alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Medical Malpractice Insurance Association, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

As noted in *Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Employers Ins.*(121 AD2d 236), in which the codefendant Argonaut Insurance Company was the appellant, plaintiff Calvelli, a medical doctor, was defended in a malpractice action by plaintiff Medical Malpractice Insurance Association (MMIA), which thereafter commenced a declaratory judgment action for indemnification against the defendants Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) and Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut). As pertinent to the instant appeal, MMIA moved for an order directing Wausau’s employee George Schueren to produce for inspection "all memorandums and writings addressed to anyone pertaining to the Vandenberg/ Covington action [the underlying malpractice action against Dr. Calvelli].” Special Term granted the motion, and also granted Wausau limited protective relief from which an appeal was not taken.

Wausau claims, as it did before Special Term, that the materials it was ordered to produce include correspondence and memoranda between Wausau and independent counsel whom Wausau and Argonaut had retained to monitor the underlying malpractice action, in preparation for defending the instant declaratory judgment action brought by MMIA for indemnification. *(Cf. Firemen’s Ins. Co. v Gray,*41 AD2d 863.)

Upon reargument, we reverse Special Term’s order to the extent appealed from, and remand to the Supreme Court for *505an in camera inspection of the documents to determine whether they relate to Wausau’s preparation for the instant litigation and, subsequent to such in camera inspection, reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Lynch and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 23.3


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-65364 on Form S-2 and Registration Statement No. 333-42153 on Form S-8 of
Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives of our report dated June 19, 2002 (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
relating to the change in the Company's method of accounting for start-up
activities in 1999) on the consolidated financial statements of Ventura Foods,
LLC and subsidiary, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Cenex
Harvest States Cooperatives for the year ended August 31, 2001.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 27, 2002
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



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Versata, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Frederick, Interim President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Vice-President of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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 the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: June 14, 2005



By:

/s/ WILLIAM FREDERICKWilliam FrederickInterim President and Chief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer, Secretary and Vice-President




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report of CHS Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John D. Johnson, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ JOHN D. JOHNSON                      
| |                                          
| | John D. Johnson                          
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

November 18, 2004
# C_2006313EN.01004401.xml

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/44

---

Corrigendum to Common position (EC) No 27/2006 adopted by the Council on 25 September 2006, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

(
  OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006, p. 1
  )

(
  OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006, p. 1

(2006/C 313/15)

Page 6, Article 6(4)

For:

For:

‘4.   The fields of research set out in paragraph 2 shall be reviewed for the second phase of this programme (2010-2013) in the light of scientific advances.’;

Read:

Read:

‘4.   The fields of research set out above shall be reviewed for the second phase of this programme (2010-2013) in the light of scientific advances.’.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John D. Johnson, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A-4 of CHS Inc.;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(s) 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:  a.
    
    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; andc.
    
    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 officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
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; andb.
    
    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: June 29, 2004 /s/ John D. JohnsonJohn D. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 20, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135865 (18) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

EUGENE E. KIRK, #154177 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135865 

 CoA: 281628 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $17.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$358.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 20, 2008 

Clerk
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 18 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Derri ck D. Howard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Fi de li ty N at io na l Ti tl e In su ran ce Co m pa ny
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 1, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Ju ne 16 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Derrick D. Howard appeals f ollowing the distric t c o u

r t ’ s 1 ad ve rs e gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in th is di ve rs it y act io n. Viewi ng th e reco rd in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Mr.

1 The Hon or ab le Hen ry E. Aut rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.Howar d, wit h al l reas on ab le in fere nc es dr awn in hi s fav or , we co nc lu de th at su m m ary jud gm en t was warra nt ed

. See Loc h v. Ci ty of Lit ch fie ld , 68 9 F.3 d 96 1, 96 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d e no vo rev ie w). W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B; an d we d en y

Mr. Ho ward ’s m ot io n fo r rem an d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL L.P. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,297)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,140
<PP&E>                                       2,069,614
<DEPRECIATION>                               (120,564)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,338,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,649
<BONDS>                                      1,041,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,218,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,338,486
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,338
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (40,560)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (31,876)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (30,594)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,447
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (719)
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,728
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
        

</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 159

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the restriction

that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services

in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only

under the care of a physician, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove

the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only under

the care of a physician, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 159 IS

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL

2 PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK3 ER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A COMPREHEN4 SIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACIL5 ITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE

6 OF A PHYSICIAN.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended

9 by inserting before the semicolon ‘‘(except with respect to

10 services provided by a clinical psychologist or a clinical so11 cial worker)’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall become effective with respect to serv14 ices provided on or after January 1, 1998.

