alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Thompson et al., Appellants, v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 515] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 2, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff injured his hand while moving a large fan coil box, which he did without the assistance of others. The court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against all defendants, since plaintiff’s injury was caused not by a dangerous condition on the work site, but by the method or manner in which he chose to accomplish the task of moving the object *(see Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; *LaRosa v Internap Network Servs. Corp.,*83 AD3d 905, 908-909 [2011]). Moreover, the record demonstrates that defendants exercised no supervision or control over plaintiffs work *(see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876 [1993]).

The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was also properly dismissed. The Industrial Code provisions on which plaintiffs relied involved tripping hazards (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e]), sharp objects *(id.),*and material piles (12 NYCRR 23-2.1 [a]), and were inap*544plicable to this case *(see Waitkus v Metropolitan Hous. Partners,*50 AD3d 260 [2008]; *Castillo v Starrett City,*4 AD3d 320, 321 [2004]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
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


I, Kathy Bright, Chief Executive Officer of Radix Marine, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); 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: February 22, 2005

                                    /s/ Kathy Bright
                                    -----------------------
                                    Kathy Bright
                                    Chief Executive Officer
IV 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the service and sacrifice of members of the United 

States Armed Forces who are serving in, or have served 

in, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. 

Whereas over 2,000,000 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have deployed to theaters of war since the 

commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn; 

Whereas hundreds of thousands of members of the United 

States Armed Forces have deployed for multiple tours of 

duty, leaving their homes, their families, and in many 

cases, their civilian jobs; 

Whereas more than 5,500 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice for the 

United States while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

SCON 13 RFH 

Whereas tens of thousands of members of the United States 

Armed Forces have been seriously wounded in the line of 

duty while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas the members of the United States Armed Forces 

who have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn have 

answered the call to duty of the United States, serving 

bravely and nobly and, in most cases, without fanfare or 

acclaim; 

Whereas those members of the United States Armed Forces 

and veterans have personified the virtues of patriotism, 

service, duty, courage, and sacrifice; and 

Whereas the people of the United States recognize the service 

and sacrifices made by those members of the United 

States Armed Forces and veterans, as well as their families: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors the members of the United States 

4 Armed Forces who are serving in, or have served in, 

5 Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Free6 dom, and Operation New Dawn; and 

7 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

8 reflect on the service of those members of the United 

9 States Armed Forces and veterans and to hold those 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

SCON 13 RFH 

1 members and veterans in a special place of honor, 

2 both now and in the future. 

Passed the Senate May 25, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 112 

Congratulating the Pennsylvania State University IFC/Panhellenic Dance 

Marathon (‘‘THON’’) on its continued success in support of the Four 

Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. TOOMEY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Pennsylvania State University IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (‘‘THON’’) on its continued 

success in support of the Four Diamonds Fund at Penn 

State Hershey Children’s Hospital. 

Whereas the Pennsylvania State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘THON’’) is the 

largest student-run philanthropy in the world, with 700 

dancers, more than 300 supporting organizations, and 

more than 15,000 volunteers involved in the annual 

event; 

Whereas student volunteers at the Pennsylvania State University annually collect money and dance for 46 hours 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 112 ATS 

straight at the Bryce Jordan Center for THON, bringing 

energy and excitement to campus for a mission to conquer cancer and awareness about the disease to thousands of individuals; 

Whereas all THON activities support the mission of the Four 

Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital, which provides financial and emotional support to 

pediatric cancer patients and their families and funds 

cancer research; 

Whereas each year, THON is the single largest donor to the 

Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children’s 

Hospital, having raised more than $69,000,000 since 

1977, when the 2 organizations first became affiliated; 

Whereas in 2011, THON set a new fundraising record of 

$9,563,016.09, besting the previous record of 

$7,838,054.36, which was set in 2010; 

Whereas THON has helped more than 2,000 families through 

the Four Diamonds Fund, is currently helping to build 

a new Pediatric Cancer Pavilion at Penn State Hershey 

Children’s Hospital, and has helped support pediatric 

cancer research that has caused some pediatric cancer 

survival rates to increase to nearly 90 percent; and 

Whereas THON has inspired similar events and organizations across the United States, including at high schools 

and institutions of higher education, and continues to encourage students across the United States to volunteer 

and stay involved in great charitable causes in their community: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Pennsylvania State Uni3 versity IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (‘‘THON’’) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 112 ATS 

1 on its continued success in support of the Four Dia2 monds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hos3 pital; and 

4 (2) commends the Pennsylvania State Univer5 sity students, volunteers, and supporting organiza6 tions for their hard work putting together another 

7 recordbreaking THON. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020191EN.01001501.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/15

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Gerber v Parliament and Council

(Case T-326/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Customs territory of the European Union - Regulation (EU) 2019/474 - Directive (EU) 2019/475 - Inclusion of the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 191/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tibor Gerber (Campione d’Italia, Italy) (represented by: N. Amadei, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and E. Ambrosini, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 38), in so far as concerns the part relating to the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union; second, application under Article 264 TFEU seeking a declaration that Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d'Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42) has no effect; and, third, application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures suspending the application of Regulation 2019/474, Directive 2019/475 and of any other implementing measure relating thereto.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Italian Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Italian Republic.

| 3. | Mr Tibor Gerber shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Tibor Gerber shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

| 4. | The Commission and the Italian Republic shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission and the Italian Republic shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
# C_2019220EN.01004001.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/40

---

Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

(Case T-273/19)

(2019/C 220/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde, P. Homann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TARGET VENTURES — Application for registration No 13 685 565

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1684/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis QUINTERO-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50275.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 7, 2009.

