alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sally Weinappel, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harold Weinappel, Deceased, Appellant, v John T. Burke, Respondent.

— Mikoll, J.

On June 21, 1983, plaintiff’s decedent was operating his automobile in a northerly direction on Route 9, a two-lane north-south highway in the Town of Plattsburgh, Clinton County. Defendant was traveling southbound on Route 9. Decedent’s vehicle was struck on its right side in the center of the southbound lane as it was in the process of making a left turn into a driveway of the Pioneer Motel. There was a knoll in the highway about 2,000 feet north of the impact. Defendant was south of this knoll when he moved into the northbound lane to pass two southbound vehicles. He completed passing the two vehicles and returned to the southbound lane before impact.

The only issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court properly sustained defendant’s objection to a question put to plaintiff’s expert witness on direct examination. Plaintiff’s counsel made this inquiry: "Now using [defendant’s] sworn testimony about his passing speed of 55 and that normal distance standard that we just discussed, were you able to do calculations to determine where, along the road, [defendant’s] car would have finished the pass?” Defendant’s counsel objected to the form of the question and this colloquy occurred:

> "The Court: Sustained.

> "Mr. Brody: [Plaintiff’s counsel]: On form?

> "The Court: I don’t believe there’s any foundation for that question to this witness.”

The ruling of the trial court was proper and we should therefore affirm. A question such as this, which assumes a material fact which has no support in the evidence, is im*937proper and should be excluded (Richardson, Evidence § 370, at 347 [Prince 10th ed]). In the instant case, the evidence did not establish the point on the highway where defendant began to pass the two vehicles. It would, therefore, not be possible to indicate the point on the highway at which the pass would have been completed. The question also referred to "that normal distance standard”. The standard was defined as the distance a driver would normally be behind a vehicle before pulling out to pass — a distance of 100 feet. However, the record indicates that defendant’s testimony was that he was 20 feet behind the nearest vehicle when he began his pass. Thus, the 100-foot assumption did not conform to the facts in evidence.

By this line of inquiry, it appears that plaintiff was attempting to establish that defendant was driving at a speed substantially in excess of the 55 miles per hour speed limit. It is useful to note that a witness called by plaintiff estimated defendant’s speed as 70 miles per hour prior to the collision and plaintiff’s expert testified that, based on his reconstruction of the accident, defendant’s speed at impact was between 70 to 80 miles per hour. Thus, the jury had before it evidence of excessive speed notwithstanding the disputed ruling.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Dover Motorsports, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Patrick J. Bagley, Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 6, 2007



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Patrick J. Bagley               
|Patrick J. Bagley                   
|Senior Vice President-Finance,      
|Chief Financial Officer and Director

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in
such a filing.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2599 

To prohibit the obligation of certain funds until the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency withdraws the rule relating to the 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2015 

Mr. ROUZER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 

Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science, Space, and 

Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obligation of certain funds until the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency withdraws 

the rule relating to the definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Ignore the Will 

5 of the American People Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2599 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS. 

2 None of the unobligated funds available for the Office 

3 of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

4 Agency under division F of Public Law 113–235 may be 

5 obligated after the date of enactment of this section until 

6 the Administrator rescinds the rule entitled ‘‘Clean Water 

7 Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States’’ and 

8 signed by the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary 

9 of the Army on May 26, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,098
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,440
<PP&E>                                         170,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          742,450
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,473
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,315,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,572
<SALES>                                         27,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,399
<CGS>                                           25,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (163,352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (163,352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.011)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.011)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gallagher, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered February 25, 1987.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5) *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

          We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-55180) of Sales Online Direct,  Inc.
of our report dated May 7, 2001,  on our audit of the  financial  statements  of
Sales Online Direct,  Inc., which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Sales Online Direct, Inc.

Wolf & Company, P. C.


Boston, Massachusetts
May 11, 2001



<PAGE>
#### Angela DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70934.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Stephen Shaiken, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Angela Duarte, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Duarte’s contention, the BIA properly reviewed the IJ’s hardship determination de novo. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) (ii). It follows that Duarte’s due process claim fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Duarte failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alan Gibbs, Appellant.

The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, since the " 'trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621, quoting from *Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *People v Herriot,*110 AD2d 851, 852; *see also, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932). Determination of the credibility of the complainant, and of the defendant’s alibi witnesses, is primarily the responsibility of the trier of fact and should not be disturbed unless wholly unsupported by the evidence *(see, People v Bigelow,*106 AD2d 448, 449; *People v Cook,*99 AD2d 552, 553).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467), or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 6
  
 
 Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
  We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Canadian Natural Resources Limited’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 1009; and (ii) the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-9 (File No. 333-162270), of our audit report dated March 3, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of Canadian Natural Resources Limited as at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated statements of earnings, shareholder’s equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Canadian Natural Resources Limited as of December 31 , 2009.
   PWC signature
 Chartered Accountants
 Calgary, Alberta
 March 25, 2010
#### In the Matter of Carolyn Gordon, Respondent, v Joseph D’Elia, as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, Appellant.

— In a declaratory judgment action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated September 11, 1985, which denied his motion for a protective order *568vacating the plaintiffs second supplemental set of interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating the second supplemental set of interrogatories is granted.

