alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

URBANO JUAREZ, 07-CV-01509 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH Document 21 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH Document 21 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2


                           CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION
                     OF SERIES B 7% CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE
                               PREFERRED STOCK OF
                                    PNV INC.

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

                   Pursuant to Section 151 (g) of the General
                    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
                    -----------------------------------------

         PNV Inc., a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby
certify that the following resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Corporation at a meeting duly held on October 25, 1999:

         RESOLVED, that no shares of the Corporation's Series B 7% Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Stock ("Series B Preferred Stock") are outstanding and
none shall be issued by the Corporation pursuant to the Certificate of
Designations designating the powers, designations, preferences, rights,
qualifications, limitations and restrictions of the Series B Preferred Stock
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 12, 1996,
as amended on August 22, 1997, May 7, 1998, (as corrected on November 9, 1998),
June 3, 1999, September 15, 1999, and November 3, 1999, and that the Series B
Preferred Stock be eliminated and the number of designated shares of the Series
B Preferred Stock be reduced to zero, and that all 1,372,370 shares of the
Series B Preferred Stock resume the status which they had prior to the adoption
of the first resolution of this Board of Directors setting forth the powers,
designations, preferences, rights, qualifications, limitations, and restrictions
of the Series B Preferred Stock, which status is that of authorized but
undesignated preferred stock of the Corporation, par value $.01 per share.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be
hereunto affixed and this certificate to be signed by Robert P. May, its Chief
Executive Officer on this 21st day of December, 1999.


                                    PNV INC.


                                    By: /s/ ROBERT P. MAY
                                       -----------------------------------
                                    Robert P. May, Chief Executive Officer
### The Honorable Arnold Raum, United States Tax Court Judge. 1 ___________ No. 95-3431

___________ Steel Balls, Inc., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner of Internal * Revenue, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 5, 1996 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. St eel Balls, Inc. appeals from the tax court's decision upholdin g 1 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination that Steel Balls , Inc.'s employee stock ownership plan did not meet the requirements fo r qualification, and accordingly that its employee stock ownership trust was not exempt from income tax, in each of its taxable years ending April 30 of 1987 through 1989. Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and submissions, we conclude the judgment of the tax court was correct . Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Memphis Construction, Inc., Appellant, v City of Oneida, Respondent.

— Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered November 28, 1986 in Madison County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend its complaint.

Order affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Irad S. Ingraham. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
22898 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 25

[AG Order No. 2425–2001; FBI 105F]

RIN 1110–AA02

National Instant Criminal Background

Check System Regulation; Delay of

Effective Date

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), the

Department of Justice temporarily

delayed for 60 days (66 FR 12854) the

effective date of the final rule entitled

‘‘National Instant Criminal Background

Check System Regulation’’ (66 FR

12854, March 1, 2001), originally

published in the Federal Register on

January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6470). This

action temporarily postpones for an

additional 60 days the effective date of

that final rule. This temporary 60-day

delay in effective date is necessary to

give Department of Justice officials

further opportunity to review the rule,

with the goal of adopting a regulation

that will resolve issues regarding audit

requirements, privacy interests, and

other considerations identified during

the recent 60-day review period.

DATES: The effective date of the final

rule amending 28 CFR Part 25 published

in the Federal Register on January 22,

2001, at 66 FR 6470 is delayed for an

additional 60 days, from May 4, 2001,

until July 3, 2001. This action is

effective immediately upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fanny Haslebacher, Attorney-Advisor,

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Module

A–3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road,

Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306–0147,

(304) 625–2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To the

extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies

to this action, it is exempt from notice

and comment because it constitutes a

rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(A). Alternatively, the

Department’s implementation of this

action without opportunity for public

comment, effective immediately upon

publication today in the Federal

Register is based on the good cause

exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and

553(d)(3). The new Department officials

must have sufficient, limited time to

review the rule and its administrative

record thoroughly in order to determine

whether the rule sufficiently addresses

questions concerning the

implementation of the audit

requirements, important privacy

interests, and other considerations

identified during the recent 60-day

review period. Accordingly, the

Department finds that there is good

cause for this limited delay of the

effective date, without notice and

comment, and that this action is in the

public interest. Any additional delays

will be ordered only after notice-andcomment rulemaking on the question of

such delay.

Dated: May 3, 2001.

John Ashcroft,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01–11507 Filed 5–3–01; 10:59 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (1189).                    

*Date/Time:*                         May 30-31, 2001; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Fred G. Heineken, Program Director, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7944.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-11288  Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 18, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60990 Summary Calendar

OLWIDCH DELVOIS, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A42 850 309

-------------------- Before SMITH, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Olwidch Delvois petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order that dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision removing him to Haiti. Delvois’s petition for review was converted from a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of New York. See Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement , 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1055 (2006).No. 05-60990 -2- Delvois has previously filed a petition for review in this court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Delvois v. Ashcroft , No. 04-60699 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2004) (unpublished). We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2) to consider a second petition for review. See Restrepo v. Winfrey , 162 F. App’x 311, 313 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Delvois’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Delvois’s motion for release pending appeal is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Green, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), rendered August 7, 1985, which convicted defendant, after jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentenced him to concurrent 3Vi-to-7-year prison terms, unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was charged in .the indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.02 (1) (i.e., commission of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree by a person who has previously been convicted of a crime). The charge as set forth in the indictment was not submitted to the jury but instead the court submitted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02 (5) (ii), which is defined as possession of a firearm, not in the home or business, of one who has previously been convicted of a felony or a class A misdemeanor. This submission of a crime other than that charged in the indictment constituted an impermissible amendment of the indictment. (CPL 200.70.)

