alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mark Casanova, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 125]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff was allegedly injured when a bus owned by the defendant was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by Neilworth Miller. The defendant established that Miller’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of this accident as his vehicle proceeded through the intersection against a red light, without stopping *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d] [1]; *Puedo v Caputo,*272 AD2d 387; *Hines v New York City Tr. Auth.,*264 AD2d 506; *Wolfson v Milillo,*262 AD2d 636). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the driver of the bus was at fault in the happening of this accident or whether he could have done anything to avoid the impact *(see, Packer v Mirasola,*256 AD2d 394).

Accordingly, since the defendant established that it was not negligent as a matter of law, its motion for summary judgment should have been granted and the complaint dismissed. Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
In the INTEREST OF N.S.:

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. L.S. (Father), Appellant.

WD 82071

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: April 2, 2019

Bruce B. Brown, Kearney for appellant.

William E. Shull, Liberty; Joseph W. Vanover, Kansas City and Juliann W. Graves, Overland Park, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

L.S. ("Father") appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, N.S. ("Son"). Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court's finding that he abandoned Son and that termination of his parental rights was in Son's best interest. For reasons *676explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |     |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce C. Sexton                     
|                         |  |     |  | Bruce C. Sexton, Chief Financial Officer
|                         |  |     |  | of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture    
|                         |  |     |  | and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
**Exhibit 32.1****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**     Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of North PointeHoldings Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 11, 2006              /s/ James G. Petcoff   James G. Petcoff   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                           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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cornerstone
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2010
(the "Report"), I, Keith Winchester, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, to
my knowledge certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 30, 2011                                 By: /s/ Keith Winchester
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Keith Winchester
                                                     Executive Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer
#### Simmons Auto Company *v.*D. C. Pursley *et al.*

(No. 7649)

Submitted October 3, 1933.

Decided October 10, 1933.

*I. P. Whitehead, Grover F. Hedges*and *WilUam Beasley,*for appellant.

*Wm. S. Ryan,*for appellee.

Litz, Judge:

This is a lien creditors’ suit in which the plaintiff asserted several judgment liens in its favor against defendants, D. C. and C. R. Pursley.

The commissioner in chancery, to whom the cause was re-. ferred for the purpose of ascertaining the liens, in the order of their priority, reported as the first lien against 250 acres of land in Roane County belonging to D. C. Pursley, a mortgage debt of $1,938.55 in favor of the Federal Land Bank of Baltimore. Only a small amount of the claim, which is payable in semi-annual installments over a long period of years, is now due. The mortgage contains an accelerating clause permitting the Land Bank, at its option, to declare the entire amount due upon the delinquency of any payment. The Land Bank, waiving its option under the accelerating clause, requested in its answer that the sale of the 250 acres of land be made subject to its mortgage.

From a decree directing sale of said land in fee, the Land *169Bank has appealed. It still insists that its mortgage should stand and the decree be modified by directing a sale of the equity of redemption only.

It was held in *Wise*v. *Taylor,*44 W. Va. 492, 29 S. E. 1003, 1006, that a judgment creditor may subject to sale only the equity of redemption in land owned by the debtor upon which there is a prior lien under an unmatured trust deed. In the opinion, after full discussion and citation of authority, the court said: “The plaintiffs’ judgment lien was on the equity of redemption, and in enforcing their judgment lien they could not disturb the conditions and terms of the prior (trust deed) lien by compelling the party holding it to receive the amount thereby secured at an earlier, day than that provided for by the contract, and the terms of the trust deed. ’ ’ The rule is re-stated in *Boot-Tea-Na-Mer]) Company*v. *Bight-mire,*48 W. Ya. 222, 231, 36 S. E. 359, *Kennewig Company*v. *Moore,*49 W. Ya. 323, 38 S. E. 558, and impliedly recognized in *Laidley*v. *Hinchman,*3 W. Ya. 423, and other West Virginia cases. In accord: *Chrystal lee Co.*v. *Brick,*96 Ya. 141, 30 S. E. 491; 19 R, C. L. 530.

The decree, complained of, will be modified by directing sale of the equity of redemption only in the 250 acres of land.

*Modified and affirmed.*
H. Res. 327 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 26, 2023. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2811) to 

provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling, and for 

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 

be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided 

among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective 

designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; 

and (2) one motion to recommit. 
2 

•HRES 327 EH 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

39) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 

Commerce relating to ‘‘Procedures Covering Suspension of 

Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With 

Presidential Proclamation 10414’’. All points of order against 

consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: James Payne To: TSAI, YA-TING Subject: Comment on MO-ROP 15-01 Draft Permit Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:02:30 PM



### Hello Sheila,

Please find the below as the only comment to the draft permit:

In Attachment A for the calculation of the emissions, the expression for “G” (monthly natural gas engine emissions) the numerator should be tons, rather than the listed pounds (lbs).

