alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Whitehouse, Appellant, v Priority Home Care, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[945 NYS2d 47]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 6, 2011, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising from plaintiffs fall on a stairway leading to his second-floor apartment, plaintiff alleges that defendants Priority Home Care, Inc., Premier Home Health Care Services, Inc., and Center for Urban Community Services, which are government approved and funded service facilitators for with people with traumatic brain injury, were negligent for, inter alia, placing him in an apartment on the second floor of a non-elevator building. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that they did not owe a duty to plaintiff and that there was no causal connection between plaintiff’s fall on the steps and the injury complained of, amputation of his left leg. Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the affidavit of their expert physician, a vascular surgeon, who opined that plaintiff’s fall was not a substantial contributing factor to the amputation which was the result of severe underlying vascular disease in plaintiffs lower extremities. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to defendants’ alleged negligence in placing him in the subject apartment. Plaintiff agreed to the placement, signed the lease voluntarily and did not express any dissatisfaction with the apartment, nor did he appear to have any difficulty navigating the steps *(see e.g. Veloz v Refika Realty Co.,*38 AD3d 299 [2007]).

Moreover, the court properly rejected the submission of plaintiffs second affirmation in opposition, dated June 14, 2010, *704which provided, for the first time, a medical expert’s affirmation asserting that plaintiffs fall was the proximate cause of the amputation of his left leg. The affirmation was served after the court ordered deadline for submissions, without leave of court and without any explanation for its untimeliness. Even assuming that the court should have considered the affirmation, it failed to address several medical records which attributed the amputation to plaintiff’s pre-existing deep vein thrombosis, including a failed femoral-popliteral artery by-pass graft. Thus, plaintiff’s expert’s conclusion that plaintiffs fall proximately caused the amputation of his left leg was speculative and failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.,*99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1024 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1024

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To make chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code permanent, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family Farmer Protection Act of 
1997''.

 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    Section 302 of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and 
Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (28 U.S.C. 581 note) is amended by 
striking subsection (f).

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHTS OF FAMILY FARMERS AFTER SUCCESSFUL 
              COMPLETION OF A PLAN.

    Section 2008h(b)(2), of title 7, United States Code is amended by 
adding ``or has successfully completed a reorganization plan under 
Chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code (the Bankruptcy Judges, 
United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, 
Public Law No. 99-554, as amended)'' after ``title''.

            Passed the Senate October 30, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1024

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To make chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code permanent, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
Exhibit 99.1

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

I,
Prakash Agarwal, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

| |  | By:                                                          | /s/PRAKASH AGARWAL
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------
| |  | Name:    Prakash Agarwal
Title:      Chief Executive Officer

I, Stephen T. Lanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

| |  | By:                                                           | /s/STEPHEN T. LANZA
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
| |  | Name:    Stephen T. Lanza
Title:      Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maria Escobar, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from three *830judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), all rendered July 21, 1980, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application 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). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### GUILFOYLE v. PIERCE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Mary A. Guilfoyle against Catherine E. Pierce and another.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-26-2021]

On March 30, 2021, Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 38M, in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 17771-17772, April 6, 2021). On July 28, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: July 28, 2021.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-16395 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Holland Cramp, on Behalf of John Cramp, III, Respondent, v John B. Cramp, Jr., Appellant.

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme *763Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered August 31, 1984, as, *inter alia,*set forth a schedule of visitation for the father. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated November 20, 1984, as, upon reargument, denied the father’s motion to vacate or modify the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth decretal paragraphs of the judgment entered August 31, 1984.

Appeal from the judgment entered August 31, 1984, dismissed insofar as it seeks review of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof. Those portions of the judgment entered August 31, 1984 were superseded by the order dated November 20, 1984. The remaining portions of the judgment entered August 31, 1984 are affirmed.

Order dated November 20, 1984, affirmed insofar as reviewed.

The petitioner mother is awarded one bill of costs.

We reject the father’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the expert medical opinion of a psychiatrist who testified in the mother’s favor on the issue of custody and visitation. The record reveals that the expert’s findings were based primarily upon personal observations of the parties’ child made by himself and his staff over a course of visits, during which the child was interviewed and psychologically tested. As such, the resulting diagnosis that the three-year-old boy suffered from extreme anxiety which was exacerbated by extended visits with the father possessed significant probative value on the issue of temporary custody and visitation.

Similarly unpersuasive is the father’s claim that the expert testimony was valueless because it was based upon allegedly one-sided medical information provided by the mother. The record indicates that the medical history played a relatively minor role in the aforementioned diagnosis. Moreover, the father was asked by the psychiatrist to meet with him in order to discuss the child’s condition, but he refused to do so and thereby rejected an opportunity to tell his side of the story. It is well settled that the determination of a hearing court is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion (see, *Matter of Darlene T.,*28 NY2d 391; *Constantin v Wicks,*108 AD2d 715; *Cataldi v Shaw,*101 AD2d 823; *Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B.,*80 AD2d 72). We discern no such abuse of discretion in this case and therefore find that the hearing court acted properly in setting forth a reasonable schedule of visitation for the father.

