alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Danny Delvalle, Respondent, v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, et al., Appellants. Louis A. Remond, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 204]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated *943March 11, 2011, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanátion for the collision *(see Napolitano v Galletta,*85 AD3d 881, 882 [2011]; *Klopchin v Masri,*45 AD3d 737 [2007]). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle *(see Napolitano v Galletta,*85 AD3d at 882). In opposition, however, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which provided a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(id.*at 882-883; *see Gregson v Terry,*35 AD3d 358, 360-361 [2006]). Furthermore, the affidavit of the defendant driver raised a triable issue of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred (s*ee Johnson v Yarussi Constr., Inc.,*74 AD3d 1772 [2010]; *Boockvor v Fischer,*56 AD3d 405 [2008]; *Kutanovski v DeCicco,*122 AD2d 250, 251 [1986]). Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been denied.

However, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 02 3 . J OHN YANG v . THE STATE.

J o h n Yan g h as fi l ed an ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

o rd er d en y i n g hi s m o ti o n t o red u ce h i s s en t en ce. Th e tri al co u rt en t ered i t s o rd er o n

M ay 2 5 , 2 0 1 6 . Yan g fi l ed hi s ap p li cat i o n o n Au gu s t 1 , 2 0 1 6

.

Ord i n ari l y

, i f a p art y ap pl i es fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew of a d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e

o rd er - s u ch as an ord er d en y in g a t i m el y m o t i on fo r s en t en ce m o d i fi cat i o n - we g ran t

t h e ap p l i cat i on u n der OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). To fal l w i t hi n t h i s gen eral ru l e, h o wev er,

t h e ap p l i cat i o n m

u s t be fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f en t ry of t h e o rd er t o be ap p eal ed

. See

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Hi l l v. S t a t e

, 2 0 4 G a. A p p

. 5 82 (4 20 SE2 d 3 9 3 ) ( 1 9 92 ). Th e

req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o nal

, an d th i s Co urt can no t accep t an

ap p li cat io n fo r ap peal n o t m ad e i n co m p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. See Bo yl e v. S t a t e o

f Ga

. ,

1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Y a n g f i l ed h i s ap p l i cat i o n 6 8 day s aft er

en t ry o f t h e o rd er h e s eek s t o ap p eal , an d h i s ap p l i cat i on i s t h erefo re u n t i m el y

.

Yan g co n ten d s t h at hi s ap p l i cat i on i s t i m el y b ecau se h e p u rp o rt ed l y d i d n ot

recei v e th e t ri al co urt ’ s ord er u n t i l J u l y 2 9

, 2 0 1 6

. Ho wev er, a t ri al co u rt ’ s fai l u re to August 31, 2016t i m el y n o t i fy a d efen d an t o f an o rd er d oes n o t ex ten d t h e t i m e t o fi le an ap p eal

, an d

t h e p ro p er rem ed y i n s u ch s i t u at io n s i s to fi l e a m o t io n to s et as i d e th e o r d e r o r a

m o ti o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

. See W hi t fi el d v. S t a te

, 3 13 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9 7

, 2 9 9 (1 )

(7 2 1 SE2 d 2 1 1 ) (2 0 1 1 ); S h o us e v. S t a t e , 1 8 9 Ga. Ap p . 5 3 1 (3 7 6 SE2 d 9 1 1 ) (1 9 8 8 ).

Fo r t h e reas o n s s t at ed ab o v e, Y a n g ’ s ap p l icat io n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r

l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/31/2016
Order entered April 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01585-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.K.S.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-11655

ORDER

By letter filed April 16, 2014, Francheska Duffey, Official Court Reporter of the 330th 

Judicial District Court, has informed us that appellant has not requested preparation of the 

reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant shall file his brief on the merits no later than May 27, 

2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
ex101letterfrombankofame






Top of Letter 25882_697376_24291A PPP Loan Payoff PO Box 45144  Jacksonville, FL 32232-9743 Bank of America and the Bank of America logo are registered trademarks of the Bank of America Corporation.   Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC.  Your Paycheck Protection Program loan was paid off on June 19, 2021. The Small Business Administration (SBA) determined that the amount you, the borrower, requested for   forgiveness (“Forgiven Amount”) on your Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan was fully approved and the SBA   remitted the Forgiven Amount to Bank of America.  Your PPP loan with the SBA is now paid in full (including applicable interest). This satisfies your obligations under   your PPP promissory note. Your PPP promissory note has been marked ‘paid in full’ and canceled on our system of   record.  You may use this letter as evidence that your PPP promissory note has been ‘paid in full’.  Please keep this letter as confirmation for your records. Things to keep in mind The instructions in the SBA’s PPP Loan Forgiveness Application state that you, the borrower, must maintain all   records related to your PPP loan. Consult the applicable PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Instructions, which can   be found at the U.S. Treasury website, for a detailed list of documentation you are required to maintain.  There may be tax consequences associated with loan forgiveness. Please consult a tax professional if you have   questions or want advice about any potential tax implications.  For the most up to date program rules and guidance, we encourage you to visit the U.S. Treasury website at   https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/assistance-for-small-businesses and the SBA website at   https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program. Thank you for being a valued client. IMPORTANT INFORMATION: IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY   OBTAINED A DISCHARGE OF THIS DEBT UNDER BANKRUPTCY LAW, THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS FOR   INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT, OR AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT   OR MODIFY ANY BANKRUPTCY PLAN OR DISCHARGE ORDER. PPP loan  REALNETWOR00001  REALNETWORKS INC Date June 19, 2021 REALNETWORKS INC 1501 1ST AVE S STE 600 SEATTLE WA 98134-1470 Exhibit 10.1
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 15 January 2005 to 15 February 2005

(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1))

(2005/C 49/02)

—   Issuing of a marketing authorization (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) Accepted

—   Modification of a marketing authorization (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) Accepted

—   Modification of a marketing authorization (Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) Accepted

----

(1)OJ L 214 of 24 August 1993, page 1.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 326 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 326

   Designating Thursday, November 17, 2011, as ``Feed America Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2011

 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Lugar, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating Thursday, November 17, 2011, as ``Feed America Day''.

Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless giving and an 
        appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon which the United States 
        was founded;
Whereas, according to the Department of Agriculture, roughly 48,000,000 people 
        in the United States, including 16,200,000 children, continue to live in 
        households that do not have an adequate supply of food; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of thanksgiving, both 
        affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates Thursday, November 17, 2011, as ``Feed 
        America Day''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to sacrifice 
        2 meals on Thursday, November 17, 2011, and to donate the money 
        that would have been spent on that food to the religious or 
        charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of 
        feeding the hungry.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.3

Eastern Division

Katherine Albrecht, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:03−cv−06472

Hon. Morton

Denlow

Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 17, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Status hearing held on 2/17/2005.

Status hearing set for 3/31/2005 at 10:00 AM.Jucicial staff mailed notice(dmk, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/17/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:393
(121 App. Div. 542.)

#### WOOD v. LUKE A. BURKE & SONS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Master and Servant—Action by Servant for Injury—Instructions—Master Not an Insurer.

In an action by a servant, a bricklayer, for an injury sustained by being struck by an object falling from an upper part of the building, where the court has instructed as to the duty of the master to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work, it is error to refuse to instruct that the master is never the insurer of the safety of a workman on a building.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Queens, First District.

Action by Percival J. Wood against Luke A. Burke & Sons. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before JFNKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Allan E. Brosmith, for appellants.

George F. Hickey (William E. Stewart, on the brief), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The action is by servant against master for negligence. The plaintiff, while at work as a bricklayer in a building in the course of construction, was struck by a falling thing from the upper part of the building and injured. The alleged negligence is that the master failed to furnish a safe and proper place for the servant to work in, and that the servant was put at work in a place not properly protected against the fall of such things. The Municipal Court was requested to charge the jury that the master is never the insurer of the safety of a workman on a building, and the court declined so to charge, under exception. While the request was general, we cannot say that it was not germane, especially in view of the fact that the court had already charged the jury_ that it was the duty of the master to give the employé a safe place to work in. We cannot say that the effect of such a charge was not to instruct the jury that the master was held to a higher rule of liability than that imposed upon him by law.

For these reasons, we think the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that:





I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A;





to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.





Dated: January 28, 2011








S/Jeffrey R. Bailey


Jeffrey R. Bailey,


Chief Executive Officer
FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, James N. Ryan, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PDC 1996-D Limited Partnership;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:   November 12, 2003
 /s/ James N. Ryan       

James N. Ryan

Chief Executive Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation 

Managing General Partner of PDC 1996-D Limited Partnership
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement No. 333-17331 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors and the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan and Registration Statement No. 333-102138 on Form S-8pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan of our report dated March 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements of Broadway Financial Corporation, which report is included in Form 10-KSB for Broadway FinancialCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLP 

South Bend, Indiana 

March 31, 2008
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8, asamended or supplemented (Nos. 333-130445, 333-124771, 333-120018, 333-110093, 333-102049,333-84846, 333-50942, 333-49182, 333-62275, 333-38871, 333-10697, and 033-99022), of HyperionSolutions Corporation of our report dated August 31, 2006 relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting which appear in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSan Jose, California
#### Kathleen Long, Respondent, v Town of Southold, Respondent, and Founders Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 594]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Founders Village Homeowners Association, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated October 13, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a defect in the sidewalk abutting premises owned by the defendant Founders Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter Founders), located in the Town of Southold. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the Town of Southold and Founders. Founders moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, contending that as the abutting owner, it could not be held liable for the plaintiffs injuries. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

“An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty” *(Romano v Leger,*72 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2010]; *see Hausser v Giunta,*88 NY2d 449 [1996]; *James v County of Nassau,*85 AD3d 971 [2011]; *Ellman v Village of Rhinebeck,*41 AD3d 635*809[2007]). In opposition to Founders’ prima facie showing that it did not create the alleged defect, did not make special use of the sidewalk, and did not breach a statutory duty to maintain the abutting sidewalk *(see Nilsen v City of New York,*28 AD3d 625 [2006]; *Rendon v Castle Realty,*28 AD3d 532 [2006]; *Capobianco v Mari,*267 AD2d 191 [1999]; *Rosales v City of New York,*221 AD2d 329 [1995]), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact.

Founders’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Founders’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.3

Eastern Division

Katherine Albrecht, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:03−cv−06472

Hon. Morton

Denlow

Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, March 31, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier :By agreement of the parties, the

telephone status conference set for 03/31/05 is RESET to 04/11/05 at 8:30 a.m. Telephone

notice(mmm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 63 Filed: 03/31/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:399