The essence of the plaintiffs grievance concerns the denial of temporary interim relief to herself and persons similarly situated, i.e., those who were allegedly in need of immediate medical care at the time of the denial. Having found the allegations of the complaint conclusory, Special Term (Brucia, J.) ordered a minihearing *(see,*McLaughlin, 1976 Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C902:l, p 336) preceded by "[ljimited discovery”, to determine whether the prerequisites to class certification listed in CPLR 901 were present and to assess the feasibility considerations set forth in CPLR 902 in relation to the particular facts.

In response to previously served interrogatories, the defendant revealed that the Nassau County Department of Social Services had issued 3,218 temporary medical assistance authorizations for the period from January 1983 to February 1984, and that there were no existing statistics relating to requests or demands for temporary medical assistance authorizations. Specifically, the agency had no information identifying cases where applicants were denied temporary medical assistance authorizations.

By use of a second supplemental set of interrogatories, the plaintiff now seeks to obtain additional information concerning the issuance of such authorizations. Inasmuch as data establishing the existence of the class consisting of those individuals who were refused temporary medical assistance authorizations where immediate medical necessity was alleged cannot be gleaned from information regarding the actual issuance of such authorizations and the reasons therefor, the information sought is irrelevant to the matter at hand *(see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v News World Communications,*74 AD2d 765, 767). Moreover, the volume of interrogatories served to date is unduly onerous, having run afoul of the term "[l]imited discovery” authorized in the November 9, 1983, order of Justice Brucia *(cf. Chimenti v American Express Co.,*97 AD2d 351, *mot to dismiss appeal granted*61 NY2d 669). Accordingly, Special Term erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the second supplemental set of interrogatories. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32



Certification



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group,
Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    JON A. DELUCA      
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    EDWARD J. GRANAGHAN
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer   



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SCPW-19-0000030

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

CRAIGE K. MAKEKAU, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE COLETTE Y. GARIBALDI, Judge of the Circuit Court

of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i (ret.), Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.P.P. NO. 16-1-0031; CR. NO. 04-1-1801)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioner Craige K. Makekau’s

letter dated January 2, 2019, which was filed as a petition for 

writ of mandamus on January 8, 2019, the State of Hawai#i’s

answer to the petition for writ of mandamus, filed on February

22, 2019, the Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura’s answer to the

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 4, 2019, the

respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that

on March 4, 2019, in S.P.P. No. 16-1-0031, the circuit court

entered an “Order Regarding Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner for [sic] Custody Filed

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-19-0000030

07-MAR-2019

02:15 PM
December 7, 2016.” The relief requested by petitioner in this

original proceeding is moot. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 7, 2019.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

2
##### 



Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Retainer
 
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees
 
 Annual Equity Award
  Named-Executive Officer Compensation Summary
  Name
    
    Title
    
    SalaryStephen J. Harrison
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    500,000Edward L. Pierce
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    300,000Thomas M. Harrison, Jr.
    
    Executive Vice President and Secretary
    
    
    300,000Kevin P. Cohn
    
    Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and
Corporate Controller
    
    
    200,000Randy L. Reed
    
    Senior Vice President  Sales and Marketing
    
    
    205,000




---



##### 



Additional Information
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED J ASMINE MOORE , A ppellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 23

- 284 LT Cas e No. 16

- 2022 DR

- 2152 D V MA

THOMAS HILL, JR. ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decisio n filed July 3, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County , Stev en Fahlgren, Judge. J asmine Moore, J ac ksonville, pr o se. No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EDWARDS, C.J., JAY an d MACIVER , JJ. , concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. DWYER, Appellant, v. MARTIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

Certiorari by Patrick W. Dwyer against James J. Martin and others.

J. Vincent, for appellant.

T. Farley, for respondents.

No opinion. Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward W. Mugavero, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), imposed November 28, 1984.

By order of this court dated February 27, 1985, the appeal taken as a right was dismissed and the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal was denied. By order of the Court of Appeals dated May 6, 1986, the order of this court was reversed and the case was remitted here for determination of the appeal *(see, People v Mugavero,*67 NY2d 264).

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.
Summary of Compensation for
 Non-Employee Directors and Named Executive Officers of
First Acceptance Corporation (the Company)
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Retainer
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees
 Annual Equity Award
 Named Executive Officer Compensation Summary
  Name
    
    Title
    
    SalaryStephen J. Harrison
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    500,000Mark A. Kelly
    
    Interim President
    
    
    400,000John R. Barnett
    
    Senior Vice President of Finance
    
    
    210,000Dan L. Walker
    
    Senior Vice President  Operations
    
    
    240,000Keith E. Bornemann
    
    Vice President  Corporate Controller
    
    
    160,000
    Additional Information
#### SITTERLY, Respondent, v. JOURNAL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Action by Alonzo Sitterly against the Journal Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed, with costs. All concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40901 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO LOPEZ

- TORRES , Defendant

- Appellant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated with 16

- 40903
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO LOPEZ TORRES , also known as Pedro Lopez

- Torres

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 1252

- 1

USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 78

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40901 Document: 00513845049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2017No. 16

- 40901 Cons. w/ No. 16

- 40903

2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Lopez

- Torres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez

- Torres h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t he relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal s present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-40901 Document: 00513845049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2017