alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sophie Smolen, Appellant, v Pen Fa Lee, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and for lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated July 28, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We have examined the record and agree with the trial court that there was no expert testimony or other evidence presented at trial which could support a finding that defendant aggravated a preexisting condition as a result of his alleged negligent course of treatment of plaintiff. Accordingly, it was not error for the court to refuse to charge that defendant could be found liable for aggravating a condition for which plaintiff was predisposed. To the contrary, it would have been improper to instruct the jury on a theory of liability which could not be supported by the evidence *(cf. Skelka v Metropolitan Tr. Auth.,*76 AD2d 492).

Plaintiffs’ theory throughout the trial was that defendant caused her schizophrenia. The testimony of Dr. Chodosh, a defense expert, that it was possible that Mrs. Smolen’s schizophrenia was “unmasked” by amphetamines and made easier to treat does not of itself make out a prima facie case of aggravation of an existing condition.

*802We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Mary J. Griffin, Respondent, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.), entered on February 21, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by Ascione, J., at Special Term. *(See also, Becker v Huss Co.,*43 NY2d 527.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.
# Official Journal L 19/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 19 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6421 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 19

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6421 January 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |         |      |   |         |  |      |         |      |   |         |  |   |        
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- |  | ---- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                     |  | Year ended December 31,
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2009                    |         | 2008 |   | 2007    |  | 2006 |         | 2005
|Debt                 |  | $                       | 382,522 |      | $ | 462,650 |  | $    | 542,549 |      | $ | 455,137 |  | $ | 400,915
|Equity               |  |                         | 162,977 |      |   | 174,946 |  |      | 172,423 |      |   | 169,628 |  |   | 166,354
|Debt to equity       |  |                         | 2.35    |      |   | 2.64    |  |      | 3.15    |      |   | 2.68    |  |   | 2.41
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 28 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.28
                                    Agreed to September 21, 2011        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO AWARD THE 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on November 2, 2011, to award the 
Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry 
Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence 
Service, United States Army, in recognition of their dedicated service 
during World War II.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Case: 1:02-cv-03139 Document #: 539 Filed: 01/12/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:10717
#### In the Matter of Richard Gelderman, Respondent. Division of New York State Police, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), issued July 27, 1984, which, in effect, denied the application of the Division of New York State Police to quash a subpoena duces tecum.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and application to quash granted.

Special Term erred in denying the appellant’s application to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the attorneys for the petitioner, which ordered the appellant to supply petitioner with the “New York State Information Services (NYSIS) ‘sheets’ for those members of the Division of the New York State Police hired, appointed or accepted for service between the years 1978-1984 that have been convicted of any crimes”. Petitioner sought those documents upon the ground that they contained relevant and material evidence concerning the issues which were to be *333raised at an upcoming administrative hearing to determine whether he was properly denied appointment to the appellant’s force on the grounds that he was unfit. We do not agree. The specific reasons for the denial of petitioner’s application for appointment were that he had (1) associated with known criminals, (2) attempted to compromise an official police investigation, and (3) failed to maintain a satisfactory driving record. Petitioner has failed to show how the NYSIS “sheets” he seeks will be of any use to him in refuting or responding to the foregoing allegations, nor has he demonstrated a sufficient factual predicate illustrating his need for the documents. The admissions of petitioner’s counsel that these records were sought “to explore the hiring practices of the [appellant]” and “to make an allegation or raise on appeal the point of reverse discrimination”, clearly illustrate that petitioner is improperly attempting to engage in general discovery or a “fishing expedition” through the use of the subpoena. Under these circumstances, the subpoena of the “sheets” for the lengthy period in question should have been quashed for lack of both relevancy and a factual predicate *(see, People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.
#### COMMON LAW SETTLEMENT COUNSEL, petitioner, v. Pearlie BAILEY, et al.

No. 08-307.

March 9, 2009.

