alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AARON DURELL GRIFFIN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 30 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of July, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
159 A.3d 890

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. G.L.D., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 1, 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.
(April 18, 2017)

#### Noah H. Silverman, Respondent, v Mary Jo D’Arco, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 624]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 10, 2014, in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the answer reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct amount of use and occupancy due, taking into account the lawful regulated rent for the unit during the relevant period and any evidence of defendant tenant’s defenses and counterclaims that might offset the sum due. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 13, 2014, which, among other things, granted the landlord’s motion for a default judgment in the amount of $40,700.50 for use and occupancy arrears unanimously *528dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute *(see Chelsea 18 Partners, LP v Sheck Yee Mak,*90 AD3d 38, 41 [1st Dept 2011]). However, the court improperly directed defendant to pay into the court, while the matter was pending, a sum for use and occupancy for the unit that constituted 32 months of rent in a matter that was then 20 months old, and thus exceeded the sums that could have been alleged to have come due from and after the date of service of the complaint on defendant, and failed to consider defendant’s defenses and counterclaims (RPAPL 745 [2]; *see also Lang v Pataki,*271 AD2d 375, 376 [1st Dept 2000], *appeal dismissed*95 NY2d 886 [2000]; *664 W. 161 St. Tenants Assn. v Leal,*154 AD2d 238, 239-240 [1st Dept 1989]). Furthermore, the landlord failed to meet his burden to prove the amount of use and occupancy due, since no proof of the lawful regulated rent during the relevant time period was submitted to the court, and the sum directed was apparently based solely on the landlord’s affidavit alleging an unexplained and undocumented “[b]alance [forward” due as of January 2011, which was more than five months before commencement of the action *(Mushlam, Inc. v Nazor,*80 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2011]).

The court also improperly struck the answer based solely on defendant’s failure to pay into the court the sum directed, since defendant had proffered a certified check for approximately two-thirds of the amount, and had applied to the Human Resources Administration for a “one-shot deal” to pay the balance. Accordingly, her good faith efforts to comply with the court’s directive did not constitute “willful and contumacious behavior” that could have justified the “drastic remedy” of striking her answer *(Henderson-Jones v City of New York,*87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on November 29, 2016 (144 AD3d 613 [2016]) is hereby recalled and vacated *(see*2017 NY Slip Op 70735[U] [2017] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

Motion for permission to file amicus curiae brief granted, and the brief deemed filed.
VICTOR PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5448

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 16, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Frank E. Sheffield, Judge.

Victor Parker, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Perrone, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Com. v. Noll

12/07/2015

604 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 446
#### Com. v. Britt

08/24/2016

142 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 206
/ 

# \ Regulatory Evaluation
Docket No. FAA- 

## 'lJ; f 

## Ll.- .v,v1.- 

# .2 o5- 

## A-3> Directorate Identifier: -AD 

### If

you make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. (f they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g.,



## '"'P"';~ propeller, appliance)

replacement Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost Do not inclut/.e n- (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for 

### U.S. Fleet /'(!Ondition

**cos~e** access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Forward

**Passenge~**

# \?CompartmentPotable Water System Coupling 12.0 $83 

### 2 Inspection and 

# / Replacement (Part 

### 1) 

# /

**~**

**l~.t!lr-** 

## 1-r

,ld_AI) ....k._ ... 

### l

**~** 

# - fi! .....L ,_., I

**l&J~** 

## /2... ra ,_,..... &'0 f /I 

## ...J

The known number of products in campiiance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,206 Costs covered under warranty (if 

### known) $ On-Condition Costs: 

# U Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

### 7 

### •

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfi eld can also be used to e;rp/ain warranty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action"? 

## @ YES* 

## 0 NO 

### [8] *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

# • Is the AD significant? 

# G YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [8] *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# 0 YES 

## 0 NO 

## IZI Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

**~** ... f " l 

## .: .a. This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska
. Is it appropriate to includ!l specifi<; requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only



# ~dJ~ft}ci **~or tat**  **io ?**  

# ·.G YES* 

## 0 NO 

## IZI *Explanation :



### 8
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10363

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMILIO GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-261-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, Emilio Garza raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States 

v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). In Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 145-46, we 

rejected the argument that Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 

(2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the 

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Accordingly, the motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10363 Document: 00515302023 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
Exhibit 31.2
 Certifications Under Section 302
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of AMICAS,
Inc.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report.
 /s/ Steven M. Oreskovich
    
    April 30, 2010Steven M. Oreskovich
    
    DateChief Financial Officer
*December 18, 2017*

2017-Ohio-9065.]

2017-1283.

#### Loveman Steel Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2017-405. On amended joint motion to remand the appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
#### People v Antoine (Ted)

2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1295 (Kings)

denied 8/10/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
No. 09-10617.

