alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[71 NE3d 1218, 49 NYS3d 651]

#### Kyreese L. Franklin, Appellant, v Carmen Rosa Gareyua et al., Respondents.

Decided March 23, 2017

*926APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*McMahon & McCarthy,*Bronx *(Matthew J. McMahon*of counsel), for appellant.

*Mauro Lilting Naparty LLP,*Woodbury *(Matthew W. Naparty*and *Seth M. Weinberg*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a serious left shoulder injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the underlying motor vehicle accident.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson.
2016-1293.

#### State v. Turner.

Lake App. No. 2015-L-116, 2016-Ohio-4733. On appellant’s “motion for bail pursuant to R.C. 2953.09 and 2953.10, and color of law.” Motion denied as moot.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Tilden Associates, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Marvin
E. Kramer, Vice-President of Law and Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Marvin E. Kramer
------------------------
Marvin E. Kramer
Vice-President of Law and Finance
April 14, 2005
#### Matter of A.R.N. YINC

DA 16-0764

05/30/17

2017 MT 134N

Affirmed

Dist. 21 (Ravalli)
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Kerry R. Hicks, President and Chief Executive Officer of Health Grades, Inc., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Health Grades, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005           By: /s/ Kerry R. Hicks              Name: Kerry R. Hicks       Title: President and CEO
160 A.3d 712

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH E. JAMESON, DECEASED. (STACY MARIE WOLIN, ET AL.-PETITIONERS)

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
Order issued November 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00203-CR

———————————

JOHN ROBERT MOORE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 18-CR-1549

ORDER OF PERMANENT ABATEMENT

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to permanently abate this appeal based 

on the death of appellant. A copy of appellant’s death certificate is attached to the 

motion. Because appellant’s death occurred after he perfected this appeal and before 

we issued our mandate, the appeal must be permanently abated. See TEX. R. APP. P.
2

7.1(a)(2) (“If the appellant in a criminal case dies after an appeal is perfected but 

before the appellate court issues the mandate, the appeal will be permanently 

abated.”). Accordingly, we grant the motion and permanently abate the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Barton, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 20]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered May 28, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (two counts) *507and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the third-degree robbery conviction and dismissing that count, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We find no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations or its evaluation of the surveillance videotape depicting this shoplifting that escalated into a robbery. The evidence showed that defendant and his accomplices used force against a store employee in order to retain possession of stolen merchandise. Defendant used force for that purpose personally, as well as being accessorially liable *(see*Penal Law § 20.00) for the use of such force by the others, even if the intent to use force in a joint effort to retain the merchandise arose spontaneously during the theft, rather than being planned in advance *(see People v Hudson,*91 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*18 NY3d 995 [2012]). The evidence also supports the inference that although defendant surrendered some of the merchandise, he was aware that he was fleeing with the balance of it still in his bag.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s response to a hypothetical question posed by the deliberating jury is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Although defense counsel proposed a response, a colloquy ensued in which the court explained its inability to answer the question as written, and counsel clearly acquiesced in the court’s decision to ask the jury for clarification *(see People v Morales,*137 AD3d 576, 577 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 972 [2016]). As an alternative holding, we find that the court responded meaningfully to the jury’s note when it informed it that its question was ambiguous and needed to be reformulated *(see People v Stokes,*149 AD3d 510 [1st Dept 2017]; *People v Padua,*297 AD2d 536, 537-539 [1st Dept 2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 562 [2002]). We reject defendant’s arguments that the question needed no clarification, and that the court effectively refused to answer it. The jury neither rephrased its question, nor advised the court that it was unable to do so, and there is no indication that defendant was prejudiced by the court’s response.

As the People concede, the third-degree robbery count should be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Willner v. Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP

04/06/2016

940 MAL (2015)

Denied

No. 1550 EDA 2015
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15303]



[[Page 31338]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457


Grape Crop Provisions; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulation 
which was published in the Federal Register on Monday, June 23, 1997 
(62 FR 33737-33744). The regulation pertains to the Grape Crop 
Provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Meyer, Insurance Management 
Specialist, Research and Development, Product Development Division, 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of 
Agriculture, 9435 Holmes Road, Kansas City, MO 64131, telephone (816) 
926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulation that is the subject of this correction was 
intended to provide policy changes to better meet the needs of the 
insured and include the current Grape Crop Insurance Provisions with 
the Common Crop Insurance Policy for ease of use and consistency of 
terms.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulation contains an error which may 
prove to be misleading and needs to be corrected to reflect the correct 
spelling of the word ``volcanic'.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

    Crop insurance, Grape crop provisions.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 457 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 457--COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS; REGULATIONS FOR THE 
1994 AND SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

    1. The authority citation for part 457 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p).


Sec. 457.138  [Corrected]

    2. In Sec. 457.138, paragraph 10(a)(7) is corrected to read as 
follows: ``Volcanic eruption; or''.

    Signed in Washington D.C. on June 1, 1998.
Kenneth D. Ackerman,
Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 98-15303 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
164 A.3d 405

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LUIS MACAO (A/K/A JAVIER ANGUETA), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*612It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
# Robins Frontlines: Linette Pierce

/ Published May 27, 2020
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga., 
Linette Pierce, Defense Logistics Agency, Emergency Supply Operations Center specialist, supports distribution process workers in moving critical items through the distribution process amidst the fight against COVID-19.DLA Distribution Warner Robins, Georgia, is one of four strategic distribution platforms under DLA Distribution and distributes supplies to all branches of the military at locations all around the world. More than half the work completed at the distribution center is in support of the Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex.For all you do at Team Robins ... Thank You!*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Robins Air Force Base website.*
#### In the Matter of John Joseph Scura, an Attorney.