Motion of Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company for divided argument granted and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes to Cascino Asbestos Claimants, and 10 minutes to Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Don PRINCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-8127.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

*743Don Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opmion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Don Prince, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prince has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Prince’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006). Prince’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paula Connolly, as Widow of Patrick Connolly, Deceased, Appellant, v Hubert’s Service, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 187]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 13, 2011, which ruled that the death of claimant’s husband was not causally related to his employ*1116ment and denied claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation death benefits.

Claimant’s husband (hereinafter decedent) worked as an automobile mechanic for the employer from 1976 to 1997. In that capacity, decedent regularly installed brakes and clutches— work that, according to a coworker, resulted in decedent’s exposure to an undetermined amount of asbestos dust. Decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000 and, following his death in 2004, claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, citing occupational exposure to asbestos as a causative factor. Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim finding, among other things, no credible medical evidence to demonstrate that decedent experienced any significant occupational exposure to asbestos. This appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm. The physician testifying on behalf of the employer and its workers’ compensation carriers opined that, based upon his review of decedent’s medical records, there was no objective medical evidence that decedent was “occupationally exposed to significant inhalation of asbestos fibers.” Specifically, the expert noted that there was “no evidence of any asbestos exposure on [decedent’s X rays],” i.e., no “pleural plaques, pleural thickening or diffuse interstitial fibrosis throughout [decedent’s] lungs,” and decedent’s two pulmonary function tests revealed “a normal diffusion capacity.” As to the issue of causation, the carriers’ expert was of the view that decedent’s longstanding history of smoking (two packs per day for 25 years), as well as the fact that decedent’s father died from lung cancer, were “adequate to fully account for the development of [decedent’s] lung cancer.” Thus, upon reviewing decedent’s records, as well as various scientific studies, the carriers’ expert concluded that decedent’s employment as a mechanic neither caused nor contributed to his death. Although the pulmonary pathologist *who*testified on behalf of claimant reached a contrary conclusion, the resolution of conflicting medical opinions, as well as the weight to be accorded thereto, lie within the exclusive province of the Board *(see Matter of Guz v Jewelers Machinist, Inc.,*71 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2010]; *Matter of Connelly v Connelly Assoc.,*241 AD2d 572, 573 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 810 [1997]). As the record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision in this matter, it will not be disturbed. Claimant’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Spain, J.P., Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# C_2020262EN.01002302.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB

(Case T-552/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration - Refusal to grant access - Default procedure)

(2020/C 262/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by P. Ghiglione, E. De Giorgi and L. Amicarelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by F. von Lindeiner and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of ECB Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration;

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

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
# C_2023179EN.01002402.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Universität Bremen v REA

(Case T-660/19 RENV) (1)

(Research and technological development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ - Call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 - REA decision rejecting a proposal - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 179/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Schmid, Professor)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (represented by: V. Canetti and S. Payan-Lagrou, acting as Agents, and C. Wagner and R. van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 16 July 2019 rejecting the proposal that it submitted in relation to call for proposals H2020-SC6-Governance-2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Universität Bremen to pay the costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court and the European Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universität Bremen to pay the costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court and the European Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,910
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         117,692
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        329
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        891,088
<ALLOWANCE>                                     16,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,032,647
<DEPOSITS>                                     866,798
<SHORT-TERM>                                    36,750
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,467
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,917
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,032,647
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 92,607
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,058
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               101,665
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              48,053
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,387
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           50,278
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,550
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  85
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,048<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,127
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      25,127
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.96
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,434
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   805
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,577
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,178
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       64
<RECOVERIES>                                       147
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               16,811
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            16,811
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDED IN EXPENSE-OTHER IS PROVISION FOR VALUATION ALLOWANCE ON LOANS HELD
FOR SALE TOTALING $1.4 MILLION
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Frederick Duffner, President of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company"), and Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.             The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 DATE: March 29, 2010
 
 By: /s/ Frederick Duffner
 Frederick Duffner, President
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 DATE: March 29, 2010
 
 By: /s/ Stephen P. Kuchen
 Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)