#### LeRoy Shannon, Petitioner v. John Evans, Warden.

562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 94,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5817.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068622
<NAME> U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             172                     172
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,513                   1,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        147                     147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,032                   2,032
<PP&E>                                          32,831                  32,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,120                  19,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,577                  16,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,441                   3,441
<BONDS>                                          5,023                   5,023
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         7,981                   7,981
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,617)                 (3,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,577                  16,577
<SALES>                                          2,609                   7,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,609                   7,644
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,957                   5,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93                     282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    578                   1,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                       220                     653
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                358                   1,060
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       358                   1,060
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kirk Skilling, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 288]

Appeals having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from judgments of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered October 24, 2012 (Richard Carruthers, J.), and May 27, 2014 (Charles Solomon, J.), said appeals having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
JEA Northside Unit #3

- Historical Load Profile
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Novastar Financial, Inc. (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), I, W. Lance Anderson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                       
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: April 1, 2008 |  | /s/ W. Lance Anderson                 
|                    |  | W. Lance Anderson                     
|                    |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer               

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard
contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2,579
<SECURITIES>                                     14,201
<RECEIVABLES>                                    13,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                        634
<INVENTORY>                                      10,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 40,849
<PP&E>                                           47,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                   36,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   55,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16,056
<BONDS>                                             161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          1,342
<OTHER-SE>                                       40,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     55,956
<SALES>                                          17,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17,208
<CGS>                                            12,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (45)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     629
<INCOME-TAX>                                        193
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 436
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.37

        

</TABLE>
# Air Force officer shares her story during local Women in Industry Day event

/ Published Nov. 20, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. Susan McMullen, DLA Troop Support Project Manager, and other women from various industries across Northeast Philadelphia gathered in an auditorium at Holy Cross University to share their stories during the Greater Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce annual Women in Industry Day event Nov. 20, 2019 in Philadelphia.

The Women in Industry Day event aims to “broaden the conversation” and expose women to various career opportunities.
#### U.S. Bank National Association et al., Plaintiffs, v GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Appellant. Syncora Guarantee Inc., Formerly Known as XL Capital Assurance Inc., Nonparty Respondent.

[62 NYS3d 809]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered April 28, 2017, which denied defendant’s motion to reverse the order of a special referee, dated December 2, 2016, denying its motion to compel production of documents by nonparty respondent Syncora Guarantee, Inc., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is a residential mortgage-backed securities put-back action in which the trustee seeks to enforce its contractual rights of repurchase of the mortgage loans in the trust. Nonparty respondent Syncora is the issuer of a financial guaranty policy for a certain class of notes in the trust. Any losses it sustained, or efforts it made to mitigate damages, are not relevant to the trust’s claims.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Renwick, Maz-zarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### People v Baker (Gene)

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 581 (NY)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)
Exhibit 15.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-13784 and 333-139512) of our report dated March 5, 2008 with respect to the statements of operation, changes
in shareholders equity and cash flow for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Tadiran Electronic Systems Ltd., which report is included in this Annual Report of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.              
|    |  | Brightman Almagor & Co.                  
|    |  | A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel-Aviv,
Israel,

March 7, 2010
No. 10-5072.

#### Lucas E. Demling, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 237,

178 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6304.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Second Department,

December, 2003

(December 1, 2003)

#### Buenaventura Abadia, Appellant-Respondent, v Merit Oil of New York, Inc., Respondent, and Kane Products, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 817]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated May 17, 2002, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the defendant Kane Products, Inc., separately appeals from stated portions of the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Kane Products, Inc., is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured on a rainy day when he slipped and fell on an oily substance located in front of the cashier’s booth of a gas station owned and operated by the defendant Merit Oil of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Merit). Three years earlier, the defendant Kane Products, Inc. (hereinafter Kane), had been hired to clean and treat the canopy covering the front of the cashier’s booth with a substance to prevent leaking. The plaintiff testified that the substance on which he slipped was a combination of water, which was leaking from the canopy, and oil.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, Merit established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had notice of the combined oil and water condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to slip and fall *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]). In opposition, the expert’s affidavit submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Further, although Kane’s contract with Merit contained a 10-year warranty, Kane owed no duty to the plaintiff *(see Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp.,*76 NY2d 220, 226 [1990]; *see also Perkins v Cosmopolitan Care Corp.,*308 AD2d *373437 [2003]; *Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos A., Appellant.

Submitted January 30, 2017;

decided March 28, 2017

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that movant is not a party aggrieved *(see*CPLR 5511). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
No. 09-11330.

#### Benjamin Romero Lemus, Petitioner v. Matthew C. Kramer, Warden.

562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 181,

178 L. Ed. 2d 107,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6650.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Flag Room team recognized for hard work, dedication 

/ Published Feb. 6, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Flag Room team received recognition from the DLA Chaplain, Army Col. Bob Wichman, during his visit to Philadelphia Feb. 5.

Wichman presented coins to 15 flag room employees and thanked them for the hard work, dedication and talent they bring to their mission, while also acknowledging for the time they give in explaining and raising awareness about their mission to DLA Troop Support visitors.

The DLA Troop Support Flag Room is a popular location for guests visiting the organization, as they can learn how military unit flags are made and witness the employees hand embroider the presidential and vice-presidential flags.