corp.,*150 AD2d 356). This responsibility extends not only to the point where the elevator work was actually being conducted, but to the entire site, including passageways utilized in the provision and storage of tools, in order to insure the safety of laborers going to and from the points of actual work *(Nagel v Metzger,*103 AD2d 1). Plaintiff adequately raised this point on the motion by invoking the concept of a safe place to work, and in any event, the issue arises both from the face of his affidavit in opposition to the motion and deposition testimony in the record *(Matter of Knickerbocker Field Club v Site Selection Bd., 41*AD2d 539). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ. *[See,*146 Misc 2d 1011.]
Francis C. Heil

Senior Attorney

Lega l

1101 17 th St NW

Suite 600

Washington DC 20036

202

- 496

- 5642 Office

francis.heil@aa.com July 16, 2013

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, U.S.

- Brazil Exemption and Frequency Allocation,

DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0137

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

American Airlines has completed its poll of the carriers served with the captioned application we

filed on July 12, 2013, and there are no objecti ons. Accordingly, we request approval on an

expedited basis.

Respectfully submitted,

Francis C. Heil

cc: Docket Branch

Service list2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following

persons :

howard.kass@usairways.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta

. com

t homas. bolling@united.com

ursk@state.gov

____________________ FRANCIS HEIL

July 16 , 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         228,114
<SECURITIES>                                    23,561
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,352,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,665,774
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,186,546
<PP&E>                                       5,335,984
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,912,985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,716,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,220,565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           282
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,479,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,479,560
<SALES>                                      5,018,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,018,801
<CGS>                                        3,929,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,929,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               519,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,509
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,968
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP97-288-005]

Take notice that on November 16, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, proposed to become effective on November 16, 2000:

First Revised Sheet No. 5B.07

                    Transwestern states that the above sheet is being filed to implement a                           ( print page 71102)                        specific negotiated rate transaction in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.                

Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at 

http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30349  Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1152 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1152

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make sentencing 
     guidelines for Federal criminal cases that provide sentencing 
                     enhancements for hate crimes.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1152

                                 AN ACT


 
 To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make sentencing 
     guidelines for Federal criminal cases that provide sentencing 
                     enhancements for hate crimes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTION TO COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States 
Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing 
enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the 
finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate 
crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing 
Commission shall assure reasonable consistency with other guidelines, 
avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and 
take into account any mitigating circumstances which might justify 
exceptions.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``hate crime'' is a 
crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the 
case of a property crime, the property which is the object of the 
crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of any 
person.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Nazario, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered April 28, 1987, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (11 counts), attempted rape in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (4 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant contends, *inter alia,*that he was denied his right to a fair trial by virtue of specific instances of prosecutorial misconduct, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

After reviewing the record, we find that the majority of the claimed prosecutorial errors are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953; *People v Ray,*155 AD2d 625, 626), or without merit. With respect to the single remaining preserved claim of error, it is our conclusion that, although it was improper for the prosecutor to refer to the defendant as a "child molester,” given the overwhelming proof of guilt, this error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant also claims on appeal that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. However, a review of the proceedings indicates that the defense attorney provided a vigorous defense, which included making an application to preclude the introduction of certain testimony, raising various objections during the course of the trial, and cross-examining the People’s witnesses. Accordingly, viewing the totality of the circumstances herein, we find that the defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,015
<PP&E>                                       7,174,936
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,403,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,901,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,901,651
<SALES>                                        444,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              ,444,814
<CGS>                                           87,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  326,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,087
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**HHS ANNOUNCEMENTS**

**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**February 10, 2012 Meeting**

***Preventing Child Maltreatment and Promoting Well-Being: Network for Action 2012 Resource Guide***

The 2012 Resource Guide reflects the theme of the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect’s *Preventing Child Maltreatment and Promoting Well-Being: Network for Action* meeting held in June 2011. At that meeting, national and federal prevention partners came together to develop a shared vision, engage in shared action, and strengthen networks and partnerships. 

