alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6110.

#### Karla Chavarria, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 369,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7388.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 10-5719.

#### Errol Lamar Scott, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 338,

178 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7159.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-105.

#### Julia McGee, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 297,

178 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6166.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

          I, Charles O. Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as of February 17, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

          I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                
|No chart available.                                                
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Connecticut Natural Gas International Receipts (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 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: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Bush, Matter of, v Lahtinen

App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65170(U)

denied
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 243

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the provision

relating to medicare-dependent, small rural hospitals, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 27 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. BOREN) introduced the

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

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend

the provision relating to medicare-dependent, small rural

hospitals, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. MEDICARE-DEPENDENT, SMALL RURAL HOS4 PITALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(G)) is amend7 ed—

8 (1) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:

9 ‘‘(i) In the case of a subsection (d) hospital which

10 is a medicare-dependent, small rural hospital, payment
2

•S 243 IS

1 under paragraph (1)(A) for discharges occurring before

2 October 1, 1994, shall be—

3 ‘‘(I) for any cost reporting period beginning on

4 or after April 1, 1990, and before April 1, 1993, the

5 amount determined under clause (ii); and

6 ‘‘(II) for any cost reporting period beginning on

7 or after April 1, 1993, the amount determined under

8 clause (ii) by substituting ‘50 percent’ for ‘100 per9 cent’.’’;

10 (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as

11 clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively; and

12 (3) by inserting after clause (i) the following

13 new clause:

14 ‘‘(ii) The amount determined under this clause is the

15 sum of—

16 ‘‘(I) the amount determined under paragraph

17 (1)(A)(iii), and

18 ‘‘(II) 100 percent of the excess (if any) of—

19 ‘‘(aa) the hospital’s target amount for the

20 cost reporting period, as defined in subsection

21 (b)(3)(D), over

22 ‘‘(bb) the amount determined under para23 graph (1)(A)(iii).’’.

24 (b) PERMITTING HOSPITALS TO DECLINE RECLASSI25 FICATION.—If any hospital fails to qualify as a medicare-
3

•S 243 IS

1 dependent, small rural hospital under section

2 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) of the Social Security Act as a result of

3 a decision by the Medicare Geographic Classification Re4 view Board under section 1886(d)(10) of such Act to re5 classify the hospital as being located in an urban area for

6 fiscal year 1993, the Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services shall—

8 (1) notify such hospital of such failure to qual9 ify,

10 (2) provide an opportunity for such hospital to

11 decline such reclassification, and

12 (3) if the hospital declines such reclassification,

13 administer the Social Security Act (other than sec14 tion 1886(d)(8)(D) of such Act) for fiscal year 1993

15 as if the decision by the Review Board had not oc16 curred.

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact19 ment of this Act.

Æ
#### Com. v. Zamichieli

12/02/2015

441 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1135
No. 09-11459.

#### Darrell Ellis, et al., Petitioners v. James M. Brown, Sr., et al.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 203,

178 L. Ed. 2d 122,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7011.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 776.
No. 10-5763.

#### Antonio Bernard Dean, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 937, 131 S. Ct. 342,

178 L. Ed. 2d 223,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7468.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 604 F.3d 169.
----

Exhibit 99.10

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 theQuarterly Report of Loudeye Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John T. Baker IV, Chief Executive Officerand Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

          2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ John T. BakerIV               

 

John T. Baker IVChairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2002

 

----
No. 10-6314.

#### LaVern Berryhill, Petitioner v. Frank Howell Seay, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, et al.

562 U.S. 998, 131 S. Ct. 554,

178 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8345.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
#### Jesse Turbeville, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

146 So. 551.

Decision filed January 9, 1933.

Petition for rehearing denied March 7, 1933.

*C. L. McKaig,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Gary D. Landis,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for' the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being noV advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, O.J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
# Collaboration, communication to solve shared challenges focus of homecoming event

/ Published June 16, 2023
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
About 100 Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime forward presence associates from around the country descended upon the Operations Center at Defense Supply Center Columbus to network with their peers, learn about new tools and collaborate on meeting the challenges of a contested logistics environment during DLA Land and Maritime’s Land Customer Operations Homecoming event June 6-8.

The three-day event, held for the first time in five years, provided an opportunity for associates to interact face-to-face in real-time through numerous training sessions and after-hours social events around Columbus.

The group of customer support representatives, customer logistics site specialists and other customer facing personnel who work side-by-side with their military customers to solve complex logistics problems benefitted greatly from the in-person networking the event offered.