*61Joseph S. Green, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy Robert Garrison, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Quintero-Arias appeals from the four-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Quintero-Arias contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court relied upon the impermissible factor of “just punishment,” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), in formulating the sentence. We disagree. The record indicates that the district court did not impose the sentence based primarily on an impermissible factor. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable. *See United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182-83 (9th Cir.2006); *see also United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-702

Lower Tribunal No. 2020CA-001644-0000-00

_____________________________

NICHOLAS BERGER,

Appellant, 

v.

RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA), INC. and MAURICIO CABADA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Dana Y. Moore, Judge.

February 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, WOZNIAK and WHITE, JJ., concur.

James G. Bishop and David G. Henry, of Morgan & Morgan, Lakeland, for Appellant.

Matthew B. Bernstein, of Vernis & Bowling of Central Florida, P.A., DeLand, for 

Appellee, Mauricio Cabada.

No Appearance for Appellee, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America), Inc.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# C_2021320EN.01003701.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — GY v ECB

(Case T-746/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Household allowance - Amendment of the scheme applicable - Rejection of the 2019 application - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - No transitional measures)

(2021/C 320/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Nessaf, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 28 January 2019 not to grant the applicant the household allowance for 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 28 January 2019 in so far as it refuses to grant the household allowance for 2019 to GY; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 28 January 2019 in so far as it refuses to grant the household allowance for 2019 to GY;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.

---
734 A.2d 389

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Gary MORRIS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 16, 1998.

Decided July 21, 1999.

Catherine Marshall, Hugh 0. Burns, Philadelphia, for the Com., appellant.

Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for intervenor-Atty. Gen.

*437Gary Neil Asteak, Easton, Stefan Presser, Philadelphia, for amicus.

John W. Packel, Karl Baker, for G. Morris

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams, 557*Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dated October 31, 1997. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the common pleas court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

Justice CASTILLE files a Dissenting Statement.

CASTILLE, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Commonwealth v. Williams, 557*Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999).
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASCADE HEALTH SOLUTIONS FKA 

MCKENZIE-WILLIAMETTE HOSPITAL,

No. 05-35627 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

v.  CV-02-06032-ALH

District of Oregon,

PEACEHEALTH, a Washington State Portland

nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. 

CASCADE HEALTH SOLUTIONS FKA 

MCKENZIE-WILLIAMETTE HOSPITAL,

No. 05-35640 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v.  CV-02-06032-HA

District of Oregon,

PEACEHEALTH, a Washington State Portland

nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellant. 

CASCADE HEALTH SOLUTIONS FKA 

MCKENZIE-WILLIAMETTE HOSPITAL,

No. 05-36153 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v.  CV-02-06032-HA

District of Oregon,

PEACEHEALTH, a Washington State Portland

nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellant. 

3287
CASCADE HEALTH SOLUTIONS FKA 

MCKENZIE-WILLIAMETTE HOSPITAL, No. 05-36202

an Oregon nonprofit corporation, D.C. No.

Plaintiff-Appellant, CV-02-06032-HA  v. District of Oregon,

Portland PEACEHEALTH, a Washington State

nonprofit corporation, ORDER

Defendant-Appellee. 

Filed March 20, 2007

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, and

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The court invites supplemental briefs by any amicus curiae

addressing the following issue raised in this appeal: Whether

a plaintiff who seeks to establish the predatory or anticompetitive conduct element of an attempted monopolization claim

under § 2 of the Sherman Act by showing that the defendant

offered bundled discounts to the defendant’s customers must

prove that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate

measure of the defendant’s costs. If so, what is the appropriate

measure of costs and how should the trial court instruct the

jury on the matter of costs? If not, what standard should the

trial court instruct the jury to use to determine whether the

bundled discounts are predatory or anticompetitive? 

Any briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later

than thirty days from the filed date of this order. All briefs

shall comply with the page or type-volume limitations set

forth in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(d) and

3288 CASCADE HEALTH v. PEACEHEALTH
32(a)(7). Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an

amicus curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do

so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). 

CASCADE HEALTH v. PEACEHEALTH 3289
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2007 Thomson/West.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         108
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  94
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10
<INVENTORY>                                    376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               824
<PP&E>                                         104
<DEPRECIATION>                                 59
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,713
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       36
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,784)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   965
<SALES>                                        386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               386
<CGS>                                          296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                35
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,590
<EPS-BASIC>                                  33,669
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  33,669



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Kenney, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 16, 1983, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Having reviewed the record, we agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.