alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jody Ravner, Appellant, v Frank Autun et al., Defendants, and Jericho Union Free School District et al., Respondents.

[876 NYS2d 453]—

*1031In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wolff-Lally, J.), dated February 27, 2008, which granted the motion of the defendant Jericho Union Free School District and the separate motion of the defendant Choice Security Co., Inc., doing business as Choice Security Service, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In a tragic accident in a student parking lot of the Jericho High School, the plaintiffs 17-year-old son was killed when he was run over by a vehicle driven by a fellow student. As administrator of the decedent’s estate, and in her own right, the plaintiff brought this action against the driver and the owner of the vehicle, as well as the Jericho Union Free School District (hereinafter the school district) and the security company it employed. As against the school district and the security company, the plaintiff alleged negligent supervision of the student parking lot where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court granted the separate motions of the school district and the security company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and we now affirm that order.

The school district established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of a particular danger at a particular time, so as to have reasonably anticipated the accident *(see Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44 [1994]; *Morning v Riverhead Cent. School Dist.,*27 AD3d 435 [2006]). Since the plaintiff failed to raise any issue of fact in opposition to that showing, the school district’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

Assuming that the plaintiffs decedent was a third-party beneficiary of the security company’s contract with the school district, in the absence of evidence that the security company failed to perform pursuant to the contract or otherwise breached a duty owed to the decedent, it cannot be held liable for the wrongful death of the decedent *(see Doe v Town of Hempstead Bd. of Educ.,*18 AD3d 600 [2005]; *DelGrande v County of Westchester,*293 AD2d 704 [2002]). Moreover, even if we were to accept as true the plaintiffs contention that the security company *1032breached its contractual obligation to supervise the security guards at the school, it is clear that such a breach could not be found to be a proximate cause of the accident *(see Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44 [1994]). Thus, the security company’s motion for summary judgment was also properly granted. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1383 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1383

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 15, 2010.
Whereas, on May 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education announced the 
        retirement of National FFA Advisor Dr. Larry Case, effective January 1, 
        2011, after 26 years of service in that capacity;
Whereas a former FFA member from Stet, Missouri, Dr. Case earned his bachelor's 
        degree in agricultural education, master's degree in vocational 
        education, and doctor of education from the University of Missouri;
Whereas Dr. Case began his career in 1966 as a high school agricultural 
        education instructor in Mendon, Missouri;
Whereas Dr. Case served as the Missouri director of agricultural education for 
        seven years;
Whereas in 1984, Dr. Case left Missouri for Washington, DC, where he became the 
        senior program specialist and coordinator for agricultural and rural 
        education;
Whereas in addition to serving as the National FFA Advisor, Dr. Case served as 
        the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of 
        the National FFA organization and Board President of the National FFA 
        Foundation Board of Trustees;
Whereas in addition to helping form the National Council for Agricultural 
        Education, Dr. Case also served as National Advisor to the National 
        Young Farmer Educational Association, National Advisor and Chairman of 
        the Board for the National Postsecondary Student Organization, and 
        Chairman of the National Council for Vocational and Technical Education 
        in Agriculture;
Whereas during his tenure, FFA saw tremendous growth in membership and 
        educational innovation, and was able to personally congratulate more 
        than 50,000 young FFA leaders; and
Whereas Dr. Case has provided agricultural education and the FFA with strong 
        leadership and a strategic vision for the future, and agriculture owes 
        him a debt of gratitude for his good work: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors Dr. Larry Case on his 
retirement as National FFA Advisor.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51367

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ENRIQUE MORALES-CHIRINOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-577-1-WWJ

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Enrique

Morales-Chirinos raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Fidelity® Latin America Fund**

**Class**/Ticker

**Fidelity Advisor**®**Latin America Fund A**/FLFAX **T**/FLFTX**B**/FLFBX**C**/FLFCX

**Summary Prospectus**

**December 30, 2014**

**As Revised October 16, 2015**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD L. ABBOTT
, § § Plaintiff Below
, § No. 210, 2021 Appellant, § § Court Below

— Court of Chancery

v. § of the State of Delaware § KATHLEEN M. VAVALA, DAVID § C.A. No. 2021

- 0409 A. WHITE, COLLINS J. SEITZ
, § JR., JAMES T. VAUGH, JR., § TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY

- § REEVES, GARY F. TRAYNOR, § and KAREN L. VALIHURA, § § Defendant s Below
, § Appellee s

. §

Submitted: July 2 , 2021 Decided: July 12 , 2021

Before RIDGELY
, Justice
, * NEWELL and DANBERG , Chief Judge s , **

PER CURIAM:

O R D E R

This 12 th day of July, 2021, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff/appellant, Richard L

. Abbott ("Abbott")
, has petitioned
this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal
from the Court of Chancery’s June 3, 2021 denial of Abbott’s motions for temporary

* Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const. A rt. IV, § 38, 29 Del. C. § 5610(a)(2) and Supreme Court Rule 2(a)

