alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sunhee Lee, Appellant, v Iosif Ilyasov et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 150]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 23, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on black ice on a public sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. Since the defendants’ property, a one-family house, was owner-occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes, the defendants were exempt from liability imposed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 (b) for negligent failure to *1206remove snow and. ice from the sidewalk *(see John v City of New York,*77 AD3d 792, 793 [2010]; *Braun v Weissman,*68 AD3d 797, 797-798 [2009]). Thus, the defendants may be held liable for the hazardous condition on the sidewalk only if they undertook snow and ice removal efforts that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous *(see John v City of New York,*77 AD3d at 793; *Braun v Weissman,*68 AD3d at 797-798; *Bi Chan Lin v Po Ying Yam,*62 AD3d 740, 741 [2009]), or caused the defect to occur because of a special use *(see John v City of New York,*77 AD3d at 793; *Campos v Midway Cabinets, Inc.,*51 AD3d 843 [2008]).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants did not demonstrate that they did not undertake snow and ice removal efforts, or that any such efforts on their part did not create or exacerbate the alleged icy condition *(see Braun v Weissman,*68 AD3d at 798; *Robles v City of New York,*56 AD3d 647, 648 [2008]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, the plaintiff’s opposition papers need not be considered *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
Summary of Guaranty Contract
of Maximum Amount ( the “Contract”) Entered into by and between Mr. Xiangqian
Li, BAK International (Tianjin) Limited, BAK International Limited (the
“Guarantors”)and Shenzhen Eastern Branch, Agricultural Bank of China( the
“Creditor”) on Nov. 27th, 2008

    


    Main
contents

    Ø Contract number:
819050200800000302.

    Ø Each guarantor under
this Guaranty Contract undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for
the indebtedness of Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the “Obligor”) towards the
Creditor under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount
(no. No. 81001200813170001) from Nov. 27th, 2008 to Nov. 27th, 2009,
and the maximum amount secured is RMB580 million.

    Ø Scope of Guaranty: The
guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest,
breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses
such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost and public notice cost
etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s
right.

    Ø Guaranty period: The guaranty
period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the expiry
of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and the loan agreement entered into
under the Credit Facility Agreement.

    
      Ø Breach of Contract Penalties:
additional 15% of the maximum amount secured in this Contract and full
compensation for the Creditor’s loss due to the Guarantor’s breach of
contract.

    

    


    Headlines
of the articles omitted:

    Ø Termination and
explanation

    Ø Payment on
demand

    Ø The Guarantor’s
undertaking

    Ø Confirmation of the
Creditor’s rights

    Ø Fulfillment of the
guaranty responsibility

    Ø Dispute
settlement

    Ø
Effectiveness

    Ø
Notification

    Ø Supplement
articles
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Geospatial and Environmental Epidemiology Research Unit: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Geospatial and Environmental Epidemiology Research Unit People & Locations







Vacant  Vacant
                        Geospatial and Environmental Epidemiology Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Acting Research Leader
                        Phone: (662) 320-7380
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00835-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.K.T., a Child

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-361-A

The Honorable Cathy O. Morris, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the Appellant’s attorney’s motion to 

withdraw is GRANTED, and the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. No costs shall be assessed 

against Appellant in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under Rule 20.1. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1.

SIGNED April 17, 2013.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### In the Matter of Harold Konigsberg, Respondent-Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

—Kane, J.