Moreover, the People never established, either by admission during the arraignment (CPL 200.60 [3]) or by any proof offered at the trial, that defendant had previously been convicted of a crime, an essential element of both the crime charged in the indictment and of the crime submitted to the jury, with the latter requiring specific proof of prior commission of a felony or class A misdemeanor. The absence of any proof on this essential element would have rendered the People’s case fatally infirm even if the amendment of the indictment had been proper.

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree must be vacated and the indictment dismissed. *(See, People v Rodriguez,*68 NY2d 674; *People v Ali,*36 NY2d 880.)

We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
Clear All

        03 February 2024    

                    USS Farragut Returns Home Following a Successful SOUTHCOM Deployment                 
                MAYPORT, Fla. – The Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) returned to U.S. Naval Station Mayport, Fla., Feb. 3, 2024, following the ship’s successful deployment under U.S. 4th Fleet to the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility.            

        12 December 2023    

                    U.S. 4th Fleet’s Maritime Synchronization Symposium: Focus on China and Scaling the Hybrid Fleet                 
                U.S. Navy Attachés and U.S. Navy Section Chiefs serving in partner nations in the Caribbean, Central and South America gathered at Naval Station Mayport Dec. 5-8, 2023, for the annual U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet Maritime Synchronization Symposium.            

        09 November 2023    

                    USS Farragut Going Full Speed Ahead Making Multiple Drug Busts                 
                USS Farragut (DDG 99) has found success in stopping alleged illicit drug traffickers in the Caribbean, with four drug busts in October.            

        20 October 2023    

                    Hybrid Fleet Campaign Event Evaluates Technology For Future Operations                 
                U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet demonstrated unmanned air and surface capabilities from expeditionary fast transport USNS Burlington (T-EPF 10) during the command’s Hybrid Fleet Campaign Event (HFCE) in Key West Oct. 4-13, 2023.            

        17 October 2023    

                    C4F’s Hybrid Fleet Completes Target Detection Test                 
                Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-South) and Saildrone successfully completed an evaluation of the unmanned surface vessel Saildrone Voyager’s radar and electronic sensors against surface targets in the vicinity of Key West September 29, 2023.            

        11 July 2023    

                    USNS BURLINGTON HOSTS LAUNCH OF UNMANNED SURFACE VEHICLE                 
                U.S. Navy Sailors partnered with Military Sealift Command civilian mariners and civilian contractors in a collaborative effort to successfully launch a Wave Glider unmanned surface vehicle (USV) from expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Burlington (T-EPF 10), June 30, 2023.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Clear All

        12 January 2024    

#                     SECNAV Del Toro Honors 2nd Fleet/Joint Forces Command Norfolk Commander During Ceremony                 

                Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro delivered remarks at the U.S. Second Fleet and Joint Forces Command (JCF) Norfolk change of command and change of directorship, Jan 12.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  | USFF FOIA | DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 31 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 31 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 31 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
# C_2009268EN.01001701.xml

| 10.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/17

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 268/03

| Date of adoption of the decision | 26.11.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | NN 70/06 |
| Member State | Finland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Elokuvia ja muuta audiovisuaalista tuotantoa ja jakelua koskeva tuki |
| Legal basis | Laki elokuvataiteen edistämisestä 21.1.2000/28
  Asetus elokuvataiteen edistämisestä 4.2.2000/121 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 20 million; overall budget: EUR 116 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Suomen elokuvasäätiö |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

26.11.2008

Reference number of State Aid

NN 70/06

Member State

Finland

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Elokuvia ja muuta audiovisuaalista tuotantoa ja jakelua koskeva tuki

Legal basis

Laki elokuvataiteen edistämisestä 21.1.2000/28

Asetus elokuvataiteen edistämisestä 4.2.2000/121

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 20 million; overall budget: EUR 116 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Media

Name and address of the granting authority

Suomen elokuvasäätiö

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I, JosephD. Moore, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),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 Exchange Act; and

            (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Joseph D. Moore                             Joseph D. MooreExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerMay 10, 2005
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Zillow v. Bosel, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-260.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-260

ZILLOW v. BOSEL, RECORDER. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Zillow v. Bosel, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-260.] 

Cause dismissed as moot.

(No. 2015-1608—Submitted January 10, 2017—Decided January 25, 2017.) 

IN MANDAMUS. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} Upon consideration of the parties’ evidence and briefs, this cause 

is dismissed as moot. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, 

FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., and John C. Greiner, for relator. 

 Robert L. Herron, Columbiana County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Krista R. Peddicord, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 

_________________