alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Caires et al., Appellants, v Siben & Siben, LLP, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 785]—

*384In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated January 8, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant, the plaintiffs’ counsel in a prior lawsuit to recover damages for personal injuries, committed legal malpractice by failing to submit expert evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

To establish negligence and proximate cause in a legal malpractice case, the plaintiffs “must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of skill commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that but for the failure to exercise that requisite degree of skill the result sought by the plaintiff would . . . have been achieved” *(Zeitlin v Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Falkin,*209 AD2d 510 [1994]). For the defendant to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, “evidence must be presented in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements of a malpractice cause of action” *(Ippolito v McCormack, Damiani, Lowe & Mellon,*265 AD2d 303 [1999]).

In support of its motion, the defendant met its prima facie burden of disproving the elements of negligence and proximate cause. In response, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of an attorney, presented as their “expert,” who offered a bare legal opinion and conclusory statement that the defendant’s failure to retain an expert in the prior lawsuit constituted legal malpractice. This evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence *(see Russo v Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass,*301 AD2d 63, 68-69 [2002]). The additional expert statements offered by the plaintiffs were not in proper evidentiary form and therefore could not be relied upon to raise a triable issue of fact *(see e.g. Hargrove v Baltic Estates,*278 AD2d 278, 278-279 [2000]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted and the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16902]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freights forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

IFS Film Services, Inc., 6521 NW 87th Avenue, Miami, FL 33178, Officer: 
Mayde C. Montesano, Director.

    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16902 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
No. 10-5759.

#### Abdur Rahman Kantamanto, Petitioner v. Lorenzo North.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 854,

178 L. Ed. 2d 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9606.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 466, 178 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7966.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-076-1492-00-241A]

Notice of Intent To Amend the Grand Junction Resource Management 
Plan

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to amend the Grand Junction Resource Area 
Resource Management Plan, 1987.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102 of the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 and section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction Resource 
Area, is proposing to amend the Grand Junction Resource Management 
Plan, approved in January 1987. The amendment will consider a mineral 
withdrawal in the Unaweep Seep/West Creek area. The effect of this 
change will be analyzed in an environmental assessment (EA). The 
amendment is being developed in concert with a revision of the Unaweep 
Seep Natural Area Management Plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fowler, Grand Junction Resource 
Area, (970) 244-3036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The affected area includes approximately 
1440 acres of public land in Mesa County located about 6 miles 
northeast of Gateway, Colorado. The lands include the Unaweep Seep 
Research Natural Area and portions of West Creek and the North Fork of 
West Creek.
Mark Morse,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-16992 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
```
# C_2013298EN.01000701.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/7

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-366/13 R)

(Interim relief - State aid - Aid implemented in favour of companies responsible for the public service of providing maritime transport services between Corsica and Marseille - Compensation paid in respect of additional services provided to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision classifying that aid as incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of that aid from the recipients - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)

2013/C 298/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, N. Rouam, G. de Bergues and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
No. 10-7265.

#### Jose A. Ramos-Romero, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 681,

178 L. Ed. 2d 506,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9092.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-6912.

#### Marlin E. Jones, Petitioner v. Jonathan J. Blum.

562 U.S. 1105, 131 S. Ct. 827,

178 L. Ed. 2d 552,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9671.

December 13, 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 Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 573.
EXHIBIT 21

                             DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY AS OF MARCH 31, 1999


SUBSIDIARY                                          PLACE OF INCORPORATION
-----------                                         ----------------------


DRS Electronic Systems, Inc.                        United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Technical Services, Inc.                        United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Systems Management Corporation                  United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Laurel Technologies                             United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Precision Echo, Inc.                            United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Ahead Technology, Inc.                          United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Photronics, Inc.                                United States of America
 (New York)
DRS Optronics, Inc.                                 United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Technologies Canada, Inc.                       United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Technologies Canada Company                     Canada (Nova Scotia)
DRS Technologies (Europe) Ltd.                      United Kingdom
DRS Technologies (UK) Ltd.                          United Kingdom
DRS Hadland Ltd.                                    United Kingdom
DRS Hadland GmbH                                    Federal Republic of Germany
DRS Hadland, Inc.                                   United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Air, Inc.                                       United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS/MS, Inc.                                        United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS International, Inc.                             United States of America
 (Delaware)
Diagnostic/Retrieval Systems (DRS) Technologies     Netherlands
 Parsippany B.V.
DRS Ahead Technology, Inc.                          Republic of Bulgaria
 (Bulgaria) AD
NAI Technologies, Inc.                              United States of America
 (New York)
DRS Rugged Systems (Europe) Ltd.                    United Kingdom
DRS Rugged Systems (Australia) Pty. Ltd.            Australia
DRS Rugged Systems, Inc.                            United States of America
 (Colorado)
DRS Advanced Programs, Inc.                         United States of America
 (New York)
DRS FPA, Inc.                                       United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Infrared Technologies, LP                       United States of America
 (Delaware)
DRS Sensor Systems, Inc.                            United States of America
 (Delaware)
No. 10-6837.

#### Marcia Lorraine Madden, Petitioner v. United States, et al.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 686,

178 L. Ed. 2d 475,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9329.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 20, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 10-6634.

#### Jason O. Williams, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 906,

178 L. Ed. 2d 760,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 180.

January 10, 2011.

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

*761Same case below, 598 F.3d 778.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,662,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,048,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,404
<PRE-PAID>                                       9,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,743,112
<FIXED-ASSETS-NET>                              93,641
<INTANGIBLE-ASSETS-NET>                        662,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,499,391
<ACCOUNTS-PAYABLE>                           1,463,960
<PURCHASE-CONSIDERATION>                     2,475,000
[NOTES-PAYABLE]                                100,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,038,960
<COMMON>                                        21,654
<ADDITIONAL-PAID-IN-CAPITAL>                 8,873,038
<ACCUMULATIVE-DEFICIT>                      (3,995,535)
<CUMULATED TRANSLATION ADJUSTMENT>              36,265
<SUBSCRIBED-COMMON-STOCK>                   (2,475,000)
<TOTAL-SHAREHOLDER-EQUITY>                   2,460,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,499,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,388,354
<CGS>                                        1,895,933
<GROSS-PROFIT>                                 492,420
<ADVERTISING AND SELLING>                      284,635
<PROFESSIONAL-FEES>                            842,413
<SALARIES-AND-BENEFITS>                        881,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,865
<AMORTIZATION>                                  14,121
[OTHER]                                        469,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,498,687
[INTEREST-INCOME]                               93,410
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (29,366)
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,942,223
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)




</TABLE>
No. 10-5881.

#### Jacqueline E. Cantey, Petitioner v. Ohio.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 416,

178 L. Ed. 2d 325,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8152.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Wayne County, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2619 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2619

 To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain pension as 
     administrative expenses in bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

   Mr. Ryan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain pension as 
     administrative expenses in bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prioritizing Our Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 503(b) of title 11, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) notwithstanding section 507(a)(5), all unfunded 
        vested benefits in a defined benefit pension plan; and
            ``(11) withdrawal liability determined under part 1 of 
        subtitle E of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
        Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 507(a)(5) is amended by 
inserting ``except as provided in section 503(b)(10),'' after 
``Fifth,''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




/S/ DAVID C. KAHN
-----------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MAY 14, 2009
No. 10-5406.

#### Brian P. Hinkley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 920, 131 S. Ct. 291,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7186.

178 L. Ed. 2d 191,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-5484.

#### Michael Turner White, Petitioner v. Henry Guzman, et al.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 853,

178 L. Ed. 2d 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9611.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 924, 131 S. Ct. 307, 178 L. Ed. 2d 199, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7203.
No. 10-6491.

#### Ryan Edwin Headden, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 434,

178 L. Ed. 2d 337,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8254.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 290.
No. 10-6609.

#### James Werdlow, Petitioner v. Patricia Caruso, et al.

562 U.S. 1068, 131 S. Ct. 653,

178 L. Ed. 2d 490,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9076.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# DLA Installation Support at Susquehanna F&ES awarded international reaccreditation status

/ Published April 19, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
DLA Installation Support at Susquehanna, Pa., Fire and Emergency Services has received Accredited Agency status with the Commission on Fire Accreditation International for meeting the criteria established through the CFAI’s voluntary self-assessment and accreditation program.  DLA is one of over 200 agencies to achieve Internationally Accredited Agency status with the CFAI and the Center for Public Safety Excellence, Inc.

All four DLA fire departments, including other locations at San Joaquin, Calif., Richmond, Va., and Columbus, Ohio, are accredited for the second five-year cycle.  The Department of Defense now has about 50 fire departments that have obtained this status.  Worldwide, there are about 220 accredited fire departments. 

CFAI is dedicated to assisting fire and emergency service agencies throughout the world in achieving excellence through self-assessment and accreditation in order to provide continuous quality improvement and the enhancement of service delivery to their communities.  The CFAI process is voluntary, and provides an agency with an improvement model to assess their service delivery and performance internally and then work with a team of peers from other agencies to evaluate their completed self-assessment.

“The achievement of Accredited Agency status demonstrates the commitment of the agency to provide the highest quality of service to our community,” said Susquehanna fire chief Henry C. Hoffman Jr.  “We have been able to use the Commission on Fire Accreditation International’s process as a proactive mechanism to plan for the future and locate areas where we can improve on the quality of the services we provide.”  

It was noted during the self-assessment that Susquehanna’s response times are well below the national average.  The peer assessment team also noted that the continuous quality improvement model is engrained in the day-to-day operations of the department.    

There are 236 performance indicators in the self-assessment manual that the department assessed and evaluated.  Training chief Fred Smith served as the accreditation manager and coordinated all of the activities for the 2011-2015 cycle.   

“Each of the 42 members of the department played a significant role on the accreditation process,” concluded Hoffman.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17640]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,643]


Amoco Exploration and Production, Natural Gas Group Operating in 
the State of Texas; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on June 8, 1998 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at Amoco Gas Company, Texas City, Texas.
    All workers of the subject firm are covered under an existing 
certification (TA-W-32,660K).
    Consequently, further investigation in this cas would serve no 
purpose; and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of June 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-17640 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M