alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Genevieve Futterman et al., Appellants, v South Nassau Communities Hospital, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), entered December 6, 1988, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On October 31, 1988, the plaintiff Genevieve Futterman was recovering from a total knee replacement operation and had an immobilizer on her leg extending from her ankle to her thigh. Her doctor placed her on strict orders not to leave her bed, unless assisted by a nurse. She contends that, on that day, she called out loud and rang for a nurse to assist her in going to the bathroom. Since no nurses responded, she arose from her bed and started walking with a walker towards the bathroom. She slipped and fell, allegedly due to water left by a porter who mopped the floor that morning. The defendant hospital contended that Mrs. Futterman never asked for assistance, and no porter mopped her floor prior to the accident. The jury found that the defendant was not negligent, and the trial court refused to set aside the jury’s verdict in its favor as against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court did not err in denying the plaintiffs’ motion

*584to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. "[I]issues regarding the credibility of witnesses and the accuracy of their testimony are for the jury to determine and its verdict should not be upset if it could have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(see, Frangello v Namm,*157 AD2d 649; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129). In the case at bar, the evidence supports the jury’s verdict that the defendant was not negligent. Conflicting evidence was presented to the jury as to the cause of the plaintiff Genevieve Futterman’s injuries. It is evident from the jury’s verdict that it found the defendant’s witnesses more credible than the plaintiffs’ witnesses *(Frangello v Namm, supra).*We further find that any prejudice which may have resulted from the defendant’s cross-examination of a nurse testifying as the plaintiffs’ expert regarding an unredacted portion of an incident report made in October 1983 was cured when the court struck the cross-examination from the record and provided a comprehensive curative instruction to which the plaintiffs’ counsel registered no objection *(Mulle v Weinstein,*141 AD2d 517; *Hiliuk v Daponte,*100 AD2d 612).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find that they do not require reversal. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Santana, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A. K. Bradley, J.), rendered September 14, 1988, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him as a predicate felon to a term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant called out to the undercover police officer, "how many”, and then directed another person to sell drugs to the officer. Defendant, who perfectly matched the undercover’s description, was thereafter arrested at the buy location.

We reject defendant’s argument that the admission of his arrest photograph, combined with the undercover officer’s testimony that the photograph depicted defendant wearing the *192same sheepskin coat he wore when he sold him the drugs, constituted improper bolstering of the undercover officer’s identification testimony. Contrary to defendant’s argument, photographs are admissible to establish a defendant’s appearance on the date of the crime. *(People v Logan,*25 NY2d 184, *cert denied*396 US 1020.)

Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his arguments that the arresting officer bolstered the undercover officer’s identification by testifying as to the radio descriptions provided by the undercover officer and that the latter identified the three suspects in custody. *(See,*CPL 470.05; *People v West,*56 NY2d 662.) Were we to consider these arguments in the interest of justice, we would find that reversal is not warranted since any error in this regard was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Moreover, there was no danger that the jury would take the arresting officer’s testimony as a substitute for the undercover officer’s identification. *(People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969; *People v Burgess,*66 AD2d 667; *People v Jones,*158 AD2d 346.)

Defendant’s contention that the court denied him a fair trial in failing to deliver an agency charge is both unpreserved (CPL 470.05) and meritless. *(People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, 86, *cert denied*439 US 958; *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 75; *People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 53.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
| 1.     | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December      31, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 2.     | the      information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form  10-QSB                                           |

| Dated:        February 14, 2008  | /s/      Chester P. Aldridge                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                            | Chester      P. Aldridge                                        |
|                                            | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal      Executive Officer) |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7313

SYNTRON Material Handling: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5198 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5198

   To amend the definition of ``manufactured home'' in the National 
  Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 11, 2023

   Mr. Rose introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the definition of ``manufactured home'' in the National 
  Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974.

    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 ``Expansion of Attainable 
Homeownership Through Manufactured Housing Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

    (a) In General.--Section 603(6) of the National Manufactured 
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
5402(6)) is amended by striking ``built on a permanent chassis and''.
    (b) Implementation.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the consensus committee established under 
section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and 
Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3)) shall meet to 
develop and recommend to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
such revisions to the Federal manufactured home construction and safety 
standards, and related regulations, as are necessary to implement the 
amendment made by subsection (a) of this section. Such revised 
standards shall be considered by the Secretary for adoption pursuant to 
the process set forth in section 604 of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

Inconnection with this quarterly report of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed withthe Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I,Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:                                         | November 14,  2008 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                          |                    |
| By                                            | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS   |   |
| Barbra  E. Kocsis                             |                    |
| Chief  Financial Officer                      |                    |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |                    |
|                                               |                         |        |  |

 

----
Amendment No. 4
BE IT RESOLVED,  that the second  sentence of Section 4 of
the  Company's  1993 Stock  Option Plan be and hereby is deleted and restated in
its  entirety as follows:

     "The aggregate number of shares which may be issued pursuant to the Plan is
     6,000,000  (regardless  of whether the 1-for-25  reverse stock split of the
     Company's  shares  of common  stock is or is not  approved  at the  special
     meeting  of  stockholder   scheduled  for  August  31,  2000),  subject  to
     adjustment  as provided in Section 13, of which  1,000,000  shares shall be
     reserved for grants of  replacement  or reload  Options in accordance  with
     Section 22 of the Plan."

