alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joan Elliott, Appellant, v Romana Grant, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 645]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated July 8, 2014, which, inter alia, denied her motion, in effect, to strike the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

*1081Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In July 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she was intentionally assaulted by the defendant in September 2009 and November 2009. The plaintiff contends that although this action was commenced after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations for asserting a cause of action alleging assault *(see*CPLR 215 [3]), the statute of limitations was extended by CPLR 213-b.

CPLR 213-b, entitled “Action by a victim of a criminal offense,” provides, as relevant, that “an action by a crime victim . . . may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant: (1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime.” The statute was “intended to be expansive” and to “give relief to more, rather than fewer, numbers of crime victims” *(Elkin v Cassarino,*248 AD2d 35, 39 [1998]).

In support of her cross motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to strike the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, the defendant established that she was convicted of the violations of harassment and disorderly conduct in connection with the incidents at issue. Pursuant to Penal Law § 10.00 (6), “ ‘Crime’ means a misdemeanor or a felony.” Where the defendant was not convicted of any crime in connection with the subject of the action, “CPLR 213-b, by its plain terms, does not apply” *(Vasquez v Wood,*18 AD3d 645, 646 [2005]). Here, since the defendant was convicted of violations, which are not crimes, the Supreme Court properly declined to apply the seven-year statute of limitations as provided in CPLR 213-b and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00217

- CR

Juan HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR11271

Honora ble Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

Appellant ’ s brief is due on October 31, 2018.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Latesha Mayes, Appellant, v Malek Aldoais et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 900]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered August *84010, 2015, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Although the plaintiff alleged in the bill of particulars that she sustained serious injuries to her right shoulder and right wrist, the defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence addressing those alleged injuries (see *generally Che Hong Kim v Kossoff,*90 AD3d 969 [2011]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see id.).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### Neil O’Donnell, Appellant, v Cynthia O’Donnell, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 282]

*605In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 30, 2000, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 21, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel him to pay the fees and costs associated with the appearance and testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses at the trial and denied his cross motion for the imposition of a sanction.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

While it is true that the award of expert witness fees in a matrimonial action is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, such awards should not be made routinely. They should be made upon a detailed showing, inter alia, of the services to be rendered and the estimated time involved *(see Ahern v Ahern,*94 AD2d 53, 58 [1983]). In the instant case, the defendant’s failure to provide any affidavits from her expert witnesses supporting her motion left the Supreme Court with an insufficient basis upon which to grant that branch of her motion which was to compel the plaintiff to pay the fees and costs associated with the appearance and testimony of those expert witnesses at the trial of this action *(see Corrao v Corrao,*209 AD2d 573, 574 [1994]; *Fischler v Fischler,*184 AD2d 680, 681 [1992]; *Coppola v Coppola,*129 AD2d 760, 762 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### Donofrio, Matter of

App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 80620(U)

denied
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0261 IN THE MATTER OF: J.D.L., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Following entry of this Court’s April 11 , 2023 Opinion reversing the commitment order in this case, Respondent and Appellant J.D.L. has moved for immediate remittitur. J.D.L. represents that the State of Montana does not oppose this motion. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that remittitur shall issue immediately.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2023

04/13/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0261
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the September 30, 1997 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> MOBILCORP/JNICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,600
<PP&E>                                          50,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,524
<BONDS>                                          4,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        669
<COMMON>                                           894
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,176
<SALES>                                         48,257<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,332<F1>
<CGS>                                           31,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.13
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $4,432 MILLION OF EXCISE
AND STATE GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMMANUEL IKECHUKWU ANUDU, a/k/a Cletis, a/k/a

Claytus,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CR-91-305-HAR)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Ikechukwu Anudu, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for return of property. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Anudu, No. CR-91-305-HAR (D. Md.

Nov. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Natural gas brings environmentally friendly heat to DSCR

/ Published March 30, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
Benjamin Franklin once said that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”  Those words of wisdom hold especially true in the world of environmental protection. 

Prior to 2018, all 48 heating boilers used on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, were fired by fuel oil. In most cases, this fuel was stored in large above-ground or underground storage tanks located near each boiler. While each tank is multi-walled, with numerous built-in monitors and protective controls, the threat of a spill from overfilling, or leaks from within the piping system, was always possible.

Jimmy Parrish, chief, Environmental Management Division, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond, said each tank is inspected weekly to ensure safety, or closed after being removed.

“We also developed and implemented written procedures to make sure that our filling operations went off without a hitch,” Parrish said.

In the meantime, staff from DLA Installation Management Richmond’s Installation Operations Division in conjunction with the Environmental Management Division began looking at ways to better protect the environment. 

Two years ago, work began on the installation of natural gas lines to nearly all the boilers on the installation.  Any existing boilers that could not use natural gas were replaced with high-efficiency natural gas boilers; a total of 41 boilers now run on natural gas. 

“Natural gas is a cleaner and more energy efficient fuel source than fuel oil,” said Trenise Trent, environmental engineer, Environmental Management Division, DLA Installation Management Richmond. “[Natural gas] combustion gives off lower emissions, it’s much cheaper to procure and it’s easier to manage.”

With the switch to natural gas and the subsequent elimination of the need for fuel oil, the next step was to close or remove the fuel oil storage tanks. Work began in February, with physical removal of 13 underground and 15 above-ground tanks. Tanks that could not be physically removed due to their proximity to other structures were environmentally closed in place.

“Closing an underground tank in place is a highly regulated process,” Trent said. “Each tank must be thoroughly drained and cleaned. Once this is completed, the tank is inspected by representatives from Chesterfield County Utilities Department and Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, who then give us the go-ahead to fill the tank with a non-hazardous expanding foam.”  

Parrish said, “This initiative is a win-win all around. We’re saving warfighter money by using a cheaper fuel source and achieving environment benefits from lower air emissions, as well as, eliminating risk of soil or water contamination through fuel spills or leaks.” 

The removal of the obsolete storage tanks is ongoing and should be completed within the next few weeks.
#### Com. v. Mickel

09/21/2015

360 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1044
#### Com. v. Caldwell

11/16/2015

408 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 117 A.3d 763
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|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 Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Malaysia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2019                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     | 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
#### Estate of Lorette Jolles Shefner, Deceased, by and through its Executors, et al., Respondents, v Galerie Jacques de la Beraudiere et al., Appellants. Yves Bouvier, Intervenor Defendant-Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[50 NYS3d 269]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered October 24, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ and intervenor defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants failed to demonstrate that there were no triable issues of fact concerning ownership of the de Kooning painting and concerning successor liability. Defendants failed to provide a consignment agreement listing the painting at issue, and the documents produced do not show which entity purchased the painting. Moreover, plaintiffs provided evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether the painting was properly subject to attachment in connection with a default *557judgment they obtained in a federal action, based on statements allegedly made by an employee with authority to speak and contradictory statements by defendants *(see DeSimone v City of New York,*121 AD3d 420, 421-422 [1st Dept 2014]).

The record also reflected triable issues of fact concerning whether Galerie Jacques de la Beraudiere was the successor to Galerie Cazeau-Beraudiere *(see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co.,*59 NY2d 239, 244-245 [1983]; *Ring v Elizabeth Found. for the Arts,*136 AD3d 525, 527 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. &
1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Royal Standard Minerals Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2014, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the annual report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Royal Standard Minerals Inc. at
the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation
to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|Dated: April 29, 2016                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|                                      | 
|/s/ Lonnie Kirsh                      | 
|Lonnie Kirsh                          | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                               3,190
<SECURITIES>                        22,543
<RECEIVABLES>                      151,360
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                         90,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    11,199
<PP&E>                             381,508
<DEPRECIATION>                     192,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     559,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              189,184
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                            56,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                         188,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       559,605
<SALES>                            467,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   470,175
<CGS>                              188,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      369,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   6,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     94,242
<INCOME-TAX>                        22,147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 72,095
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        72,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DIST RICT OF TEXAS F ORT WORTH

N O S
. 2 - 0 9 - 2 3 4 - C R 2 - 0 9 - 2 3 5 - C R 2 - 0 9 - 2 3 6 - C R

M E L V I N D A S H A W N G R I G G S A P P E L L A N T V

. T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S S T A T E

- - - - - - - - - - - - F R O M C R I M I N A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T N O

. 3 O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

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

### M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - O n F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i l e d a c o r r e c t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t M e l v i n D a s h a w n G r i g g s ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n s t h a t f o r m t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e
a p p e a l s
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 2 5

. 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( d ) , ( f )

. T h e c o r r e c t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e s e a r e p l e a b a r g a i n c a s e s i n w h i c h G r i g g s h a s n o r i g h t o f a p p e a l a n d t h a t G r i g g s h a s w a i v e d h i s r i g h t o f a p p e a l

.

1  S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 7

. 4

.B a s e d o n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o r r e c t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n , o n M a r c h 1 6 ,

2 0 1 0 , w e i s s u e d a n o r d e r e x p r e s s i n g o u r c o n c e r n a b o u t w h e t h e r w e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n
o v e r t h e a p p e a l s
. W e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e a l s w e r e s u b j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l u n l e s s
a n y p a r t y d e s i r i n g t o c o n t i n u e t h e m f i l e d a r e s p o n s e s h o w i n g g r o u n d s t o c o n t i n u e t h e m
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 4

. 3

. W e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d a n y s u c h r e s p o n s e
. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l s f o r w a n t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 2 5

. 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( d ) , 4 3

. 2 ( f ) ; C h a v e z v
. S t a t e , 1 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 5 , 6 8 0 ( T e x
. C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ) ; J a c k s o n v
. S t a t e , 1 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 ( T e x
. A p p
. — F o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t

. )

.

P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : L I V I N G S T O N , C

. J

. ; M C C O Y a n d M E I E R , J J

. D O N O T P U B L I S H T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 7

. 2 ( b ) D E L I V E R E D : A p r i l 2 9 , 2 0 1 0

2
Docket No: FAA - 2016 - 3698 Dir ID 2015 - NM - 138 - AD