. ** Sitting by designation pursuant Del. Const. Art. IV, § 12 and Supreme Court Rule 2(a).2

restraining order and for expedited proceedings. On June 30, 2021, the Court of
Chancery denied Abbott’s application for certification on the grounds that Abbott
identified no substantial issue that justifies an appeal before final judgment, that he
failed to demonstrate that any of the eight criteria identified in Supreme Court R ule
42(b)(iii) support certification, and that on balance and after fully considering
Abbott’s arguments, there is no benefit to certification that could outweigh the costs
of piecemeal litigation.
(2) Abbott filed his notice of appeal and application for cert ification of
interlocutory appeal with exhibits on July 1, 2021. He also filed on July 1, 2021 a
motion to recuse from all involvement in this appeal Chief Justice Seitz, Justice
Traynor and Justice Montgomery

- Reeves, the Panel which entered an order on M ay 18, 2021 that was cited by the Court of Chancery.
(3) By Order dated July 2, 2021, this Panel was designated by the Chief
Justice pursuant to Del. Const. Article IV, §§ 12 and 38, 29 Del. C. § 5610(a)(2) and
Supreme Court Rule 2(a) to consider Abbott’s ap plication for certification of
interlocutory appeal.
(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of the Court. 1 In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to
the trial court’s review, this Court has conclude d that the application for

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R . 42(d)(v).3

interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Exceptional circumstances that would merit
interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery ’s decision do not exist in this c ase, 2
and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency,
disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal. 3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED. The motion to recuse is DENIED as MOOT.

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b) (ii). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: J. H. KENT, THE KENT COMPANY, AND EDWARD C. EPPERSON 

CITATION: 29 Agric. Dec. 1014 

DOCKET NUMBER: 137 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER VACATING STAY ORDER 

(No. 13,394) 

In re J. H. KENT, THE KENT COMPANY, and EDWARD C. EPPERSON. CEA Docket No. 137. 

Decided September 1, 1970. 

Stay order vacated -- After court decision

As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on May 14, 1970 (29 Agric. 

Dec. 546 (29 A.D. 546)), affirmed the Judicial Officer's decision and order of 

June 6, 1969, the stay order is vacated and the order to all contract markets to 

refuse all trading privileges to respondents for a period of 90 days contained 

in the order of June 6, 1969 (28 Agric. Dec. 656 (28 A.D. 656)) shall be 

effective on October 5, 1970. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER VACATING STAY ORDER

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), an 

order was issued June 6, 1969, ordering all the contract markets to refuse all 

trading privileges to respondents for a period of 90 days. Respondents filed an 

appeal of the order of June 6, 1969, in the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit and on June 19, 1969, the order of June 6, 1969, was stayed 

pending the outcome of respondents' appeal. On May 14, 1970, the Court affirmed 

the order of June 6, 1969. Accordingly, the stay order of June 19, 1969, is 

hereby vacated and the order to all contract markets to refuse all trading 

privileges to respondents for a period of 90 days contained in the order of June 

6, 1969, shall be effective October 5, 1970. 

LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2008 
Page 2
EXHIBIT 32.2  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Grand Motion Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bill Akrivos, in my capacities set forth below 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.   May 14, 2008 /s/ Bill Akrivos Bill Akrivos, President (as Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1169]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 54, Clinton County, NY

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the County of Clinton, New York, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 54, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand 
FTZ 54 to include a site at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base 
located in Plattsburgh, New York (Site 4), within the Champlain Customs 
port of entry (FTZ Docket 57-2000; filed 11/13/00);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 70693, 11/27/00) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 54 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further 
subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14796 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Ubiquitech
Software Corporation (the Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended herein
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Brian
Sobnosky, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, t hat:





(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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the
Company.




Ubiquitech
      Software CorporationDate: 
      June 25, 2008
                By:
                /s/ Brian
      SobnoskyBrian
      Sobnosky
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2






SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Palmdale Executive Homes, Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Tricia A. Nickson,  Secretary/Treasurer
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: May
17, 2010








By: /s/
TRICIA A. NICKSON


___________________________


Tricia A.
Nickson


Secretary/Treasurerand
Director
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 18, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         3 pm to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aftab A. Ansari, PhD, National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 5AS25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.                    

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis,                               ( print page 30742)                            Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: May 31, 2001.

LaVernese   Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-14361  Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15112]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731-TA-926 and 927 (Preliminary)]


Spring Table Grapes From Chile and Mexico

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigations, the United States International Trade Commission 
(Commission) determines,\2\ pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is no reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an 
industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of 
imports from Chile and Mexico of spring table grapes, provided for in 
subheading 0806.10.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Dennis M. Devaney dissenting with respect to 
imports of spring table grapes from Chile and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On March 30, 2001, a petition was filed with the Commission and the 
United States Department of Commerce (Commerce) by the Desert Grape 
Growers League, Thermal, CA, and its producer-members, alleging that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of LTFV imports of spring table grapes from 
Chile and Mexico. Accordingly, effective March 30, 2001, the Commission 
instituted antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731-TA-926 and 927 
(Preliminary).
    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of 
a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by 
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the 
notice in the Federal Register of April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18109). The 
conference was held in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2001, and all 
persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in 
person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these 
investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on June 11, 2001. The views 
of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3432 (June 2001), 
entitled Spring Table Grapes From Chile and Mexico: Investigations Nos. 
731-TA-926 and 927 (Preliminary).

    Issued: June 12, 2001.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15112 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P