*263We agree with Special Term that the alleged improprieties on the part of respondents involve, for the most part, matters which are concerned with the government and discipline of the prison facility on a day-to-day basis, and as such, fall within the broad powers of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services to provide rules and regulations for the operation of facilities under his jurisdiction *(see,*Correction Law §§ 112, 137; *Matter of Baker v Wilmot,*65 AD2d 884, *lv denied*46 NY2d 710, *appeal dismissed*46 NY2d 939). This power is circumscribed only by the requirement that sanctions imposed upon a prisoner be consistent with the requirements of due process *(Wolff v McDonnell,*418 US 539, 563-566). Accordingly, the Commissioner promulgated rules and regulations establishing detailed procedures through which inmates may resolve their grievances (7 NYCRR part 701). We are instructed by our Court of Appeals that an inmate must avail himself of these remedies before he institutes a CPLR article 78 proceeding so that there may be a fair and orderly review of grievances and a determination made separating those matters which may be resolved administratively from those requiring review by the courts *(Matter of Patterson v Smith,*53 NY2d 98). Therefore, while it may ultimately be established that petitioner is entitled to all or some of the relief heretofore afforded him at Special Term, such relief is premature and the petition must be dismissed. However, such dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner availing himself of the administrative remedies provided to him by 7 NYCRR part 701 for reconsideration of the requested relief heretofore granted at Special Term *(see, Matter of King v Correspondence Dept.,*89 AD2d 1043, *lv denied*58 NY2d 601).

Judgment modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as directed that petitioner be provided with Kosher food, reasonable visitation with a rabbi and housing in a clean vermin-free cell; petition dismissed in its entirety; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.
#### Jerome D. Flint as Overseer of the Poor, etc., Appellant, *v.*Shepard Rowell, Respondent.

(Argued June 25, 1890;

decided October 7, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department made January 3, 1888, which set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granted a new trial.

*W. Martin, Jones*for appellant.

*M. Rumsey Miller*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed, and judgment absolute against plaintiff on stipulation.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the annual report of Union Security Insurance Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, P. Bruce Camacho, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date:March 10, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
tibb8k120508ex10_3.htm


    
      

      

    



    Exhibit
10.3

    Form
of Letter Agreement

    


    


    TIB
Financial Corp.

    599 Ninth
Street N., Suite 101

    Naples,
FL 34102

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    I
understand that TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) intends to apply under the
provisions of the United States Department of the Treasury’s (the “Treasury”)
Capital Purchase Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(“EESA”). In consideration for the benefits that I will receive as a result of
the Company’s participation in the Capital Purchase Program, I hereby agree that
each compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plan, arrangement and
agreement (including golden parachute, severance and employment agreements)
between the Company and/or any of its subsidiaries and me is hereby amended for
the period that the Treasury owns any debt or equity securities of the Company
acquired pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement between the Treasury and
the Company or the stock purchase warrant issued pursuant to the Agreement, in
order to comply with Section 111(b) of EESA as implemented by guidance or
regulation thereunder.

    


                                    
Sincerely,

    


    


    


      
        	
                By:

              	
              
	 
      	
                Signature
      of Executive Officer

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Name
      of Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 
	
                 Date:

              	___________________,
      2008
#### BAILEY V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 12th, 1910.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard'before Hon. William E. Fort.

T. M. Ramey and Allen & Bell, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Errors confessed. Reversed and remanded.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0433 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0433

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture Programme (2007-2013) (6235/3/2006 - C6-0269/2006 - 2004/0150(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 313 E , 20/12/2006 P. 0088 - 0000 *

P6_TA(2006)0433

Culture programme (2007-2013) ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture Programme (2007-2013) (6235/3/2006 — C6-0269/2006 — 2004/0150(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (6235/3/2006 — C6-0269/2006),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0469) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0343/2006),

1. Approves the common position as amended;

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

[1] Texts Adopted, 25.10.2005, P6_TA(2005)0397.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
/,6$5-3257(5

-3/DZ3&

6:0HDGRZV5G6XLWH

/DNH2VZHJR25



26%12

$WWRUQH\IRU3ODLQWLII

81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

',675,&72)25(*21

5REHUW1RUPDQ&DVWHU

3ODLQWLII &LYLO$FWLRQ1RFY-(

YV

&$52/<1:&2/9,125'(5*5$17,1*$:$5'

