alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**373 CA 15-01415**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

DONALD J. GARVIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EDWARD C. WOJCIK, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

CHIACCHIA & FLEMING, LLP, HAMBURG (DANIEL J. CHIACCHIA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered April 21, 2015 in a personal injury action. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while cutting down a tree on defendant’s property. Plaintiff and a third party volunteered to help defendant remove trees from his property. Defendant told the parties which direction a certain tree needed to fall, and the parties decided to delimb the tree first. Using his own chainsaw and defendant’s ladder, plaintiff started removing branches from the tree. Defendant positioned the ladder after each branch was removed. Plaintiff had cut almost all the way through one particular branch and commented to defendant and the third party, who were standing on the ground, that the branch was not sagging as he had expected it would. Plaintiff testified that either defendant or the third party or both told him to “just cut it.” Plaintiff continued cutting, and then the branch suddenly swung toward him and struck the ladder, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injuries.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is well settled that a landowner owes those on his property a duty of “reasonable care under the circumstances” ( Basso v Miller , 40 NY2d 233, 241). Here, plaintiff was not injured owing to an unsafe condition on the property, but rather he was injured as “the direct result of the manner in which [he] engaged in a voluntary activity” on the property**-2- 373 CA 15-01415** 

( Jarvis v Eastman , 202 AD2d 826, 827; see Macey v Truman , 70 NY2d 918, 919, mot to amend remittitur granted 71 NY2d 949). In support of his motion, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that his participation in the injury-producing activity was not causally related to the accident ( see Lichtenthal v St. Mary’s Church , 166 AD2d 873, 875; cf. Macey , 70 NY2d at 919-920; Jones v County of Erie , 121 AD3d 1562, 1562-1563).

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
June 26, 2014

CAAP-13-0000868

#### Association of Apartment Owners of Intern. Colony Club v. Deigert

Affirmed
#### Com. v. Thomas

10/01/2015

149 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1128
No. 12-6800.

#### Lillard *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10768.

#### Duronio *v.*Werlinger, Warden.

C. A. Bd Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: November 14, 2006
    
    /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR

David E. MeadorExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer ofMichigan Consolidated Gas Company
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13181]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Application of Servant Air, Inc. for New Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of order to show cause (Order 98-5-21) Docket OST-97-
3022.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order (1) finding 
Servant Air, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and (2) awarding it a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate 
scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail, using 
aircraft with no more than nine passenger seats.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
June 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-97-3022 and addressed to the Department of Transportation 
Dockets SVC-124.1, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 and should be served upon the 
parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Kathy Lusby Cooperstein, Air 
Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 
366-2337.

    Dated: May 13, 1998.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-13181 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    19
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               41
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-1017.

#### Patel *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0675 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-120-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 44,850 | 41,304
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 41,304 | 40,454 | 47,869 | 72,869 | 72,869 | 72,869 | 72,869 | 72,869 | 73,769 | 57,656
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 73,461 | 73,461 | 73,461 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### K.L., In re 52

03/09/2016

505 EAL (2015)

52

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1119
No. 12-7162.

#### Williams *v.*Tamez, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Opinion issued March 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00545-CV

———————————

ALLISON CHANDRA LYNNE LULOFS, Appellant

V.

STEVEN ADRIAN GONZALES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 131st District Court

Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-CI-08772

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Allison Chandra Lynne Lulofs, has failed to timely file a brief. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure 

of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) 
2

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a 

brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
#### In the Matter of City Hawk Industries, Appellant, v Raymond P. Martinez, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 353]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond P Martinez, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated January 14, 2002, which confirmed the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10), and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

It is well settled that judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]). Here, the police officer who issued the summonses testified regarding her training and the weighing site. In addition, the administrative record contained documents indicating that the scales used in weighing the vehi*636cle were accurate four months before and two months after the petitioner was charged with the violations. This evidence provided a sufficient basis for the determination of the Administrative Law Judge *(see Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez,*305 AD2d 418 [2003]; *Matter of R & D Equip. Leasing Co. v Adduci,*220 AD2d 900, 901 [1995]; *People v Vinciguerra,*24 Misc 2d 63, 64 [1960]).

