alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Russell J. Lester, Appellant, v JD Carlisle Development Corp., MD., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) Facade Technology, LLC, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v Exterior Erecting Services, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And a Fifth-Party Action.)

[68 NYS3d 60]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered September 12, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ and fourth-party defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.7 (e) and 23-1.24, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the cause *578of action insofar as it is based on section 23-1.7 (e) (2), and, upon a search of the record, to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on that cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped to his knees on the sloped roof of a parking garage where he was installing panels for a video screen and his arm came into contact with the sharp edge of exposed flashing that had been installed as part of the video screen. The temporary roof surface was a membrane covered in small granules variously described as a fine-grit stone similar to sand, cinder materials, or ball bearings.

Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e) (1), which applies to “passageways,” is not applicable to the roof, an open area, upon which plaintiff was working. However, section 23-1.7 (e) (2) applies to “areas where persons work or pass.” The record demonstrates that the loose granules on the roof surface that caused plaintiff to slip were not integral to the structure or the work *(see O’Sullivan v IDI Constr. Co., Inc.,*28 AD3d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2006], *affd*7 NY3d 805 [2006]), but were an accumulation of debris from which section 23-1.7 (e) (2) requires work areas to be kept free *(Serrano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.,*146 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2017]). Thus, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as it is predicated upon section 23-1.7 (e) (2).

Industrial Code § 23-1.24 (a) (1) requires that roofing brackets be used when work is performed on any roof with a slope steeper than one in four inches “unless crawling boards or approved safety belts are used.” We note that plaintiff was wearing a harness and was tied off to a static line. In any event, this section is inapplicable to this case, because plaintiff did not fall from the roof *(see Bennion v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,*229 AD2d 1003 [4th Dept 1996], *appeal withdrawn*91 NY2d 1004 [1998]; *see also Striegel v Hillcrest Hgts. Dev. Corp.,*100 NY2d 974, 978 [2003]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Hairston15

03/29/2016

798 MAL (2015)

15

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 76
#### Snyder, In re Estate of

05/10/2016

103 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1028
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BANC CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          30,759
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,791
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,308
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,174
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,944
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,795
<LOANS>                                        713,912
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 908,105
<DEPOSITS>                                     742,930
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,274
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,024
<LONG-TERM>                                     77,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 908,105
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 31,647
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,547
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   372
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                34,566
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,291
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,504
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,062
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,597
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,863
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,096
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.49
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,423
<LOANS-PAST>                                       445
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,065
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,021
<RECOVERIES>                                       277
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,918
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,918
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Zayas

12/07/2015

558 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 95
No. 09-11377.

#### Thelma Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. D. White, Warden, et al. (two judgments).

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 693,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9243.

178 L. Ed. 2d 523,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 187, 178 L. Ed. 2d 112, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6579.
1

Pallarino, Bob

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:51 PM

To: roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov; Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov)

Cc: Pallarino, Bob; Linder, Steven; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700; 

Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; 

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; 

steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - March 17, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Hi Richard/Roxanne: 

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic 

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of March 17, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be 

annotated. 

1. Preliminary Work Plan 

Action complete. 

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable) 

a. Action 1 - Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation 

of release point(s) within Tank 5. 

Action complete. 

b. Action 2 - The rate of vertical migration for the released JP-8 free product is unknown. Information from the 

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP-8 releases of 10,000, 

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5. 

No change. 

c. Action 3 - Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of 

the released JP-8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased 

monitoring are required to address this plume. 

No change. 

d. Action 4 - Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future 

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete. 

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical. 

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells 

No change. 

d.(2) Site Characterization 
2

No change. 

d.(3) AOC/SOW 

Discussions are ongoing. 

d.(4) Request for Additional Information 

No change. 

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study 

No change. 

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. 

v/r, 

Aaron
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51224 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR ALBERTO GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-01-CR-393-1

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Alberto Guzman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Guzman complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Guzman argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximumNo. 01-51224 -2- sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Guzman thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Guzman acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 10-5394.

#### Donald Seymour Payne, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1128, 131 S. Ct. 897,

178 L. Ed. 2d 739,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 164.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1152 (2010).
May 21, 2015

U.S. Dept . of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)

Re: Addendum to Exemption Request under Section 333 o f the FAA Reform Act and

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Darryl W. Lee, has prepared the following addendum to his Exemption Request filed on

April 24, 2015.

