alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis Vilella et al., Respondents, v Witkoff Group, LLC, et al., Appellants, and Cammeby’s Management Company, LLC, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 884]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered May 2, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants 233 Broadway Owners, LLC and the Witkoff Group, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Dismissal of the complaint is warranted in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while performing an inspection of an elevator in defendants’ building, the governor cable of the elevator snapped and struck him. Plaintiff does not dispute that the work ticket summaries for the elevators in the building at issue for the six months prior to his accident do not indicate any problem with the governor cable. Accordingly, his assertion, essentially, that the alleged defect ought to have been discovered, notwithstanding the lack of indication of a problem in the work ticket summaries and the lack of complaints, is speculative *(see Gjonaj v Otis El. Co.,*38 AD3d 384 [1st Dept 2007]; *compare McLaughlin v Thyssen Dover El. Co.,*117 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

                         THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY
                         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 Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The
Monarch Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  November 14, 2005

                                         /S/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        President and
                                        Chairman of the Board
No. 10-6811.

#### Albert Truax, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1021, 131 S. Ct. 550,

178 L. Ed. 2d 403,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8447.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 325 Fed. Appx. 591.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21219 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ONOFRE GUERRA, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-91-CR-59-2

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Onofre Guerra, federal prisoner # 02826-043, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct or modify his sentence. Guerra argues that the plea agreement was invalid and that his misprision of the felony conviction could not be used as a sentencing enhancement for his instant drug and money laundering conviction . Guerra has filed a meaningless, unauthorized motion, which the district court should have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Early ,No. 02-21219 -2- 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). This court affirms the judgment on this alternative basis. See id.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TUMBLEWEED, INC.  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                               843,534
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      1,055,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                        1,750,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   4,095,722
<PP&E>                                                            31,769,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     6,132,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    39,345,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              6,436,271
<BONDS>                                                           14,149,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                              58,818
<OTHER-SE>                                                        17,747,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      39,345,719
<SALES>                                                           39,186,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  42,465,618
<CGS>                                                             11,380,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     29,285,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                (1,030,351)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      766,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         268,254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  498,184
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         498,184
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0.08



</TABLE>
# Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna car show supports Central PA CFC

/ Published Nov. 2, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Showing off the best cars and vehicle projects was the goal of this year’s Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna Car Show on October 28, benefiting the Central Pennsylvania Combined Federal Campaign.  The event asked employees to bring everything “from vintage rides to tricked out lawnmowers, anything will do,” and employees did just that, to show the installation their talents and passion. 

Free to enter and to attend, the fundraiser asked patrons for a donation to vote on their favorite ride.  At the end of the day, the votes were counted, and the winner was awarded the coveted “Rusty Piston” trophy.

The winning car went to Henry Johnson’s Corvette and the winning motorcycle went to Paul Finn’s Harley Davidson.  Second place in the car category went to Robert Carbaugh’s 1980 Plymouth Superbird, and third place went to Wesley Cree’s 1971 Plymouth GTX.  Second place in the motorcycle category was awarded to Dalibor Rados with his 1966 BSA Lightening.

The event served to promote participation and support for this year’s CFC.

CFC is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace charity campaign, with more than 150 CFC campaigns throughout the country and internationally to help to raise millions of dollars each year.  Pledges made by Federal civilian, postal, and military donors during the campaign season, which closes December 15, support eligible non-profit organizations that provide health and human service benefits throughout the world.
Exhibit 21.1


List of Subsidiaries

Arab American Express Company Ltd., a Jordanian company, 100% owned.

Secretarial and Business Services Co. (Aramex) L.L.C., organized under laws of
Dubai, 100% owned.

Arabian Express Courier, a subsidiary of Al Khalidia International Group of
Companies, organized under the laws of Abu Dhabi, 100% owned.

Almana Trading Company, organized under the laws of Qatar, 100% owned.

Yusuf Bin Ahmed Kanoo W.L.L., organized under the laws of Bahrain, 100% owned.

Al-Awsat International Transport Company, Ltd., a Saudi Arabian company, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Courier France, a French company, 100% owned.

Aramex (U.K.) International Courier, Ltd., organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom, 100% owned.

Aramex International Courier of VA., Inc., organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, 100% owned.

Aramex International Courier, Ltd., organized under the laws of New York, 100%
owned.

Global Venture Group for Trading, organized under the laws of Kuwait, 100%
owned.

Aramex (Hellas) International S.A., a Greek company, 100% owned.

Aramex International Limited, Israel, organized under the laws of Israel, 100%
owned.

Ramallah Modern International Express Transport Co., organized under the laws of
the Palestinian Authority, 51% partnership interest.

Aramex International Limited, a Hong Kong company, 100% owned.