The Prevention Resource Guide is produced each year to support service providers in their work with parents, caregivers, and their children to prevent child abuse and neglect. It is released in preparation for Child Abuse Prevention Month, but the guide can be used throughout the year as a resource to promote well-being in children, families, and communities. For more information, visit: http://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/

The Children’s Bureau’s Office on Child Abuse and Neglect and its Child Welfare Information Gateway, the FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, and the Center for the Study of Social Policy – Strengthening Families are pleased to share this information and invite our prevention partners to preorder bulk quantities of the Resource Guide to be released in April 2012.  Contact Rosie Gomez (rosie.gomez@acf.hhs.gov ) or Melissa Brodowski (melissa.brodowski@acf.hhs.gov) for additional information.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited
Partnership (MCV) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James M. Rajewski, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and
Controller of MCV, 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 MCV.

/s/ James M. Rajewski
James M. Rajewski
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Controller
March 1, 2004
Exhibit 23 - Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-84700)  pertaining to the registration of 300,000 shares (prior
to giving effect to the two-for-one  stock split) of Class A Common Stock in the
Insignia Financial Group, Inc. 401-K Plan, (2) the Registration  Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-82414)  pertaining to the  registration  of an additional  1,000,000
shares (prior to giving effect to the two-for-one stock split) of Class A Common
Stock under Insignia's 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, (3) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-79490)  pertaining to the registration of 575,000 shares (prior
to giving effect to the  two-for-one  stock split) of Class A Common Stock,  (4)
the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-8  No.   33-55278)   pertaining  to  the
registration  of an  additional  333,333  shares  (prior to giving effect to the
two-for-one  stock  split) of Class A Common Stock under  Insignia's  1992 Stock
Incentive  Plan,  (5)  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  333-07155)
pertaining to the registration of options to purchase  1,482,879 shares of Class
A Common Stock and the shares  underlying  such options  pursuant to  Insignia's
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements,  (6) the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No.  333-09449)  pertaining  to the  registration  of 400,000  shares of Class A
Common Stock under Insignia's 1995 Non-Employee  Director Stock Option Plan, (7)
the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  333-10685)   pertaining  to  the
registration  of an  additional  2,000,000  shares of Class A Common Stock under
Insignia's 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, (8) the  Registration  Statement (Form S-8
No.  333-17791)  pertaining  to the  registration  of 728,000  shares of Class A
Common  Stock,  (9) the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 Nos.  333-17595  and
333-17595-01)  and related  prospectus  of Insignia  Financial  Group,  Inc. and
Insignia  Financing I for the  registration of 2,990,000  Convertible  Preferred
Securities  of  Insignia  Financing  I,  7,941,338  of Class A  Common  Stock of
Insignia Financial Group, Inc. and certain other securities (including shares of
Class A  Common  Stock)  and  (10)  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.
333-33551)  pertaining to the  registration  of an additional  583,334 shares of
Class A Common Stock under  Insignia's  1992 Stock  Incentive Plan of our report
dated  February 13,  1998, except for Note 20, as to which the date is March 19,
1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Insignia Financial
Group,  Inc.  included  in the  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) for the year  ended
December 31, 1997.


                                            /s/Ernst & Young LLP
                                            --------------------
                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
March 23, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30604]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a consent decree in United States v. Feinstein Family 
Partnership, et al., Case No. 96-232-CIV-FTM-24D (M.D. Fla.) was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Middle District of 
Florida on November 17, 2000.
    The proposed consent decree concerns violations of the Clean Water 
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, resulting from the unauthorized discharge of 
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States at the 
Colonial Properties site, a development in Lee County, Florida. The 
consent decree requires the preservation of wetlands at the site and 
the purchase of credits in a wetlands mitigation bank.
    The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to 
the proposed consent decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the 
date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
United States Department of Justice, Attention: S. Randall Humm, Trial 
Attorney, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, DC 
20026-3986, and should refer to United States of America v. Feinstein 
Family Partnership, et al., DJ Reference No. 90-5-1-6-626.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Room 
2-194, United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First 
Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901.

Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 00-30604 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Exhibit
32.2





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 Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Thomas W. Fry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 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.




November 12,
2009


By
      /s/ Thomas W. FryThomas
      W. FryChief
      Financial Officer




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.