alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wendy Y. Hoffman, Appellant, v Stephen L. Hoffman et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about November 30, 1988, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, generally, alleges various acts of rape and incest committed by the defendants during plaintiffs infancy, and shortly thereafter. Since the plaintiff reached her majority in 1961, and since she is now over 40 years of age, the alleged conduct of the defendants is not actionable unless the defendants are estopped from raising the Statute of Limitations as a defense. As a matter of law, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts, as was her burden, to establish that the action was brought within a reasonable time after the facts giving rise to the estoppel had ceased to be operational. *(Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442, 450.) It is insufficient for the plaintiff to argue that the gravity of the alleged tortious conduct of the defendants, in and of itself, gives rise to an estoppel. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated any fraud, misrepresentation, threat, or deception which caused her to refrain from filing a timely action. *(Supra,*at 449.) We note, addition*250ally, that plaintiffs allegations of posttraumatic neurosis are insufficient to invoke any toll under the "insanity” provisions of CPLR 208. *(See, McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am.,*55 NY2d 543.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4985

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### 66 DRIVE-IN, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. HYCEL PARTNERS III, L.P., Hycel III, Inc., and Schnuck Markets, Inc., Defendants/Respondents.

No. 66845.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 2, 1995.

*204Daniel T. Rabbitt, Matthew J. Sauter, Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, St. Louis, for appellant.

Gerard T. Carmody, Dan M. Lesicko, Bryan Cave, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., GRIMM, C.J., and KAROHL, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff 66 Drive-In appeals the dismissal of its petition against the guarantors of a development agreement for interest on plaintiffs condemnation award after the developer abandoned the condemnation of plaintiffs land.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  as Enacted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the annual report of Enbridge Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Richard Bird, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer & Corporate Development of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



Dated
at Calgary, Alberta, this 19th day of February, 2009.



---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         118,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,482
<PP&E>                                       9,582,125
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,100,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,727,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,692,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,727,510
<SALES>                                      1,118,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,127,279
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,182,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (55,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5318

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4017

Duravant LLC and Ohlson Packaging:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4937 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4937

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or 
                      other trades or businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2023

Mr. Panetta (for himself and Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or 
                      other trades or businesses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Family Farms Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON THE ESTATE TAX VALUATION OF CERTAIN 
              REAL PROPERTY USED IN FARMING OR OTHER TRADES OR 
              BUSINESSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2032A(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting 
``$13,000,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 2032A(a)(3) of such Code is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``$750,000'' both places it appears and 
        inserting ``$13,000,000'',
            (2) by striking ``1998'' in the matter preceding 
        subparagraph (A) and inserting ``2023'', and
            (3) by striking ``1997'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``2022''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 21, 2016

NO. 03-14-00323-CV

Roger Bufler and Sandy Bufler, Appellants

v.

Apeck Construction, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF COKE COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, BOURLAND, AND SHANNON*

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on April 25, 2014. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. The appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00735-CV

José S. FAJARDO,

Appellant

v.

RAFCO LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV05195

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against José S. Fajardo.

SIGNED December 5, 2018.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
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 Annual  Report of American Bio Medica  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Stan Cipkowski,  Chief Executive 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, that:

      (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.

                                                   /s/ Stan Cipkowski
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Stan Cipkowski

                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)

                                                   March 31, 2006
#### Clifton FRANKLIN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 54269.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 27, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 9, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 13, 1988.

*518Beverly A. Beimiek, St. Louis, for mov-ant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Levin Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. The defendant was tried and convicted of first degree murder and robbery. He was sentenced to life plus 25 years, to be served concurrently. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. *State v. Franklin,*591 S.W.2d 12 (Mo.App.1979). The denial of his first Rule 27.26 motion was affirmed on appeal. *Franklin v. State,*655 S.W.2d 561 (Mo.App.1983). There was a federal habeas corpus proceeding which was also denied. *Franklin v. White,*803 F.2d 416 (8th Cir.1986).

Movant alleges in this 27.26 motion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by reason of counsel’s failure to convey the State’s plea offer to movant. The court denied movant’s motion because it simply did not believe him when he said counsel had not conveyed the plea bargain to him. The credibility of witnesses is for the motion court’s determination. *Richardson v. State,*719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986).

In addition, the rule specifies that a successive motion shall not be entertained “where the ground presented is new but could have been raised in the prior mo-tion_” Rule 27.26(d). Here, the court found that movant knew about the plea offer early enough for it to have been raised in a prior motion. The findings of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. *See*Rule 27.26Q).

The judgment is affirmed.'

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5838

Fluor Enterprises, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert McFEELY, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48299, WD 50410.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 6, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Robert McFeely appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of burglary in the first degree, in violation of § 569.160, RSMo 1994.1 McFeely was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years imprisonment.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

1

. This direct appeal has been consolidated with defendant’s postconviction appeal pursuant to Rule 29.15(Z). Defendant fails to raise any points of error in regard to his Rule 29.15 motion. Thus, defendant waives any allegation of error for the postconviction proceedings and abandons this portion of his appeal.
#### Federal Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Anthony Capraro, Appellant, v John D. Hansen, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lucille Polk Buell, J.), entered September 8, 1988, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Insurance Law § 5105 (b) required the arbitration of plaintiffs claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

As should have been clear from the complaint, plaintiff subrogee seeks to recover amounts paid by it to its insured under the additional personal injury protection indorsement of the insured’s policy. Accordingly, the claim is not barred by Insurance Law § 5105 (b). Insurance Law § 5105 (b) requires arbitration of claims between insurers for first-party benefits. It has no application where, as here, the claim is for amounts paid by the insurer for additional personal injury protection, i.e., amounts in excess of first-party benefits *(see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Jackowe,*96 AD2d 37; *Fowler v Pebble Hill Bldg. Corp.,*120 AD2d 486; *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v La Forte,*125 AD2d 563). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18395-18396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8907]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 040395B]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for a scientific research permit 
(P771#71).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory has applied in due form for a permit to take the marine 
mammals listed below for the purpose of scientific research.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
    Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-
1668 (907/586-7221).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request, should be submitted to the Chief, Permits Division, F/PR1, 
Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD 20910, within 30 days 
of the publication of this notice. Those individuals requesting a 
hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this 
particular request would be appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, the Secretary of Commerce is forwarding copies of this 
application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of 
Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The applicant seeks authorization to satellite tag 50 beluga whales 
(Delphinapterus leucas) and retain samples incidental to the tagging 
over a 5-year period. In addition, the applicant seeks authorization to 
take by harassment up to 900 beluga whales per [[Page 18396]] year 
incidental to the tagging. Proposed taking will be by small boat. 
Surveys will be conducted from July 1995 through October 2000 in Cook 
Inlet, Norton Sound, Bristol Bay, Kotzebue Sound, and Beaufort Sea on 
the west coast of Alaska. The results of the research will provide 
information on the movement and diving behavior of the Alaska stocks of 
beluga whales.

    Dated: April 5, 1995.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits & Documentation Division, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-8907 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F