alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stacey Smith, Appellant, v City of Syracuse et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Major, J.), entered August 28, 2002, that granted in part defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied in its entirety and the complaint is reinstated in its entirety.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that plaintiff alleges therein that she sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). We previously determined on defendants’ appeal from the *1341same order that defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that plaintiff alleges therein that she sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system *(Smith v City of Syracuse,*1 AD3d 1006 [2003]). For the same reasons as those set forth in our prior decision, we conclude that defendants also failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use category of serious injury *(see id.).*Indeed, we note with respect to that category of serious injury that defendants’ own expert stated that plaintiff “does have an element of permanency associated with her neck and lower back based on the available radiographic findings and the clinical examination.”

We further conclude that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion with respect to the 90/180 category of serious injury. Although defendants met their initial burden with respect to that category, plaintiff raised an issue of fact by her deposition testimony and affidavit wherein she enumerated the household chores and child care duties that she was unable to perform following the accident at issue. She further stated therein that her ability to drive was severely curtailed because of the pain she experiences when she turns her head. We therefore conclude that plaintiff thereby raised an issue of fact whether her activities were “sufficiently curtailed for at least 90 out of the first 180 days following the accident” *(Calucci v Baker,*299 AD2d 897, 898 [2002]). We further conclude that, by submitting the report of her treating physician, plaintiff provided the “requisite objective evidence of ‘a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature’ . . . that. . . caused the alleged limitations on plaintiffs daily activities” *(id.).*Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
No. 10-7501.

#### Ramon Guadalupe Soberanes-Fierro, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 844,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9828.

178 L. Ed. 2d 573,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 290.
No. 10-7505.

#### Melecio Aldana-Ortiz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 844,

178 L. Ed. 2d 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9825.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 633.
No. 10-7896.

#### Gerald Lee Patterson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1024,

178 L. Ed. 2d 847,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 905.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### *State, Petitioner, v. Cox, Respondent,*

No. 91824-4.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45971-0-II, May 27, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1038. *Granted*and *remanded*to the Court of Appeals November 4, 2015.
Presidential Documents

3447

Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 15

Friday, January 23, 1998

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 98–10 of January 12, 1998

Certification Pursuant to Section (b)(1) of Public Law 99–183

and to Section 902(a)(6)(B) of Public Law 101–246

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to section (b)(1) of Public Law 99–183 of December 16, 1985,

relating to the approval and implementation of the Agreement for Cooperation

Between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, I hereby

certify that:

(A) the reciprocal arrangements made pursuant to Article 8 of the Agreement have been designed to be effective in ensuring that any nuclear material,

facilities, or components provided under the Agreement shall be utilized

solely for intended peaceful purposes as set forth in the Agreement;

(B) the Government of the People’s Republic of China has provided additional information concerning its nuclear nonproliferation policies and that,

based on this and all other information available to the United States Government, the People’s Republic of China is not in violation of paragraph (2)

of section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and

(C) the obligation to consider favorably a request to carry out activities

described in Article 5(2) of the Agreement shall not prejudice the decision

of the United States to approve or disapprove such a request.

Pursuant to section 902(a)(6)(B)(i) of Public Law 101–246, I hereby certify

that the People’s Republic of China has provided clear and unequivocal

assurances to the United States that it is not assisting and will not assist

any nonnuclear-weapon state, either directly or indirectly, in acquiring nuclear explosive devices or the material and components for such devices.

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal

[FR Doc. 98–1793

Register

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 12, 1998.

.

œ–

Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
**Kenneth Scherado Jr. DART830579WP**  **2830 N Rancho Dr Suite A**  **Las Vegas, Nv. 89130 702** 
**- 645** 
**- 9821**  **FAX: 702**
**- 645** 
**- 1740**  **Kennylma01@embarqmail.com** 01/11 / /2012 **Ref. ID # FAA** 
**- 2011** 
**- 1360** 
**- 0001**  **Aircraft: N15YR**  **Model: Jetwing**  **S/N: 003**  **Reg. Owner John D. Parker**  **ADDIT IONAL COMMENTS**  **Petition for Exemption to 14 CFR 91.151(a)(1) 30 Minute Fuel Reserve For Day VFR**  In support of and at your request I have added the “N” number, make and model of the aircraft this request is for as listed above. The request is for this ai rcraft onl y and will be piloted by onl y one person. The designer and manufacturer, Mr. Yves Rossy will be the sole pilot for all operations. Mr. Rossy holds a Swiss and US pilots license as well as a Swiss and US Para License. The following is a breakdown of Mr. Rossy pilot experience. TOTAL JUMPS (SK Y DIVE AND FLIGHTS) 1698 TOTAL FLIGHTS WING ON BACK 641 TOTAL FLIGHTS WITH JETWI NG (MOTORIZED) 254 TOTAL FLIGHTS WITH JETWI NG (GLIDEING) 387 TOTAL FLIGHT HOURS MOTORIZED 33.9 HRS. TOTAL FLIGHT T IME GLIDING 16.1 HRS. Mr. Rossy