“It really, really matters,” DLA Land and Maritime Commander Army Brig. Gen. Gail Atkins told the group. “It’s really important that you are sitting right with [our military customers] and they are hearing from you.”

The importance of resource sharing and communication at all levels both internal and external emerged as a common theme throughout the week.

“It’s a complex and dynamic environment right now,” Atkins said. “At the tip of the spear where you sit, what you say, how you educate them and how you advocate for them is really your huge value.”

Meaningful outward engagement is key to mission success, she emphasized.

“If we can’t effectively communicate with [our military customers], and we cannot be transparent and honest about our challenges and what we are doing about them, they’re not going to have that trust and confidence that you are on the team with them, and that’s why you’re there,” she said.

And she urged all in attendance to connect with each other, to take advantage of the expertise in the room.

“I really do believe that 99% of what is going on can be solved right here by the men and women sitting here,” she added.

She applauded the group and was impressed by what they accomplish every day despite the challenges they face.

“Having been a customer for 27 years, I now understand and I am mind blown at what this agency is capable of in light of the challenges, the struggles, the barriers and the restrictions. And you’re still getting it done.”

Also at the event, DLA Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson presented the new DLA Frontline Hero Pin and certificate to several forward presence associates for their in-person contributions to essential missions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Land Directorate of Customer Operations exists to ensure on time, on-target readiness support of land forces. This is to ensure the right item, at the right time to build and sustain readiness. Land Customer Operations Forward Presence Teams are DLA Land and Maritime associates co-located with their military customers nationwide to facilitate order fulfillment.
# Former DLA Land and Maritime commander named new DLA director

/ Published July 21, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
The U.S. Senate confirmed July 20 Navy Rear Adm. Michelle Skubic for appointment to the rank of vice admiral and director of the Defense Logistics Agency. She replaces Army Lt. Gen. Darrell K. Williams, who relinquished command July 8 to DLA Vice Director Mike Scott and will retire next month.Skubic has served as commander of Naval Supply Systems Command and 48th chief of the Navy Supply Corps since June 2018. She previously served as commander of DLA Land and Maritime from June 2016 to June 2018 and director of supplier operations at DLA Aviation from August 2008 to August 2011. The Monterey, California, native also commanded a DLA Support Team in Kuwait that assisted warfighters deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.Skubic’s operational assignments include division officer in readiness and services billets aboard USS Acadia, which included deployments for operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm; supply officer aboard Pre-commissioning Unit McFaul; and supply officer aboard PCU George H.W. Bush.Her shore assignments include services officer and carrier readiness officer for Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet in San Diego; combined bachelor quarters officer and aviation support division officer for Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy; deputy department head for program contracts for Naval Air System Command at Patuxent River, Maryland; deputy force supply officer for Naval Surface Forces in San Diego; commanding officer of Naval Supply Systems Command’s Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk in Virginia; NAVSUP chief of staff; director of logistics, fleet supply and ordnance for the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.Skubic graduated California State University in 1988 with a Bachelor of Arts in business administration and finance. She earned a Master of Science in acquisition and contract management from Naval Post Graduate School in 2001. She also graduated the Joint Forces Staff College and University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Executive Development Institute.She is a Naval Aviation and Surface Warfare Supply Corps officer and member of the Acquisition Professional Corps. Her awards include the Defense Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal.
#### Shepherd, Matter of, v Annucci

3d Dept: 142 AD3d 1244

denied
#### Temeka Burrell et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[54 NYS3d 676]

*684In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated May 20, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff Temeka Burrell (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly fell on a landing while descending a stairway at the Junius Street subway station in Brooklyn. The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, subsequently commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things, that the alleged defect was trivial and therefore not actionable. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Initially, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law. “A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” *(Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp.,*26 NY3d 66, 79 [2015]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence submitted in support of its motion, which included photographs and descriptions of the alleged defective condition, failed to establish, prima facie, that it was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable *(see id.*at 82-83; *Parente v City of New York,*144 AD3d 1117 [2016]; *Padarat v New York City Tr. Auth.,*137 AD3d 1095, 1096-1097 [2016]; *Mscichowski v 601 BBA, LLC,*134 AD3d 996, 997 [2015]). Moreover, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked actual notice of the alleged defective condition. Since the defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the de-*685fendánt’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5547.

#### Anthony L. Hall, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7451.

178 L. Ed. 2d 206,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 588.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, Gary C. Granoff, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameritrans Capital Corporation;2.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;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.Date: February 16, 2010/s/ Gary C. Granoff
Gary C. Granoff
Chief Financial Officer