Middle East Direct Marketing Services Holding Limited, organized under the laws
of the Isle of Jersey, 80% equity ownership interest.

Fallouh for Trade and Express Shipping, organized under the laws of Syria, 60%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Courier Inc.-Canada, organized under the laws of Canada,
19.5% partnership interest.
<PAGE>


Aramex SARL, organized under the laws of Lebanon, 50% partnership interest.

Arab American Express Company, organized under the laws of Lebanon, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Ltd./Ariha organized under the laws of the Palestinian
Authority, 100% owned.

Arab American Clearance & Transport Company, a Jordanian company, 90%
partnership interest.

Aramax International Egypt, organized under the laws of Egypt, 100% owned.

Aramex Int'l Hava Kargo Ve Kurye A.S., organized under the laws of Turkey, 50%
partrnership interest.

Intercontinental Express Ltd., organized under the laws of Bangladesh, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex Couriers India Private Ltd., organized under the laws of India, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex-Airborne Freight Corporation Lanka (Pvt) Ltd., organized under the laws
of Sri Lanka, 50% partnership interest.

Aramex-Airborne Lanka Private Ltd., organized under the laws of Sri Lanka, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex Cyprus Ltd., organized under the laws of Cyprus, 100% owned.
#### People v Fournier

3d Dept: 137 AD3d 1318 (Cortland)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)
# C_2014194EN.01002302.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014 — Pedro Group v OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)

(Case T-38/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PEDRO - Earlier Community figurative mark Pedro del Hierro - Partial refusal to register - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 194/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Vuijst and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Cortefiel, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by H. Mosback, P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2012 (Case R 271/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cortefiel, SA, and Pedro Group Pte Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pedro Group Pte Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pedro Group Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6848.

#### Ernesto V. Bell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 581,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8695.

178 L. Ed. 2d 424,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 10-6201.

#### Ivan Alejandro Reyes-Silva, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 483,

178 L. Ed. 2d 305,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7961.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### People v Morin

2d Dept: 146 AD3d 901 (Westchester)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)
No. 09-1442.

#### Denali, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. Utah State Tax Commission, et al.

562 U.S. 960, 131 S. Ct. 455,

178 L. Ed. 2d 286,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8081.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah denied.

Same case below, 225 P.3d 153.
No. 10-6331.

#### In re Thurman Lee Parks, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 980, 131 S. Ct. 427,

178 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8266.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 09-11070.

#### Lisa J. Gillard, Petitioner v. Alexander S. Michalakos, et al.

562 U.S. 861, 131 S. Ct. 139,

178 L. Ed. 2d 83,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6424,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 1.
# Virtual cookbook exemplifies resiliency among Aviation employees   

/ Published May 18, 2020
RICHMOND, VA, 
When Defense Logistics Agency implemented maximum telework in March due to COVID-19, many employees working for Defense Supply Center Richmond’s largest tenant command, DLA Aviation, began working from home.

Brittany Gull was one of them. She’s a contracting officer working in the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate’s Strategic Contracting Division III.

Gull, who is six-months pregnant, said the extra time she was able to spend at home with her family also gave her an opportunity to hone her culinary skills.

"I love to cook. All I wanted to do was try some new recipes," she said. " I figured with everyone being at home and limited to eating in, it’d be nice if we could all share some recipes."

Gull, who is a member of the directorate’s culture climate group, said she came up with the idea of putting together a directorate wide cookbook and presented it during the group’s March meeting.

"We encourage the culture team as well as the entire directorate to determine what all members want to do as far as team building and culture activities," said Randy Dortch, the deputy director for the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate.

He said the cookbook concept is a perfect example of this teamwork [to improve morale] and implements the social pillar of DLA’s resiliency model during COVID-19.

Gull said a lot of people within the directorate liked the idea and decided to participate. She said 32 people submitted more than 60 of their favorite dishes. Some even sent photos.

Contracting Specialist McKesia Hester shared her chicken-crusted pizza recipe. She said it’s a go-to dish on weekends because it’s easy to prepare and pairs very well with both beer and wine.

"This gives families an opportunity to try new recipes while cooking and spending time together. During this pandemic, I am cooking more than ever before and actually enjoying it. We have made cooking together a fun thing to do," she said.

Gull not only came up with the cookbook concept. She also submitted a few recipes, including how to make peanut butter cookie lasagna. 

Rob Napolitano, an acquisition specialist who works with Gull, said he’s tasted her creation before and loved it so much that when he got his hands on the recipe, he took full advantage. 

"I don’t have a sweet tooth, I have sweet teeth and I love peanut butter, so this dish checks all the boxes!" he said.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH IN GTON . D C . 20460

The Honorable John Barrasso United States Senate Washington. D .C. 20510 Dear Senator Barrasso: O I'I'ICE 01'

**AI~·** ,VII(" <AL)IA 1 O •J

Thank you for your lt:ttcr of March 2 , 2015 , regarding the proposed rule, ..Revision s to the Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,'' 40 CFR 192. which was signed by Administrator Gina :vlcCarthy December 31, 20 I4, and published in the 

### F ederal ReKister on January 26. 2015 (80 FR 4156) . I appreciate your interest in the pr oposal. Before issuing this proposal, the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency held several meetings with stakeholder groups from around the country, including Wyoming. to learn more about what programs arc already working to address groundwater protection for in-situ uranium recovery . In your letter. you requested that the EPA hold an additional public hearing on this rule in Wyoming . We want to give stakeho lders in active uranium production regions the opportunity to voice their thoug hts ahout this proposed nllemaking. so in addition to the public hearing held in Was hington. O .C ., we are planning two puhhc hearings , one in Casper, Wyoming and one in Corpus Chri s ti . Texas . We are in the process of tinalizing the dates and locations for these hcanngs, which will be announced on our website . Recognizing that the proposal asks for comment on a range of issues, some of which arc complex, the EPA initially proposed this rule with a 90-day comment period ending April27 , 2015 . After considering extension requests from you and a number ofparties, the EPA has decided to extend the comment period in order to get the best possible advice and data to inform the final rule . The length of the extension will he dctcnnincd s hortl y . A formal announcement ofthe extension will 

### he published in the 

### Federal

**R~xi**
**.~**
**.** lnfom1ation r e lated to the comment period and hearings also will be po sted on the EPA· s web site at : http ://www .epa. gov /radiation/tenorm /40CFR 192 . We encourage you and all interested parties to provide us with detailed comments on all aspects of the proposed rule . All comments submitted. regardless of method of submittal. will
**r~ceive** the same consideration . We have submitted your letter to the rulemaking docket. but additional comments can be submitted via any of the methods specified in the January 26. 

### Federal Register . Notice of Proposed Rulcmaking .

lntt'"'P. I A:ld '""' (U HL • e nnp.. ... **ww.ei-'~·JO'** Rc>cyc led/Recvc lable • P•oniM will > VI!QC•at·'e 0·1

**B.o~e d**  **I~,,** o n t 00" • **Po~lconsunw•**

**, P·ocp~~**  Ch,o r r eF ·q H"'"V' '"' 1

**P~per**

### Again , t hank you for your l etter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may contact Josh Lewis in the EPA's Office ofCongrcssional and Intergovernmental Relations at lcwis.josh@cpa. gov or (202) **564<~095.** Sincerely.



### · Janet G. McCabe

Acting Assistant Administrator
#### People v DiPalma (Samuel)

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1647 (Erie)

denied 3/23/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 2)
S91A0630, S91A0647.

#### JONES v. ALFONE (two cases).

(404 SE2d 119)

Clarke, Chief Justice.

The trial court dismissed this paternity action for lack of jurisdiction under OCGA § 19-7-40 because the child is not a resident of Georgia. Appellant filed both an application for a discretionary appeal and a notice of appeal. The application was granted, and the appeal has gone forward under two numbers.

Appellant, now a resident of Ohio, brought this paternity action November 1, 1990, against her former employer in Douglas County, the county of his residence. The court dismissed the action at the rule nisi hearing December 6, 1990, in response to appellee’s oral motion on the ground that the child is not a resident of Georgia. The court relied upon this court’s case of *Meredith v. Meredith,*257 Ga. 458 (360 SE2d 586) (1987), in its decision to dismiss the action.

We find that the court erred in dismissing the case. OCGA § 19-7-40 does not limit paternity actions in Georgia to cases in which the child is a Georgia resident. Rather, the section *broadens*the jurisdic*259tion to allow an action on behalf of a child who is a resident against a putative father who is a non-resident. This construction is supported by § 19-7-41, which provides for service of a non-resident defendant without resort to the Long Arm Statute and § 19-7-42, which requires venue in Georgia even if the putative father is a non-resident.

Decided May 15, 1991.

*Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Carolyn R. Gorwitz, Heidi M. Faenza,*for appellant.

*William M. Bristow,*for appellee.

The holding of *Meredith v. Meredith,*supra, upon which the trial court relied, was that if neither the moving party nor the child lives in Georgia, OCGA § 19-7-40 does not confer Georgia jurisdiction over a non-resident putative father. *Meredith v. Meredith*does not limit Georgia jurisdiction to a situation in which the child is a Georgia resident.

*Judgment reversed in Case No. S91A0647. The notice of appeal in Case No. S91A0630 having been filed prematurely, and that appeal now being moot, Case No. S91A0630 is dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*