This Addendum allows for the inclusion of additional Vertical Take

- Off and Landing

(VTOL) UA ’ s as follows:

• 3D Robotics Solo

The UA listed above:

• Is produced by 3D Robotics

THE UNMA NNED AIRCRAFT (UA):

3D#Robotics#Solo#

http://3drobotics.com/solo/Specs!for!the!3D!Robotics!Solo:!

Flight!time:!up!to!25!min!without!payload,!or!up!to!20!min!with!GoPro!and!Solo!Gimbal!

Controller!battery!life!of!up!to!4!hours;!built

G in!rechargeable!battery!(8!hours!with!optional!

extended!battery)!

Weight: 1500 g; 1800 g with Solo Gimbal and GoPro

The name and contact information of the applicant remains the same:

Sincerely,

Darryl W. Lee

Phone: 512

- 868

- 7923

Email: deilee@msn.com
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

The following is a list of certain subsidiaries of the registrant and their respective states or countries of incorporation (100% owned unless otherwiseindicated): 

 

Duke Capital LLC (Delaware) 

Pan Energy (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Services (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Field Services LLC (Delaware) 

DEFS Holding 1 LLC (Delaware)

Duke Energy International (Europe) Holdings ApS (Denmark) 

Duke Energy International Latin America, Ltd. (Bermuda) 

Duke Energy Marshall County LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Southaven LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Hot Spring LLC (Delaware)

Duke Energy Enterprise LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy GraysHarbor LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Mopa LLC (Delaware) 

DukeEnergy Sandersville LLC (Delaware) 

DENA Partners Holding, LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Luna LLC (Delaware) 

DE Power Generating, LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission Corporation (Delaware) 

Duke Energy GasTransmission LP (Delaware) 

Catawba River Investments II LLC (Delaware) 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Delaware) 

Union Gas Ltd. (Canada) 

DETMI Management Incorporated (Colorado) 

Duke Energy North America, LLC (Delaware) 

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (Delaware) (approximately 60% owned by Duke Energy) 

Westcoast Energy Inc. (Canada), with the following assumed names: Duke Energy, Duke Energy Gas 

TransmissionCanada, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, National Claims Service and Westcoast Energy, Pipeline Division
No. 10-6547.

#### In re David Eugene Sinquefield, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 960, 131 S. Ct. 496,

178 L. Ed. 2d 317,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7898.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. 10-534.

#### Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Petitioner v. Zev Lagstein.

562 U.S. 1110, 131 S. Ct. 832,

178 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9669.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 607 F.3d 634.
No. 10-306.

#### Steven Roberts, et al., Petitioners v. Jack F. Mentzer, et al.

562 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 521,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8578.

178 L. Ed. 2d 374,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 158.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert C. Silzer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GPS Industries, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:  April 15, 2005                /s/Robert C. Silzer
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Robert C. Silzer
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
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. 1106, 131 S. Ct. 849,

L. Ed. 2d 554,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9663.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
# C_2015228EN.01002505.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/25

---

Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB

(Case T-93/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 228/34)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

1

---
#### Ah Bee Pua, Respondent, v Yuen Fai M. Lam et al., Defendants, and C&H Herb Shop, Inc., Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 859]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2016, which denied defendant C&H Herb Shop, Inc.’s motion to, among other things, vacate the note of issue and extend its time to make summary judgment motions to 120 days following the completion of discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with costs.

When, as in this case, statements in a certificate of readiness concerning completion of discovery are incorrect or blatantly false, a motion to strike the note of issue should be granted *(see e.g. Cromer v Yellen,*268 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Plaintiff’s contention that the motion has been mooted by the completion of most discovery is based on representations concerning subsequent matters, not in the appellate record, and of which judicial notice cannot be taken *(see Walker v City of New York,*46 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2007]). In any event, plaintiff acknowledges that discovery remains outstanding.

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

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
# C_2014315EN.01005302.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/53

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission

(Case T-232/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/90

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SCA Hygiène Products (Tremblay-en-France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | SCA Hygiène Products is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SCA Hygiène Products is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
No. 09-1156.

#### Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. James Siracusano, et al.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 812,

178 L. Ed. 2d 530,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9547.

December 6, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.