alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marisa S.-H., Respondent, v Christopher H., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[58 NYS3d 47]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered May 20, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff wife’s motion to confirm a report and recommendation of a special referee, and denied defendant husband’s motion to reject it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s report was amply supported by the rec*427ord *(Nager v Panadis,*238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1st Dept 1997]). The “badges of fraud” supporting the Special Referee’s finding of a fraudulent conveyance are compelling, and not contested by the husband *(Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky,*257 AD2d 526, 529 [1st Dept 1999]). As the Special Referee found, the husband admitted that he sold the marital residence to a person he trusted and in fact considers to be his mother, and he does not deny selling the apartment below market value *(id.).*The husband also does not deny selling the property in secret or that it was done in an effort to delay and defraud the wife from her equitable share of property. Nor is there a basis to challenge the Special Referee’s determination that the relatively modest amount of the wife’s attorney’s fees was “reasonable” and recoverable under Debtor and Creditor Law §. 276-a.

We have considered the husband’s remaining contentions, which are largely irrelevant, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-7559.

#### McCorvey *v.*Young, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT
      23.1





[DELOITTE
      TOUCHE TOHMATSU LETTERHEAD]




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
      333-13320 and No. 333-10312 of Highway Holdings Limited on Form S-8 of our
      report dated May 31, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of
      Highway Holdings Limited for the year ended March 31, 2005.




/s/
      Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu




Hong
      Kong


June
      27,
      2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.A


                            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 for the period
ending June 30, 2003, of ANR Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W.
Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John W. Somerhalder II
                                           Chairman of the Board
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

                                           August 13, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ANR Pipeline Company and will be retained by ANR Pipeline Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00512-CR

Robert Lee CRIDER, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B17583

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

SIGNED September 25, 2019.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | 8.84   | 11.40  | 6.91   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### People v Fenton

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 519

denied
#### Meghan Dziuma, Appellant, v Jet Taxi, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[50 NYS3d 341]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered December 15, 2015, which granted defendant Jet Taxi’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s inability to establish a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer any serious injury through the affirmed report of its orthopedist, who found full range of motion in all affected body parts, its radiologist, who opined that the conditions shown in the spinal MRIs were degenerative and that there was no *574evidence of traumatic injury in the left shoulder, and its psychologist, who opined that plaintiff did “not present with any evidence for any psychological disability” due to the subject accident *(see Mitrotti v Elia,*91 AD3d 449, 449-450 [1st Dept 2012]).

In response, plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence to rebut defendant’s showing, since she presented no medical evidence to substantiate her claims *(see Windham v New York City Tr. Auth.,*115 AD3d 597, 599 [1st Dept 2014]; *Turner v Benycol Transp. Corp.,*78 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2010]).

Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a 90/180-day injury by submitting her deposition testimony showing that she was not confined to home or bed for longer than about five weeks *(see Komina v Gil,*107 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Maz-zarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
No. 12-648.

#### Cunningham et al. *v.*Whalen et al.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.
AIR-11-028-E 

February 10, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10207 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-1093 

Mr. Brian G. Saucier 

Gendry & Sprague, P.C. 

645 Lockhill Selma 

San Antonio, TX 78216-5057 

Dear Mr. Saucier: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Driscoll Children’s Hospital (Driscoll) for an exemption from § 45.25(b)(1) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Driscoll to have the 

N-number displayed on the vertical tail surface of its aircraft at an approximate 60 degree angle to 

the horizontal stabilizer. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in 

the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this 

petition would be detrimental to Driscoll. 