Thank you Sheila,

James Payne, GISP Environmental Director Morongo Band of Mission Indians 951.755.5298 - office 951.316.0027 - cell

33°56'14.0721" N 116°48'33.5025" W
Exhibit 32

                            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 Golf Two, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
David Bennett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golf Two, Inc., and will be retained by Golf Two, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ David Bennett
--------------------------
David Bennett
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
May 21, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5175 September Term, 2021

1:20-cv-00765-UNA

Filed On: April 14, 2022

Danny Fabricant,

Appellant

v.

Federal Election Commission and Alex

Padilla, California Secretary of State,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Rogers, and Tatel, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief, the supplement thereto, and

appellant’s response to the December 8, 2021 order to show cause. See Fed. R. App.

P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on April 21,

2020, be affirmed as modified to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of

standing. Appellant lacks Article III standing to challenge 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)—under

52 U.S.C. § 30110 or otherwise—because he has not demonstrated causation and

redressability. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)

(explaining that “the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires “an injury

in fact,” “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and a

likelihood “that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision” (internal quotation

marks omitted)). First, appellant has not shown that § 30101(2), which defines

“candidate” for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act, imposes qualifications

for federal office. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that § 30101(2) caused his

alleged injury—i.e., his name not being included on a primary ballot. Second, appellant

has effectively conceded that he did not comply with California’s requirements that he

pay a filing fee (or submit signatures in lieu thereof), submit nomination papers, and

submit a declaration of candidacy. See Cal. Elec. Code §§ 8020, 8105, 8106.

Consequently, declaring § 30101(2) unconstitutional would not remedy appellant’s
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5175 September Term, 2021

alleged injury because he still would have been ineligible to have his name included on

the primary ballot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2
exv10w6



 




Exhibit 10.6



November 15, 2007



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL



Dr. Ryuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., CEO, CSO & Chairman of the Board

4520 East West Highway, 3rd Floor

Bethesda, Maryland 20814



     Re:     Amendment to Employment Agreement



Dear Dr. Ueno:



     This letter will reflect the agreement between you and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) upon certain amendments to the terms of the Employment Agreement between you and the
Company dated June 16, 2006.



     Effective as of the first payroll period in June 2007, your Base Salary has been increased to
the annual rate of $500,000. In addition, effective immediately, the terms of your Employment
Agreement concerning Stock Compensation have been altered to eliminate the current restrictions on
your eligibility to receive future stock or option grants by deleting any reference to the “Equity
Eligibility Date.”



     Consistent with the requirements for modification set forth in Section 6.3 of the Employment
Agreement, this letter will document the mutual agreement between you and the Company to amend
Section 3.1(a) of your Employment Agreement to reflect this increase in Base Salary and Section
3.1(b) of your Employment Agreement to reflect this change to your Stock Compensation.



     The foregoing are the only changes to the terms of the Employment Agreement to be made at this
time. Please indicate your agreement to these modifications of the Employment Agreement by
countersigning the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below and returning the same
to me for the Company’s files.



     Thank you for your cooperation.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/  V. SUE MOLINA
 	 
	 	V. Sue Molina 	 
	 	Chairperson, Compensation Committee Board of Directors 	 
	 



Acknowledged and accepted this 26th day of November, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/  RYUJI UENO 	 	 
	Dr. Ryuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Crown Medical Systems, Inc.(the "Company")
  on 10Q SB for the period ending November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date heeof (the "Report"), I, Paul Marshall,
  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
  to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|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 result of operations
      of the Company.

Date: January 14, 2004

| | /s/Paul Marshall       
| | -----------------------
| | (Signature)            
| |                        
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | (Title)                

---
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of The Estate Vault, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Boyd Soussana, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Boyd Soussana Chief Executive Officer Acting Chief Financial
Officer
H. Res. 3 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 7 (legislative day, January 6), 2023. 

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a 

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready 

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to 

make. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[No. 50792-3-I.

Division One.

April 19, 2004.]

#### Delaura Whitson Alishio, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-2-25298-4, Nicole Machines, J., entered June 5, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Ellington, A.C.J., and Becker, J. Now published at 122 Wn. App. 1.
Exhibit 32.1




                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     I, Joseph A.  Orlando,  as President  and  Principal  Executive  Officer of
Leucadia National Corporation - Arizona (the "Company") certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2004
as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report") fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:  July 29, 2004

                                           By:/s/ Joseph A. Orlando
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Joseph A. Orlando
                                              President and Principal Executive
                                              Officer
1 The HONORABLE JAMES M. MOODY, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE HENRY L. JONES, JR., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, now retired. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3218

___________ Frances Renee Miller/Perry, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] et al., * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 30, 2010 Filed: May 5, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Frances Miller/Perry appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Arkans as Department of Correction and four of its correctional employees. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated in the Proposed-2- Findings and Recommendations adopted by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________