alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michelle Donisi, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Louis Donisi, et al., Respondents, v Brian Henderson, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[719 NYS2d 701]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Brian Henderson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated February 16, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the *604plaintiff Michelle Donisi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff Michelle Donisi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so. The injured plaintiff submitted her own affidavit claiming an inability to perform substantially all of the material acts constituting her usual and customary daily activities for a period of at least 90 out of the 180 days immediately following the accident. However, she did not submit a physician’s affidavit substantiating the existence of a medically-determined injury producing the alleged impairment *(see,*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *Ryan v Xuda,*243 AD2d 457; *Traugott v Konig,*184 AD2d 765). Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
ROYLE KIPP,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4239

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 17, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

Royle J. Kipp, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Franklin Vitale, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.6(a)
   th
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Citigroup Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P.
    
    CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
    
    Citigroup Global Futures Fund Ltd.
    By:
    
    /s/ Jennifer Magro

Jennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & Director
  By: 
Print Name:
    
    /s/ Simon Rocall

Simon RocallJM/sr
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-4 No. 333-43005) and the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-83117) of
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., for the registration of its 9.25% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2007 of our report dated March 1, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
March 26, 2002
Exhibit 19
                                   ----------

        Annual report of Accountants with respect to the servicing of the
   contracts by the Servicer, pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors
The CIT Group, Inc.:

We have examined  management's  assertion about The CIT  Group/Sales  Financing,
Inc.  and  The  CIT  Group/Consumer  Finance,   Inc.'s  (the  Companies),   both
wholly-owned  subsidiaries of The CIT Group,  Inc.,  compliance with the minimum
servicing standards  identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year
ended  December  31, 1998  included in the  accompanying  management  assertion.
Management  is  responsible  for the  Companies'  compliance  with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Companies' compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Companies'  compliance with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the Companies'  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that the Companies have complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.




March 5, 1999

                                             /s/ KPMG LLP
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00563

- CV

Roberto VILLARREAL , Ramona Villarreal, Viola Villarreal Garcia, and Gloria Villarreal Salinas, Appellants

v.

Javier RAMIREZ , as Co

- Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co

- Trustee

of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Victor M. Ramirez, as Co

- Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Santiago Ramirez Jr., as Co

- Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Sonia Rodriguez, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Ga rza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of

Blas Garza Jr.; All Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co

Executor of the E state of Blas Garza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually as Co

- Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, as Co

- Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; and Javier Ramirez, Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Zapata Count y, Texas
Trial Court No. 5,937
Honorable Jos é A. L ó pez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court’s June 6, 2022 order granting Appellees ’ plea to the jurisdiction, and we REMAND this cause.

We tax costs of court for this appeal against Appellees.

SIGNED January 3, 2024

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
LYNCHAR, INC. et al. v. COLONIAL OIL INDUSTRIES, INC.

A17A0391

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

December 20, 2018

Benjamin Wade Wallace, Columbus, for Appellants.

Tracy Ann O'Connell, Savannah, Philip Michael Thompson, Marietta, for Appellee.

Brown, Judge.

In *Colonial Oil Indus. v. Lynchar, Inc.* , 303 Ga. 839, 815 S.E.2d 917 (2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed this Court's decision in *Lynchar, Inc. v. Colonial Oil Indus.* , 341 Ga. App. 489, 801 S.E.2d 576 (2017). Accordingly, we vacate our earlier opinion, adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Dillard, C. J., and Markle, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20484]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the 
OPM Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Floyd, Center for Human Capital 
Management Services, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2309.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, 
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or 
more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority 
regarding the performance of the senior executive.

    Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.

    The following have been designated as regular members of the 
Performance Review Board of the Office of Personnel Management:

Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director--Chair.
Patricia L. Hollis, Chief of Staff and Director of External Affairs.
Clarence Crawford, Chief Financial Officer.
Robert F. Danbeck, Associate Director for Human Resources Products and 
Services.
Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources 
Policy.
Marta B. Perez, Associate Director for Human Capital Leadership and 
Merit System Accountability.
Mark A. Robbins, General Counsel.
William A. Jackson Jr., Deputy Associate Director for Human Capital 
Management Services--Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 05-20484 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-45-P
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Elizabeth Murray, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of eCOST.com, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Elizabeth Murray   
|                      |  |  |  | Elizabeth Murray       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LORI D. BLAKELY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-00-927; CA-02-4185-2-18)

Submitted: April 26, 2004 Decided: May 28, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lori D. Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

This court has given Blakely the benefit of Houston v. Lack,

487 U.S. 266 (1988), regarding the filing dates of her documents.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lori D. Blakely seeks to appeal the dismissal of her 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion entered on August 20, 2003. Blakely,

however, did not file her notice of appeal until January 12, 2004,*

which is outside the sixty day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(B). Blakely’s “Motion to Extend Time to File Out-of-Time

Appeal” was filed on December 15, 2003, beyond the thirty-day

period allowed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Thus, the district

court’s order granting the motion could not extend the appeal

period. Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168 (4th Cir. 1983). The

appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.

Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

Blakely’s pro se motion to extend and notice of appeal,

in which she alleged that she did not timely receive notice of her

action being dismissed, may be properly construed as a motion to

reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to

determine whether Blakely can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(6). Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th

Cir. 1994). We express no opinion as to whether Blakely has met
- 3 -

the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented,

will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
# Transfers of Defense Articles or Services for Libya for 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including sections 40(g) and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), I hereby: 

                    You are authorized and directed to report this certification to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 05-20854

Billing code 4710-10-P
SYKES, et al. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

248A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sykes, Susan, et al.

Elizabeth L. Winters, Attorney at Law, Chad D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

D. Erik Albright, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Medcost LLC.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law.

*622The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2019 for Dmitriy Tishyevich to be admitted Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Excellency Investment Realty
Trust, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended
June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, David Mladen, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive, financial, and accounting officer) of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


By:      /s/ David Mladen
   --------------------------------------------------
         David Mladen
         Chief Executive Officer (principal
         executive, financial and accounting officer)
         Dated this 20th day of August, 2007
CERTIFICATIONS



I, John Shaffer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global-e Investments, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  May 10, 2005

/s/ John Shaffer

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40788 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE LUIS FLORES

- GARZON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 1008

- 1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Flores

Garzon 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). Flores

- Garzon h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed coun sel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 June 4, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40788 Document: 00515441060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020No. 19

- 40788

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is exc used from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40788 Document: 00515441060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5004 

To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, to include that 

it is a policy of the Postal Service to ensure reasonable and sustainable 

workloads and schedules for supervisory and management employees and 

to clarify provisions relating to consultation and changes or terminations 

in certain proposals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2010 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, 

to include that it is a policy of the Postal Service to 

ensure reasonable and sustainable workloads and schedules for supervisory and management employees and to 

clarify provisions relating to consultation and changes 

or terminations in certain proposals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POSTAL SERVICE SUPERVISORY AND OTHER 

4 MANAGERIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 

5 Section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5004 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘to ensure 

2 reasonable and sustainable workloads and schedules 

3 for supervisory and management employees;’’ after 

4 ‘‘other managerial personnel;’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (b), in the second sentence, by 

6 inserting ‘‘as provided under subsection (d) and any 

7 changes in, or termination of, pay policies and 

8 schedules and fringe benefit programs for members 

9 of the supervisors’ organization as provided under 

10 subsection (e)’’ before the period; and 

11 (3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ‘‘, or ter12 mination of,’’ after ‘‘any changes in’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS