alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willi F. Santos et al., Plaintiffs, and Candida Garcia Mota, Respondent, v Benjamin A. Manga et al., Appellants.

[58 NYS3d 354]-

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered May 12, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Candida Garcia Mota’s claims of serious injuries in the “permanent consequential” and “significant” limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and plaintiff Mota’s claims dismissed in their entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that the 71-year-old plaintiff had preexisting degenerative conditions in her right shoulder, lumbar spine and cervical spine, which were reflected in her own MRI reports *(see Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd.,*120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*24 NY3d 1191 [2015]). Since plaintiff submitted no medical evidence to refute defendants’ initial showing as to those body parts, defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims should have been granted (see *Green v Domino’s Pizza, LLC,*140 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2016]).

As to plaintiff’s claimed right knee injury, defendants’ radiologist opined that the MRI films showed preexisting degenerative joint disease, and their orthopedist found full range of motion and opined that the post-operative diagnoses noted by plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon in his operative report were all consistent with an arthritic knee, not trauma. In opposition, plaintiff submitted only the affirmed report of a doctor who examined her the day after the accident, which was insufficient to demonstrate “significant” or “permanent consequential” limitations in range of motion. Plaintiff also failed to submit admissible medical evidence to rebut the opinions of defendants’ experts that she had an arthritic knee *(see Rickert v Diaz,*112 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli and Gische, JJ.
#### T.R. v. C.H., Appeal of: C.H.

406 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/14/2017

2016-40189

(Lackawanna)

Affirmed
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|North Dakota Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Rel: June 7, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0963

Matthew Sherman Phillips v. St. Clair County; St. Clair County Sheriff 

Billy Murray; St. Clair County Chief Clerk Cyndi Stefaniak; St. Clair 

Circuit Clerk of Court Kathryn Burke; Town of Ragland; Town of 

Ragland Mayor Richard Burt; and Town of Ragland Clerk Penny Owen. 

(Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court: CV-23-49).

COOK, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                              4,184
<SECURITIES>                       25,168
<RECEIVABLES>                     184,023
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       127,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  354,230
<PP&E>                            424,342
<DEPRECIATION>                    205,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    768,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             324,990
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                           56,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                         60,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      768,520
<SALES>                           371,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  371,337
<CGS>                             165,439
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     165,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  266,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 14,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (72,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                        9,348
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (81,381)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (81,381)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.87)
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00046

- CV

JAMES COPE APPELLANT

V.

ANGELA COPE APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 271ST DISTR ICT COURT OF JACK CO UNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 14

- 01

- 005

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On May 28, 2015, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

ap pellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

1 Se e Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 16, 2015
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Buffalo, NY Compressed Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Buffalo, NY Compressed Natural Gas Imports from Canada (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                                                                                                                            |        | 2.47   | 2.54   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chafik Hassane, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 408]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered October 6, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due delibera*426tion having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
Exhibit 32.02




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Thomas J. Anderson, Chief Financial Officer of R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC (“RJOFM”), Managing Owner of RJO Global Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i) the attached annual report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the attached annual report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.




By:
/s/ Thomas J. AndersonThomas J. AndersonChief Financial OfficerR.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLCMarch 29, 2011
#### State v. McQueen

CAAP-11-0000653

03/31/2014

Vacated and Remanded
1400 North Hurstbourne Parkway 

Louisville, KY 40223 

502.329.3000 Tel 

June 15,2012 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor, Room Wl2-140 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: NPRM 2009-NM-234-AD Rl 

Docket No. FAA-2010-0547 

Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-234-AD 

;XPAf1TMENT OF r~i/;NSPORTATION 

, ., 'Xi=T ',,._t nPE.R VI ,{'"'\ 

11 T'0~1S I i1 

Wl Jl/N 2 2 A II: 0 g 

R~ference: IAINPRM 2009-NM-234-AD Rl, DocketNo. FAA-2010-0547 dated June I, 2012 

IBI NPRM 2009-NM-234-AD, Docket No. FAA-2010-0547 dated June 3, 2010 

ICI Boeing Service Bulletin 757-57-0068, dated September 15,2009 

IDI Boeing Service Bulletin 757-57-0068, Rev.l, Dated July 9, 2011 

To Whom It May Concern: 

United Parcel Service Co. (UPS), has reviewed the reference I AI NPRM and has the following comments: 

Reference/A/, paragraph (q) requires inspection ofB757 aircraft in accordance with the work instructions in 

Reference IDI. UPS concurs with the technical reasons for the inspections and have been accomplishing them since 

February 2011 in accordance with Reference IBI and ICI, and IDI after the revision was released. UPS has been 

recording results of the inspection in a mo~e simplified manner using the exact work-steps from Reference ICI or 

IDI. UPS has not been completing Appendix A of Reference IDI which is a table for recording inspection results 

since this was not' a requirement per Reference IBI. UPS requests that the reporting requirements per Appendix A of 

Reference ICI be effective from AD effective date going forward and retroactively the data can be provided to 

Boeing in any format due to the fact the level of detail required to complete Appe))dix A may not be available. UPS 

also requests previous credit for inspections bt~ provided since the requirements of reference ICI or IDI have been 

followed with the exception of the discrepancy data being exactly in the Appendix A format. Accomplishing the 

inspections again to complete Appendix A of Reference IDI would provide no benefit to the airline community 

because any discrepancies found during the initial inspections that were not detailed in Appendix A would have 

been corrected prior to further flight per Reference ICI or IDI and can not be repro<;Juced or found on a second 

inspection. · 

UPS. is committed to ensuring full compliance and maintaining the highest level of safety in our operation. Please 

contact Jacqueline Davis, at (502) 329-3632 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Quality Assurance 

DH:JD:mkc
# Materials NotIncluded in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1228 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM015AD
382-57-55, R2 --- 3/23/05 382-57-79 --- 9/2103 ERRATA 382-57-79 --- 5/3/04 382-57-83 --- 3/18/05 382-57-83, R1 -- 8/22/06 382-57-85, R2 --- 8/23/07

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket


### MAY BEVIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 

## 425.2271221

### DURING THE HOURS OF: 9a.m and 3p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0310512008
No. 12-947.

#### Cronin et al. *v.*Spokane Police Department et al.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W  
|- = 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
2017-0172.

#### State v. Dennison.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-592, 2016-Ohio-8361.
# DLA Aviation leaders visit Troop Support

/ Published Aug. 15, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
Senior leaders from the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Ogden and Richmond visited DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia, Aug. 14, to get a better understanding of the organization’s mission and to foster relationships with their corresponding supply chains.

Air Force Col. Gabriel Lopez, DLA Aviation Ogden commander, Air Force Col. John Gustafson and Marine Corps Col. Larry Herring, the DLA Aviation Richmond Air Force and Marine Corps Customer Facing Division chiefs, respectively, received an overview of DLA Troop Support operations and briefings from the Construction and Equipment and Industrial Hardware supply chains.

Richard Ellis, DLA Troop Support Deputy Commander, put into perspective how the work of the organization effects the military services on a daily basis.

“At DLA Aviation, your mission is to support specific weapon systems,” Ellis said. “We really see the airman, Marine, soldier and sailor as being our weapon system. We touch their lives every day. Whether it’s the uniforms, body armor, food, medicine ... our job is to keep the service member up and running.”

While meeting with C&E, the group discussed a number of topics, including the supply chain’s recent uptick in sales, their commercial programs and their customer engagements. Supply chain leaders also explained the massive efforts they can be tasked with during times of disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

“When (Hurricane) Maria took out Puerto Rico’s power grid, we sent more than 1,200 generators to power hospitals, schools and administration buildings,” said Thomas Grace, C&E deputy director. “Working with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, we sent over 36 million individual pieces from poles to cabling, wiring and transformers. It was a logistics exercise like no other.”

The DLA Aviation team spent most of their time with IH because of their mission in acquiring repair parts for their customers.

Air Force Col. Adrian Crowley, IH director, and other supply chain leaders spoke about their long-term contract programs, efforts with military depots and other topics regarding their mission.

Crowley emphasized IH’s strong partnership with DLA Aviation allows the supply chain to support the high demand for repair parts efficiently and economically.

He also spoke about the proud heritage that DLA Troop Support has with Philadelphia and the surrounding areas, and how that can be seen in its workforce.

“In the two years I’ve been here, I’ve had several employees retire after 46 years. They come as interns here and 46 years later they’re with the same team,” he said. “It’s just one big family here in Philly. If you haven’t picked up on their passion yet, you have a very Philly-proud, Philly-strong workforce here.”
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1734

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the provisions

relating to market exclusivity.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. SIMON (for himself, Mr. HATCH, and Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

expand the provisions relating to market exclusivity.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Market Exclusivity Act

5 of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. MARKET EXCLUSIVITY.

7 Section 505(j)(4)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

8 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(4)(D)) is amended by

9 adding at the end the following new clause:

10 ‘‘(vi) If—
2

•S 1734 IS

1 ‘‘(I) an application (other than an abbreviated

2 new drug application) was submitted under sub3 section (b) for a drug;

4 ‘‘(II) no active ingredient of the drug (including

5 an ester or salt of the active ingredient) has been

6 approved in any other application under subsection

7 (b);

8 ‘‘(III) the application was filed before Septem9 ber 1, 1982;

10 ‘‘(IV) the application was under regulatory re11 view for a regulatory review period (as defined in

12 section 156(g) of title 35, United States Code) for

13 at least 78 months; and

14 ‘‘(V) the application was approved October 29,

15 1992,

16 no application may be submitted under this subsection

17 that refers to the drug for which the subsection (b) appli18 cation was submitted before the expiration of 5 years from

19 the date of the approval of the subsection (b) application,

20 and no application submitted under this subsection that

21 refers to such drug may be approved before the expiration

22 of 5 years from the date of approval of the subsection (b)

23 application plus the amount by which the regulatory re24 view period exceeds 84 months, except that the period for
3

•S 1734 IS

1 such amount of additional market exclusivity shall not ex2 ceed 24 months.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board Notice of Open Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 3 June 1998.
    Time of Meeting: 0800-1600.
    Place: Arlington, VA.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Issue Group panel on 
``Impacts of Precision Guided Munitions on Future Tank and Howitzer 
Capabilities'' will visit the Presidential Tower in Arlington, VA 
for a meeting on the study subject. This meeting will be open to the 
public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file 
statements with the committee at the time and in the manner 
permitted by the committee. For further information, please call our 
office at (703) 604-7490.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14032 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-18-M
No. 12-8173.

#### SanAntonio *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.