alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leslie Orgel, Appellant, v Kathleen Cab Corp. et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 879]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated June 1, 2011, *838which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbosacral regions of the plaintiff’s spine did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Rodriguez v Huerfano,*46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]).

However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbosacral regions of her spine constituted serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00158

- CR

E X PARTE E VERETT M ADURAI §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 431st District

Court

of Denton County (F17

- 2519

- 431)

August 22

, 201 9

Opinion by Justice Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as moot

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPE ALS

By _______

________ __________________ Justice Dabney Bassel
#### The New York Smelting and Refining Company, Appellant, *v.*George Lieb, Respondent.

(Submitted April 23, 1890;

decided May 9, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court in the city of New York, entered upon an order made January ■—, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*Leopold Wallaeh*for appellant.

*P. Q. Fekerson*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10511

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEE R. RAYMOND,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CV-450-H

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

October 18, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 John Robert Demos, Jr. (Washington state prisoner #287455), 

has, on at least three prior occasions, filed in forma pauperis

(IFP) complaints that have been dismissed as frivolous or for

failure to state a claim. See Demos v. Arledge, No. H-00-719

(S.D. Tex.; Mar. 28, 2000); Demos v. Sysco Corp., No. H-94-2209

(S.D. Tex.; Oct. 19, 1994); Demos v. Doe, No. 3:94-CV-1805-D

(N.D. Tex; Nov. 7, 1994), aff’d, No. 94-11064 (5th Cir.; Mar. 2,
No. 00-10511

- 2 -

1995). Demos is thus BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Therefore, his leave to proceed IFP on appeal, which

district court granted by order on July 5, 2000, is DECERTIFIED. 

Demos’s appeal is DISMISSED. He may seek to reinstate his appeal

by paying the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of

the district court within 15 days of the date of this opinion.

IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES BAR

IMPOSED.
##### 



Exhibit 14.8 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
15th, 2004 on the financial statements of Companhia Hispano-Brasileira de Pelotização 
HISPANOBRÁS, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year
ended December 31st, 2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30, 2005
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 24
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-35780) pertaining to
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 28.

    


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
# C_2019148EN.01002701.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 21 February 2019 — SCT, d.d., in bankruptcy v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-146/19)

(2019/C 148/25)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SCT, d.d., in bankruptcy

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as permitting derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes even with respect to cases of definitive non-payment, where such definitive non-payment is a consequence of a failure on the part of the taxable person liable for the VAT to take proper steps, such as lodging a claim in bankruptcy proceedings commenced against his debtor, as in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as permitting derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes even with respect to cases of definitive non-payment, where such definitive non-payment is a consequence of a failure on the part of the taxable person liable for the VAT to take proper steps, such as lodging a claim in bankruptcy proceedings commenced against his debtor, as in the present case?

| 2. | If such derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes is permissible, must there nevertheless be a right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes on the ground of non-payment where the taxable person is able to demonstrate that, even if he had lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, it would not have been satisfied, or is able to demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds for not lodging a claim? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes is permissible, must there nevertheless be a right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes on the ground of non-payment where the taxable person is able to demonstrate that, even if he had lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, it would not have been satisfied, or is able to demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds for not lodging a claim?

| 3. | Does Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive have direct effect even if the legislature of a Member State has exceeded the scope of the possibilities for derogation established by Article 90(2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive have direct effect even if the legislature of a Member State has exceeded the scope of the possibilities for derogation established by Article 90(2)?

---
Exhibit 32.2


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

     In connection with the Annual Report of New England Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                                /s/ Scott D. Nogels
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Scott D. Nogels
                                                Chief Financial Officer



Date: June 29, 2004
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 712 

To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. 

VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financial Takeover 

5 Repeal Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

8 Protection Act (Public Law 111–203) is repealed, and the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 712 IS

1 provisions of law amended by such Act are revived or re2 stored as if such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B ER NARDO DIM AS PIVARALGONZALEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 09-71925 Age n c y No. A099-465-054 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. B e rnardo Dim a s Piva

ra l-Gonz a le z , a

native and c i tiz e n of Gua t e m a la , pe titions pro se

for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED MAY28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings a nd de novo que stions of la w. C ordoba v
. Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th C ir. 2013). W e de ny in pa rt a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a

n d we re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Piva

ra l-Gonz a l e z ’ s C AT c la i m

be c a use he ha s not shown it is m ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d by the gove rnm e nt of Gua

te m a la or with its c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). In de ny ing Piva

ra l-Gonz a le z ’ s a s y lum

and withholding of re

m o va l c la im s, the a ge nc y de te rm ine d tha t a group of “ sm a ll la

ndowne rs” is not c ogniz a ble a s a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. In light of our re c e nt de c ision in C ordoba , 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (re c ogniz ing la

ndowne rship m ay

form the ba sis of a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group), we re m and Piva

ra l-Gonz a l e z ’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. Se e IN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per c uriam ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

0 9 - 7 1 9 2 5 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Annual Report on Form
10-K of Nextest Systems Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2007, we, Robin Adler, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and James P. Moniz, Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Nextest Systems Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to
Title 18, Chapter 63, U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2007 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Nextest Systems Corporation.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: September 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    ROBIN ADLER                                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Robin Adler Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)   
|                        |  | 
|Date: September 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES P. MONIZ                                               
|                        |  |  |  | James P. Moniz Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER

OF

LENNAR PARTNERS, INC

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 11, 2002

(the "Agreement"), by and among Structured Asset Securities Corporation,

as Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee, ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as Fiscal Agent, and

Lennar Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer

(LB UBS 2002 C1)

 

The undersigned, Susan K. Chapman, as Vice President of LENNAR PARTNERS, INC.,      a Florida Corporation (the "Company"), in accordance with Section 3.13 of the     Agreement, hereby certifies on behalf of the Company that (i)  a review of the activities of the Company during the year ended December 31, 2002 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision, (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based     on such review, the Company has performed and fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period ended December 31, 

2002, (iii)  the Company has received no notice regarding qualification, or challenging the 

status, of any of REMIC Pool as a REMIC or the Grantor Trust as a grantor trust, from 

the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Certificate as     of the 1st day of March, 2003. 

 

Susan K. Chapman

Susan K. Chapman

Vice President

Lennar Partners, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OC LB UBS 2002 C3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1047 

CA 10-01900 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

 

BRANDON HARRIS AND KRISTINA HARRIS, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 

ET AL., DEFENDANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN JOSEPH JABLONSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

COLLINS, COLLINS & DONOGHUE, P.C., BUFFALO, MAGAVERN MAGAVERN GRIMM

LLP (EDWARD J. MARKARIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered May 13, 2010 in a personal injury

action. The order denied the motion of defendant CSX Transportation,

Inc. for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is reversed

on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint and

cross claim against defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. are dismissed. 

Same Memorandum as in Bready v CSX Transp., Inc. (___ AD3d ___

[Nov. 10, 2011]). 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form
     10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             193,737
<SECURITIES>                                     4,362,728
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,287,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                       109,773
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,540,323
<PP&E>                                             154,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                     125,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,995,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,202,324
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           104,133
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,689,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,995,657
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   417,649
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,745,227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15,703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (660,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (63,180)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,976,574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,976,574)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.48)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>              SEP-30-1997             DEC-31-1997   
<CASH>                              0                     709   
<SECURITIES>                        0                       0   
<RECEIVABLES>                    2422                    2427   
<ALLOWANCES>                     (123)                    (97)  
<INVENTORY>                     11327                   13064   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                13793                   16377   
<PP&E>                          14400                   13835   
<DEPRECIATION>                  (5247)                  (5361)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  31195                   32958   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           11857                   15522   
<BONDS>                          6761                    6761   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                       0   
<PREFERRED>                         9                       9   
<COMMON>                         1041                    1041   
<OTHER-SE>                      11232                    9331   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    31195                   32958   
<SALES>                           418                    3026   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  418                    3026   
<CGS>                             364                    2523   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     364                    2523               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 2006                    4114         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0                       0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                241                     483         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2193)                  (4094)        
<INCOME-TAX>                        0                       0         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2193)                  (4094)        
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                       0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                       0         
<CHANGES>                           0                       0         
<NET-INCOME>                    (2193)                  (4094)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.02)                  (0.04)        
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.02)                  (0.04)        
        

</TABLE>