The FAA issued denials of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those 

presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption Nos. 3876 and 6147 (copies enclosed), the 

FAA found that N-numbers can be misread when displayed in other than the standard horizontal 

or vertical position because of the general tendency while reading the English language to scan 

horizontally from left to right and vertically from top to bottom. The oblique display of the 

registration number could, therefore, be misread on one side of the aircraft so as to cause 

confusion in its identification. The FAA determined that this adverse affect on the positive 

identification of an aircraft is precluded by allowing only horizontal or vertical displays. The 
2 

horizontal stabilizer on this aircraft may also obstruct an observer from reading the registration 

number correctly from certain angles from the ground. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed denials of 

exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemptions also apply to the situation 

you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Driscoll Children’s Hospital for an exemption from 

§ 45.25(b)(1). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frank P. Paskiewicz 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosures
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1692

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of

documentation for the vessel Big Guy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

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

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation for the vessel Big Guy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 999, chapter 250; 46

6 U.S.C. App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may

7 authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Big

8 Guy, United States official number 939310.

Æ
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1837

To suspend temporarily the duty on the personal effects of participants

in, and certain other individuals associated with, the 1994 World Cup

soccer games.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 8 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. MACK) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on the personal effects

of participants in, and certain other individuals associated with, the 1994 World Cup soccer games.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSION FOR PER4 SONAL EFFECTS OF WORLD CUP SOCCER

5 PARTICIPANTS.

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

9 new heading:
2

•S 1837 IS

‘‘ 9902.98.04 Personal effects of

participants in, officials of, or accredited members of

delegations to the

1994 FIFA World

Cup games, and of

persons who are

immediate family

members of or

servants to any of

the foregoing persons; equipment

and materials imported by or on behalf of the foregoing persons in

connection with

such games; and

other equipment

and materials intended for use or

consumption at or

in connection with

such games or related cultural exhibitions; all the foregoing goods not intended for commercial sale ................. Free No change Free On or before

9/30/94 ’’.

1 (b) AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUS2 TOMS.—The Commissioner of Customs is authorized to

3 waive the requirements for entry or bond, or such other

4 requirements as the Commissioner deems appropriate,

5 that are otherwise applicable under the customs regula6 tions to goods described in heading 9902.98.04 of the

7 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (as

8 added by subsection (a)); and goods described in such

9 heading shall be free of taxes which may be otherwise

10 applicable.

11 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

13 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
3

•S 1837 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the Customs Service on or

6 before the 60th day after the date of the enactment of

7 this Act, any entry of an article described in subheading

8 9902.98.04 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

9 United States (as added by section 1) that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1993, and before the

11 date which is 15 days after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act, and

13 (2) with respect to which there would have been

14 no duty if the amendment made by section 1 applied

15 to such entry or withdrawal,

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend17 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Anyi M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 542]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2016, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree, and imposed a conditional discharge until December 31, 2016, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and imposing a conditional discharge *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]), given the seriousness of the offense, which involved a residential burglary and the theft of valuable property, as well as negative factors in appellant’s background. Furthermore, the court offered to reconsider this disposition if appellant complied with the terms of his conditional discharge *(see Matter of Adabel D.,*127 AD3d 604 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
EX-12
                              RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                   FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                    DECEMBER 27, 2002                  DECEMBER 28, 2001                  DECEMBER 29, 2000
                           ---------------------------------    --------------------------------   ---------------------------------
                            MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                              PREFERRED         PREFERRED          PREFERRED        PREFERRED         PREFERRED        PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST I   FUNDING I, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST I  FUNDING I, L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST I   FUNDING I, L.P.
                           ---------------   ---------------    ---------------  ---------------   ---------------   ---------------

<S>                             <C>                <C>            <C>              <C>               <C>              <C>

Earnings                          $ 21,972          $ 25,654           $ 21,972         $ 25,745          $ 21,972          $ 25,781
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========          ========          ========


Fixed charges                     $      -          $      -           $      -         $      -          $      -          $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution requirements          21,313            21,972             21,313           21,972            21,313            21,972
                                  --------          --------           --------         --------          --------          --------

Total combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements        $ 21,313          $ 21,972           $ 21,313         $ 21,972          $ 21,313          $ 21,972
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========          ========          ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                         1.03              1.17               1.03             1.17              1.03              1.17



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>                  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
                          EXTRACTED   FROM  ANR  PIPELINE   COMPANY  FORM  10-Q
                          QUARTERLY  REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
                          AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000,000
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                         3
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                264
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                   28
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             344
<PP&E>                                                     3,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                             2,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        286
<BONDS>                                                      498
<COMMON>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,746
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             241
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              120
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           90
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  90
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>