&200,66,21(5RI6RFLDO6HFXULW\ 2)($-$)((6(;3(16(6

'HIHQGDQW  &2676

25'(5

%DVHGXSRQWKH3ODLQWLII¶V3HWLWLRQWKH(TXDO$FFHVVWR-XVWLFH$FW($-$86&

G$WKHDVVLJQPHQWRI($-$IHHVWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\E\3ODLQWLIIDVGLVFXVVHGLQ

$VWUXHY5DWOLII6&W86DQG86&LWLVKHUHE\RUGHUHGWKDW

($-$DWWRUQH\¶VIHHVRIDQGH[SHQVHVDQGFRVWVRILIQRWVXEMHFWWR

DQ\RIIVHWDOORZHGXQGHUWKH86'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH7UHDVXU\¶V2IIVHW3URJUDPDVGLVFXVVHGLQ

5DWOLIIVKDOOEHSDLGWRWKH3ODLQWLIIDQGPDLOHGWRWKHDWWRUQH\¶VRIILFH

'RQHWKLVBBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

-XGJH

3UHVHQWHGE\

V/LVD5-3RUWHUBBBBBBBBBBBBB

/LVD5-3RUWHU26%

$WWRUQH\IRU3ODLQWLII

6:0HDGRZV5G6XLWH

/DNH2VZHJR25

1st August

/s/ John Jelderks

U.S. Magistrate

Case 6:14-cv-01006-JE Document 25 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DAYSHIA TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

3:14-CV-01472-BR 

vs. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $2,580.22 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed inAstrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, P01tland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this ~day ~ 2015. 

United 

A~ States District Comt Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01472-BR Document 20 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 1
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14330

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOSEPH ALEXANDER CLARKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KIMBERLY M. ESMOND ADAMS, 

FANI T. WILLIS, 

CATHELENE TINA ROBINSON, 

CHRIS CARR, 

Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 22-14330 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14330

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04408-LMM

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Clarke, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against various state and court officials. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sua 

sponte dismissed Clarke’s complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Miller v. 

Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Insofar as the complaint challenges his incarceration with its references to the “commercial charges” against him and the “confinement of [his] body 

still being held as collateral,” the district court correctly concluded 

that this challenge was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 

(1994), because requiring the officials to accept his “unrebutted 

commercial affidavit of truth” would necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions. And the district court correctly determined 

that the complaint was otherwise frivolous because Clarke’s allegations, which are “typical of those often used by so-called ‘sovereign citizens,’” lack “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Miller, 541 F.3d at 1100.

USCA11 Case: 22-14330 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 2 of 3
22-14330 Opinion of the Court 3

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Clarke’s complaint.

USCA11 Case: 22-14330 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 3 of 3
----

CONCLUSIONS BY THE COUNCIL

of 21 February 2005

on Education and Training in the framework of the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy

(2005/C 85/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to:

STRESSES THAT:

RECALLS THAT:

RECOMMENDS THAT:

INVITES THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:

----
# C_2005262EN.01001201.xml

| 21.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/12

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2005/C 262/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

SPAIN

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AEROTEC, ESCUELA DE PILOTAS, S.L. | Chalet del RACE s/n |
| Aeropuerto de Cuatro Vientos |
| 28044 Madrid |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

AEROTEC, ESCUELA DE PILOTAS, S.L.

Chalet del RACE s/n

Aeropuerto de Cuatro Vientos

28044 Madrid

passengers, mail, cargo

1.8.2005

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0046 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0046

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 55 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of mechanical coupling components of combinations of vehicles (COM(2005)0019 - 11233/2005 - C6-0317/2005 - 2005/0002(AVC)) **

*
Official Journal 290 E , 29/11/2006 P. 0071 - 0071 *

P6_TA(2006)0046

Approval of mechanical coupling components ***

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 55 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of mechanical coupling components of combinations of vehicles (COM(2005)0019 — 11233/2005 — C6-0317/2005 — 2005/0002(AVC))

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2005)0019 — 11233/2005) [1],

- having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 3(3), Article 4(2), second indent of Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ("Revised 1958 Agreement") [2] (C6-0317/2005),

- having regard to Rule 75(1) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0011/2006),

1. Gives its assent to the proposal for a Council decision;

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

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

--------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARY PIERCE, 

Plaintiff, 

3:15-CV-00325-AC 

vs. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of$6,025.63 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. / 

DATED this,;r/fr'day of fr<cd;,J0(r 

Johq A,costa 

United! States Di~ttist Cettrt Judge 

'/ IV\o~\st<ote, 

Case 3:15-cv-00325-AC Document 38 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 1