*764We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 248 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Brain Aneurysm Awareness 

Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Brain Aneurysm 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas a brain aneurysm is an abnormal saccular or 

fusiform bulging of an artery in the brain; 

Whereas an estimated 1 out of every 50 people in the United 

States will develop a brain aneurysm; 

Whereas brain aneurysms are most likely to occur in people 

between the ages of 35 and 60; 

Whereas brain aneurysms are more likely to occur in women 

than in men by a 3-to-2 ratio; 

Whereas brain aneurysms are more likely to occur in AfricanAmericans than in Whites by a 2-to-1 ratio; 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 248 ATS 

Whereas various risk factors can contribute to the formation 

of a brain aneurysm, including infection, tumors, traumatic head injury, drug use, smoking, hypertension, and 

a family history of brain aneurysms; 

Whereas approximately 6,000,000 people in the United 

States will develop a brain aneurysm that will not rupture; 

Whereas an unruptured brain aneurysm can lead to fatigue, 

short-term memory problems, speech problems, loss of 

balance and coordination, and changes in behavior; 

Whereas a brain aneurysm is often discovered when it ruptures and causes a subarachnoid hemorrhage; 

Whereas a subarachnoid hemorrhage can lead to brain damage, hydrocephalus, stroke, and death; 

Whereas annually more than 30,000 people in the United 

States suffer from ruptured brain aneurysms; 

Whereas annually between 3,000 and 4,500 people in the 

United States with ruptured brain aneurysms die before 

reaching the hospital; 

Whereas a number of advancements have been made in recent years regarding the detection of aneurysms, including the computerized tomography scan, the magnetic resonance imaging test, and the cerebral arteriogram; 

Whereas September is an appropriate month to designate as 

‘‘National Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’; and 

Whereas various research studies are currently being conducted in the United States in order to better understand, prevent, and treat brain aneurysms: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 248 ATS 

1 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

2 Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month; and 

3 (2) continues to support research to prevent 

4 and treat brain aneurysms. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,720
<PP&E>                                          65,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,554
<SALES>                                        129,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,007
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

    The following  table presents  subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December
31, 2005.

                                                                Jurisdiction of
                                                Percentage     Incorporation or
    Subsidiary                                   Ownership       Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oak Hill Banks                                     100%              Ohio
Oak Hill Banks Community Development Corp.         100%              Ohio
Oak Hill Financial Services Company                100%              Ohio
Oak Hill Financial Insurance Agency, Inc.          100%              Ohio
Oak Hill Capital Trust 1                           100%            Delaware
Oak Hill Capital Trust 2                           100%            Delaware
Oak Hill Capital Trust 3                           100%            Delaware
Oak Hill Capital Trust 4                           100%            Delaware
Oak Hill Title Agency, LLC                          49%              Ohio

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


                                       68
#### FRANK ARAUJO, Jr., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. NEW JERSEY NATURAL GAS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 19, 1960.

*Messrs. Stevenson & Willette*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. James & Wychoff*and *Mr. Charles A. Sweeney*for the respondents.

Denied.
*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 9, 2011*

Decided February 9, 2011

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐2687

ADENIKE ADEBIYI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY FELGENHAUER, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 6837

Robert M. Dow, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

This suit stems from an altercation that took place when an Illinois judge ordered

Adenike Adebiyi arrested for failing to comply with a condition of her probation.

According to the amended complaint, two sheriff’s deputies tasked with taking Adebiyi

into custody falsely cried out that she was biting and scratching them, which prompted

another deputy to kneel on her chest.  In addition to an excessive‐force claim against the

deputy who subdued her, Adebiyi’s complaint includes vague allegations against her

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐2687 Page 2

probation officer, the deputies who accused her of biting and scratching, and the assistant

state’s attorney who prosecuted her for aggravated battery.  The district court twice

recruited a lawyer to represent Adebiyi pro bono, but both lawyers eventually moved to

withdraw, the second citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.  After permitting the second

lawyer to withdraw, the court extended Adebiyi another opportunity to amend her

complaint.  Yet she failed to take advantage of the offer, so the court dismissed the suit on

the grounds that it was untimely as to the only defendant against whom Adebiyi arguably

states a claim.

On appeal Adebiyi simply elaborates on the grievances set forth in her complaint.

She does not discuss the reasons given for dismissing her lawsuit in any detail.  Nor does

she argue, with citations to the record and legal authority, that the district court committed

error.  See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).  But even a pro se litigant must comply with Rule 28, and

Adebiyi’s failure to do so forfeits appellate review.  See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544,

545 (7th Cir. 2001); Mathis v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998).

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                  |                      |        |                                    
|----------------- | -------------------- | ------ | -----------------------------------
|/s/ James D. Wehr | /s/ Peter A. Hofmann
|Name:             | James D. Wehr        | Name:  | Peter A. Hofmann                   
|Title:            | President            | Title: | Senior Executive Vice President and
|                  |                      |        | Chief Financial Officer            
|Date:             | November 12, 2010    | Date:  | November 12, 2010                  



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PHL Variable Insurance Company and will be retained by PHL Variable Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.