Moreover, the seizure of the petitioner’s truck, which occurred at a weigh station, and pursuant to a nondiscriminatory pattern of selection by the officer weighing the vehicles, was constitutional *(see People v Scott,*63 NY2d 518, 524-527 [1984]; *People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413 [1975]; *cf. Matter of Muhammad F.,*94 NY2d 136, 142-144 [1999], *cert denied*531 US 1044 [2000]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.2

             Amendment to Schedule B of the Asset Purchase Agreement
             -------------------------------------------------------
                                     Between
                                     -------
                Grizzly Creek Leasing, LLC AND DLR Funding, Inc.
                ------------------------------------------------


This Amendment replaces the original Schedule B from the Asset Purchase
Agreement dated March 9, 2006 in its entirety.

EXHIBIT B: PAYMENT TERMS -Amendment
-----------------------------------

On the Closing Date, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller the following:

In exchange for all the assets of Seller, Purchaser will deliver the equivalent
of Eight Million, Two Hundred Ninety Six Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty Four
dollars ($8,296,424) worth of Common shares of DLR Funding Inc. of which will be
paid as follows:

Common stock, in the amount of Four Million, One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand,
Two Hundred Twelve (4,148,212) shares, convertible to Preferred Stock, Class
B-15 in the equivalent dollar value of $2 per Preferred share to $1 per Common
share, all shares subject to Rule 144.


The parties to this Amendment have caused this Agreement to be executed and
delivered as of May 3, 2006.

SELLER                                            PURCHASER

Grizzly Creek Leasing, LLC                        DLR Funding, Inc.

By: /s/ Virginia Brinkman                         By: /s/ Albert Reda
    ---------------------                             ---------------
Print Name: Virginia Brinkman, Manager            Print Name: Albert Reda, CEO

By: /s/ Thomas Anderson
    -------------------
By: Thomas Anderson, Manager

By: /s/ Rick Anderson
    -----------------
By: Rick Anderson, Manager
No. D-2692.

#### In re Roth.

Clifford R. Roth, of Otisville, N. Y., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, *1154it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on October 9, 2012 *[ante,*p. 938], is discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 159 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 159

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the luxury excise 
                                  tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, 
 Mr. McCain, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Kassebaum) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the luxury excise 
                                  tax.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LUXURY EXCISE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to retail excise taxes) is amended by striking subchapter A 
and by redesignating subchapters B and C as subchapters A and B, 
respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The material preceding paragraph (1) of section 4221(a) 
        of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
        ``subchapter A or C of chapter 31'' and inserting ``section 
        4051''.
            (2) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking the last sentence.
            (3) Subsection (c) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``section 4001(c), 4002(b), 4003(c), 4004(a), or 
        4053(a)(6)'' and inserting ``section 4053(a)(6)''.
            (4) Paragraph (1) of section 4221(d) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``taxes imposed by subchapter A or C of 
        chapter 31'' and inserting ``the tax imposed by section 4051''.
            (5) Subsection (d) of section 4222 of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``sections 4001(c), 4002(b), 4003(c), 4004(a), 
        4053(a)(6)'' and inserting ``sections 4053(a)(6)''.
            (6) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``subchapter A of chapter 31,''.
            (7) The table of subchapters for chapter 31 of such Code is 
        amended to read as follows:

                              ``Subchapter A. Special fuels.
                              ``Subchapter B. Heavy trucks and 
                                        trailers.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 23
- 0010 2
- CR No. 10
- 23
- 0010 3
- CR No. 10
- 23
- 0010 4
- CR
EX PARTE PORCHE CURTIS

From the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas Trial Court No s . 22
- 11
- 2179 2
- CR , 22
- 11
- 2179 3
- CR , and 22
- 11
- 2179 4
- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Porche Curtis appeals the trial court’s denial s of Curtis’s three applications for writ of habeas corpus, each signed by the trial court on February 13, 2023

. According to the
information included in Curtis’s d ocketing statement s for each case , nothing was filed to
extend the time in which to file the notice s of appeal . Thus, Curtis 's notice s of appeal were due on March 15, 2023 . Because the notices of appeal were not filed until April 3,
2023 , they are untimely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)(1). We have no jurisdiction of an untimely appea l

. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (no appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal is untimely). Accordingly, th ese appeal s are dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief JusticeEx parte Curtis Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith App eals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 2 6 , 2023 Do not publish [OT06]