has a very

high level of expertise in launching, fl yi ng and landing the Jetwing both in motorized and gliding conditions. The level of safet y that will occur with only him being the pilot will exceed all requirements. A lso, I have attached the original Certificate of Waiver that was issued to Mr. Yves Rossy as Pilot in Command when they were issued the Experimental Certificate for Exhibition in May 2011. Mr. Rossy

flew the Jetwing over the Grand Cany on during this Exhibi tion flight. Kenneth Scherado DART83579WP
<html>
	<head>
		<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" /><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=/tobacco/health-equity/behavioral-health/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ftobacco%2Fstateandcommunity%2Ftobacco-control%2Fpromising-policies-and-practices%2Fnew-york-and-oklahoma-bht-access-non-nicotine-cessation-medications.html" />	</head>
	<body></body>
	</html>
EXHIBIT (12)

Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                                                    |                                                                              | Year ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
|Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges (Note A) |                                                                              | $                      
|                                                                    |                                                                              |                        
|Fixed Charges:                                                      |                                                                              |                        
|                                                                    | Interest on long-term debt                                                   |                        
|                                                                    | Interest on short-term debt                                                  |                        
|                                                                    | Interest on note payable to securitization trust                             |                        
|                                                                    | Trust preferred distributions by subsidiary holding solely parent debentures |                        
|                                                                    | Other interest                                                               |                        
|                                                                    | Rental expense representative of an interest factor (Note B)                 |                        
|                                                                    |                                                                              |                        
|                                                                    | Total fixed charges                                                          |                        
|                                                                    |                                                                              |                        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                  |                                                                              |                        
|                                                                    |                                                                              |                        

NOTE A: For the purpose of determining earnings in the calculation of the ratio, net income has been increased by the provision for income taxes,
non-operating income taxes, minority interest and by the sum of fixed charges as shown above.

NOTE B:
One-third of rental expense (which approximates the interest factor).

---



QuickLinks
No. 10-6345.

#### Almyr Guimaraes, Petitioner v. National Opinion Research Services (NORS), et al.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 600,

178 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8846.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 51.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.5 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.5 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.5 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.5 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
* 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

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.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 29, 1998.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 22, 1998 
to be assured of consideration.

SPECIAL REQUEST: In order to conduct the focus group interviews 
described below within the next 150 days, the Department of the 
Treasury is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
review and approve this information collection by July 15, 1998. To 
obtain a copy of this study, please contact the Internal Revenue 
Service Clearance Officer at the address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 98-015-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Focus Group Sessions and Cognitive (In-Depth) Interviews for 
the Analysis and Redesign of Publication 594.
    Description: In order to improve tax compliance, the Service needs 
to evaluate the understandability and usability of Publication 594 by 
meeting with taxpayers whose past tax history indicates that they 
received this publication as part of their tax process with the IRS.
    Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 28.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 4 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time only).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 282 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17871 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 10-7938.

#### Luis A. Lebron-Ortiz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1191, 131 S. Ct. 1028,

178 L. Ed. 2d 849,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 633.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### *O’Hagan, Petitioner, v. Field et al., Respondents,*

No. 91730-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 47078-1-II, May 19, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1031. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
No. 10-7326.

#### Brendan E. Murray, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 977,

178 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 375.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 31, 2011, 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. 10-6947.

#### Donny Joel Harvey, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1129, 131 S. Ct. 910,

178 L. Ed. 2d 740,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 202.

January 10, 2011.

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 Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. D-2550.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Richard Charles Bagdasarian.

562 U.S. 815, 131 S. Ct. 407,

178 L. Ed. 2d 271,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7484.

October 4, 2010.

Richard Charles Bag-dasarian, of Boca Raton, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# C_2014395EN.01002101.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/21

---

Decision of the Court of Justice (Review Chamber) of 9 September 2014 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeals Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-401/11 P Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission

(Case C-417/14 RX)

(2014/C 395/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Applicant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (represented by: Fabrizio di Gianni, Renato Antonini, Gabriele Coppo and Aldo Scalini, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the question whether the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission (T-401/11 P, EU:T:2014:625) affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that it had jurisdiction to rule, as the court of first instance, on an action to establish non-contractual liability of the European Union

| — | alleging failure of an institution in its duty to ensure the protection of its officials, |
| --- | --- |

—

alleging failure of an institution in its duty to ensure the protection of its officials,

| — | brought by third parties, in their capacity as heirs and successors of a deceased official and as a family member of such an official, and |
| --- | --- |

—

brought by third parties, in their capacity as heirs and successors of a deceased official and as a family member of such an official, and

| — | seeking compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the deceased official himself and the material and non-material harm suffered by those third parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

seeking compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the deceased official himself and the material and non-material harm suffered by those third parties.

The persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the parties to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on those questions at the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month of service of the above decision.

---
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07626

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07626\07626_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

07626\07626_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07626\07626_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07626\07626_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 07626\07626_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07626\07626_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07626\07626_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07626\07626_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07626\07626_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_Cooper ICR Map 9-7-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_Cooper Mass balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_EA - Cooper Ash Pond 1976.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.