Æ
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41032 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ENRIQUE PERALES ORDUNA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-324-1
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Enrique Perales O rduna (Perales) a p p e a l s t h e 6 3

- m o n t h s e n tence imposed following his conviction f or illegal reentry followin g d e p o r tation in v iolation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perales argues that t he district c o urt plainly erred b y imposing

a 16-level enhancement pursuant t o U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2( b ) ( 1 ) ( A )(ii) based on his prior conviction for indecency with a c hild under § 21.11(a)(2) o f the Texas Penal Code. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41032 Document: 00512251778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2013No. 12-41032

Perales’s argument is foreclosed by our decisions in Unite d S t a tes v. Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 541, 5 62-63 (5th Cir. 2 013) (en b anc), and United S tates v. Z a v a l a - S ustaita , 214 F.3d 601, 604-08 ( 5th Cir. 2000). To the extent th a t Perales argues that h i s prior conviction f or indecency with a child does n o t constitute sexual abuse of a m inor and thus is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) for purposes of the enhanced penalty provision i n § 1326(b)(2), t hat argument i s also fo r e c l o s ed. See Z avala-Sustaita , 214 F.3d at 607-08. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-41032 Document: 00512251778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2013
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0372 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0372

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Decision 2006/.../EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles' programme) (COM(2006)0243 - C6-0180/2006 - 2006/0079(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 306 E , 15/12/2006 P. 0264 - 0265 *

P6_TA(2006)0372

Pericles programme — extension to non-participating Member States *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Decision 2006/.../EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the "Pericles" programme) (COM(2006)0243 — C6-0180/2006 — 2006/0079(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0243) [1],

- having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0180/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0277/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A2 for the period ended August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Hefner, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(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.





Date: April 25, 2013

/s/ Daniel L. HefnerDaniel L. HefnerChief Executive Officer, President and Director
#### Sylvia B. Stewart, Respondent, v Sherwil Holding Corp. et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 174]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 18, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A property owner will be held liable for a slip and fall involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition that caused the accident, or had actual or constructive notice thereof *(see Mignogna v 7-Eleven, Inc.,*76 AD3d 1054 [2010]; *Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp.,*69 AD3d 686 [2010]; *Crosthwaite v Acadia Realty Trust,*62 AD3d 823 [2009]). Notably, the only theory of liability the plaintiff asserts in this case is constructive notice. To provide constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it *(see Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp.,*69 AD3d 686 [2010]; *Kaehler-Hendrix v Johnson Controls, Inc.,*58 AD3d 604, 606 [2009]).

*978Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged icy condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, as well as that of their porter, whose job it was to inspect and maintain the parking lot. The porter testified that on the day of the accident, he arrived at work around 8:00 a.m., at which time there was no snow on the ground. He explained that there were about five variously sized ice patches in the parking lot, and that they were located on the sides of the lot where it was shaded. Beginning around 8:30 a.m., he placed ice melt on these patches and scraped them away with a shovel throughout the day. The plaintiff, however, described the lot as having not only patches of ice, but patches of snow as well, and that these were located “[a] 11 over the parking lot.” According to the plaintiff, she parked and exited her vehicle at 10:20 a.m. and, while traversing across the lot, she walked over one or two patches of ice prior to stepping and slipping on a patch located in the center of the lot that she did not see, despite looking down to see where she was walking. In view of this conflicting testimony, the defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating the absence of all triable issues of fact as to whether they had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition in the parking lot (see *Sabatino v 425 Oser Ave., LLC,*87 AD3d 1127 [2011]). As the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp.,*69 AD3d at 687).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.R, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.