[54 NYS3d 465]

Per Curiam.

John Joseph Scura was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990 and lists a business address in Wayne, New Jersey with the Office of Court Administration. Scura now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department advises that it does not oppose Scura’s application.

Upon reading the affidavit of Scura sworn to November 28, 2016, and upon reading the correspondence in response by the Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that Scura is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation.

Garry, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that John Joseph Scura’s application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that John Joseph Scura’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court (see *generally*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [b]); and it is fur*1542ther ordered that, effective immediately, John Joseph Scura is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and Scura is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further ordered that John Joseph Scura shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.4

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         The undersigned hereby appoints J. Peter Ricketts as his agent and
attorney-in-fact for the purpose of executing and filing all reports on Form
10-K relating to the year ending September 29, 2000, and any amendments thereto,
required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Ameritrade
Holding Corporation.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
as of the 17th day of December, 2000.



/s/ Mark L. Mitchell
--------------------------
Mark L. Mitchell, Director
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ James H. Moore      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James H. Moore          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 7, 2009     |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MinesManagement, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Woehler v. Messer

DA 16-0737

06/20/17

2017 MT 153N

Affirmed

Dist. 11 (Flathead)
**Exhibit 32.02**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of Macrovision Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James Budge certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge: 

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and 

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of February 26, 2008.
164 A.3d 409

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DONNELL JONES, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the appellant may serve and file a supplemental brief on or before May 22, 2017, and respondent may serve and file a supplemental brief forty-five (45) days after the filing of appellant’s supplemental submission, or, if appellant declines to file such a submission, on or before July 6, 2017.
164 A.3d 410

#### ADIB KASSIS AND GLORIA KASSIS, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. BLUE OCEAN HOLDINGS, L.L.C., D/B/A FIDELIS CONSTRUCTION, FIDELIS CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND EDWARD HOKAYEM, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
# Anchorage property disposal site featured in recent local television segment

/ Published Jan. 26, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Anchorage got its close-up Jan. 21 when the site was featured on NBC-affiliate KTUU-TV’s recurring segment “Inside the Gates.”

The weekly news production introduces the public to various commands and missions behind the fences of the sprawling Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and its tremendous economic impact on the Anchorage area.

DLA Disposition Services Alaska Area Manager Kathy Wigginton worked with joint base public affairs personnel in late 2019 to create public announcements for 100,000 pounds of mixed scrap DLA wanted to make available for removal. Base personnel then brought up the KTUU segment and asked if DLA would like for its property reuse and disposal operation to be highlighted.

The reporter was “mainly interested in how the process works, who can get the property, what kind of property we have,” Wigginton said. “I talked about DOD screening, transfer screening, donation screening, and Alaska Surplus Property.”

Reporters were led around the warehouse, where they captured footage of property disposal specialists moving and labeling items, scrap, and usable items like hospital beds, gym equipment, lockers, and equipment boxes.

“It was very easy to work with both our public affairs staff and the news reporter and camera person,” Wigginton said. “Our public affairs office gave me great tips that were easy to remember. The surprising thing is what the reporter focuses on. It is not always what you think it will be.”

The segment also called attention to a special sale of more than 200,000 pounds of mixed steel scrap metal. Before disposing of property in a landfill, Wigginton said all previous opportunities for reutilization, transfer, donation and sale must be unsuccessful. The site is accepting offers from the public, and based on policy, can consider releasing the material free of charge, on a first-come, first-served basis if no bids are received. This is one of DOD’s final options prior to using a landfill and incurring the associated costs.

The “Inside the Gates” segment can be viewed at the related video link below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1021

HERMIONE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOME QUARTERS WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(MISC-95-48-2)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hermione Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

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 the

motion for extension of time in which to file a complaint pursuant

to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 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. Wright v. Home Quarters Warehouse, Inc., No. MISC95-48-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 4, 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
2017-1160.

#### I.B. v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 2:16-CV-837. On review of preliminary memoranda. The court will answer the following question:

> “Does [R.C.] 2151.421 expressly impose civil liability on a school board, either for its own or its employee’s failure to report, triggering the [R.C.] 2744.02(b)(5) exception to political subdivision immunity on a negligence per se claim based on [R.C.] 2151.421?”

It is ordered by the court that petitioner shall file its merit brief within 40 days and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.CtPrac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and 9.07.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.