AND FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that this Amendment shall be effective  immediately
upon receipt of approval of Stockholders of the Company (in accordance with
the  requirements  of  applicable  law and the  Company's  By-Laws)  at the
Special Meeting of Stockholders or any adjournment or postponement thereof.
================================================================================

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

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

                                  FORM 10-K/A

(Mark One)
[X]   Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 [Fee Required] for the fiscal year ended December 31,
      1996

                                             or

[ ]   Transition Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 [No Fee Required] for the transition period from
      ______ to _____________

                         Commission file number 0-21274

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

                           LIBERTY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

            Pennsylvania                                 23-2295708
    (State or other jurisdiction            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 of incorporation or organization)

        555 North Lane, Lee Park                           19428
       Conshohocken, Pennsylvania                        (Zip Code)
  (Address of principal executive offices)

                                 (610) 834-0330
                         (Registrant's telephone number,
                              including area code)
             Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
               Act: None Securities registered pursuant to Section
                                12(g) of the Act:
                     Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. YES X NO _____

      Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item
405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the
best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. [X]

      As of April 7, 1997, the aggregate market value of voting stock held by
non-affiliates of the registrant based on the last sales price as reported by
the NASDAQ National Market was $14,997,348 (4,999,216 shares outstanding at a
closing price of $3.00 per share).

      As of April 7, 1997, the registrant had 4,999,216 shares of Common Stock
outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

      The registrant's Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders on
June 10, 1997 is incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K to the
extent stated herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                         1993 STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN
                                      OF
                             MEDICALCONTROL, INC.

1.  The 1993 Stock Compensation Plan of MedicalControl (the "1993 Plan") is
    amended to replace the words "Neither the Committee nor the Board of
    Directors shall, however, modify any outstanding Option so as to specify a
    lower price or accept the surrender of outstanding Options and authorize the
    granting of new Options in substitution therefor specifying a lower price"
    in Section 17 of the 1993 Plan with the words "Only with the approval of the
    Board of Directors, may the Company modify any outstanding Option so as to
    specify a lower price or accept the surrender of outstanding Options and
    authorize the granting of new Options in substitution therefor specifying a
    lower price."

2.  This Amendment to the 1993 Plan (this "Amendment") shall become effective on
    the date of execution hereof, which date is the date the Board of Directors
    approved and adopted the Amendment (the "Effective Date"); provided,
    however, if the shareholders of the Company shall not have approved the
    Amendment by the requisite vote of the shareholders within twelve (12)
    months after the Effective Date, then this Amendment shall terminate and all
    amendments to Options theretofore granted under the 1993 Plan pursuant to
    the terms of this Amendment shall terminate and be null and void.


     EXECUTED as of August 20, 1996.


                                            MEDICALCONTROL, INC.


                                            By:  /s/ J. Ward Hunt
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               J. Ward Hunt, President and Chief
                                               Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7586

Hatfield Manufacturing: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7033

CRRC MA Corporation:

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 granting the request would undermine the objective of the Section 

301 investigation.

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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5430 

To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 

consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, 

to prohibit the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Punish5 ment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACQUITTED CONDUCT AT SENTENCING. 

7 (a) USE OF INFORMATION FOR SENTENCING.— 

8 (1) AMENDMENT.—Section 3661 of title 18, 

9 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, ex10 cept that a court of the United States shall not conVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:13 Sep 16, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5430.IH H5430

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5430 IH

1 sider, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence, 

2 acquitted conduct under this section’’ before the pe3 riod at the end. 

4 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

5 paragraph (1) shall apply only to a judgment en6 tered on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 3673 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

10 striking ‘‘As’’ and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(a) As’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(b) As used in this chapter, the term ‘acquitted con14 duct’ means— 

15 ‘‘(1) an act— 

16 ‘‘(A) for which a person was criminally 

17 charged and with regard to which— 

18 ‘‘(i) that person was adjudicated not 

19 guilty after trial in a Federal, State, or 

20 Tribal court; or 

21 ‘‘(ii) any favorable disposition to the 

22 person in any prior charge was made, re23 gardless of whether the disposition was 

24 pretrial, at trial, or post trial; or 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5430 IH

1 ‘‘(B) in the case of a juvenile, that was 

2 charged and for which the juvenile was found 

3 not responsible after a juvenile adjudication 

4 hearing; or 

5 ‘‘(2) any act underlying a criminal charge or ju6 venile information dismissed— 

7 ‘‘(A) in a Federal court upon a motion for 

8 acquittal under rule 29 of the Federal Rules of 

9 Criminal Procedure; or 

10 ‘‘(B) in a State or Tribal court upon a mo11 tion for acquittal or an analogous motion under 

12 the applicable State or Tribal rule of criminal 

13 procedure.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB