alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Feng Jin et al., Appellants, v Richard C. Reilly, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 435]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated August 2, 2001, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Richard C. Reilly, Jr., and Tara A. Reilly, and of Elizabeth G. Nast and Monica Piazza, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on *374the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

In support of their respective motions for summary judgment, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff 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). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to do so *(see Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79; *Guzman v Michael Mgt.,*266 AD2d 508). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
1 “[#101]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02286-REB-CBS

CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, LTD., LLLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

VAL SIMONE,

Defendant;

and

GAROLD B. KRAFT,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

VAL SIMONE,

Third-Party Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss Claim By ThirdParty Plaintiff Garold B. Kraft Against Third-Party Defendant Val Simone [#101]1

filed December 20, 2012. After reviewing the motion and the record, I conclude that the

motion should granted, and that the claims asserted by third-party plaintiff, Garold B.

Kraft, against third-party defendant, Val Simone, should be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 102 Filed 12/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2 Notwithstanding, Val Simone continues to be identified as the defendant in this action.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss Claim By Third-Party Plaintiff

Garold B. Kraft Against Third-Party Defendant Val Simone [#101] filed December

20, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. That the claims asserted by third-party plaintiff, Garold B. Kraft, against thirdparty defendant, Val Simone, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each of the

affected parties to pay its own attorney fees and costs; and

3. That third-party plaintiff, Garold B. Kraft, and third-party defendant, Val

Simone are DROPPED as named parties to this action, and the case caption is

amended accordingly.2

Dated December 21, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 102 Filed 12/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 filing of  HomeLife  Inc.'s (the  "Company")  Quarterly
Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  November  30,  2004  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Andrew
Cimerman,  the President and Chief  Executive  Officer 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:

      (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 / Andrew Cimerman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Andrew Cimerman
                                        President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 14,  2005
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND THE
NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1996 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. THIRD QUARTER 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<EXCHANGE RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          64,505
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,207
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          757,681
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            202,292
<PP&E>                                          27,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,335,207
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     144,728
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            636,871
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             120,453
<LONG-TERM>                                     56,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,335,207
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              108,121
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            36,180
<COMMISSIONS>                                  163,573
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   58,154
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,132
<COMPENSATION>                                 187,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,670
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      59,670
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,227
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
        

</TABLE>
| *Release Date: July 16, 2008* |
|-------------------------------|
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Oleg Chereshnev, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 497]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 17, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that *805claimant left his employment for personal and. noncompelling reasons, disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Because we find substantial evidence to support that decision, we affirm.

In general, a claimant’s dissatisfaction with the conditions of employment, including dissatisfaction with work-related duties *(see, Matter of De John [Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 848, 849) and work hours *(see, Matter of Hunt [Commissioner of Labor],*286 AD2d 819), will not be found to constitute good cause for leaving employment when there is still work available. Interpersonal conflicts between a claimant and coworkers also have been found not to constitute good cause for resigning, particularly in cases such as the instant matter, where the claimant has failed to bring the problem to the attention of the employer *(see, Matter of Rahman [Commissioner of Labor],*257 AD2d 945). While claimant asserts that he did notify the employer about his situation, a witness for the employer testified to the contrary, raising an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board *(see, Matter of Nachef [Commissioner of Labor],*288 AD2d 550, 551). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee NORMAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30062.

D.C. No. CR-98-05389-JET.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

*680Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suit*680able for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Normand’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Following a remand for resentencing, Kenneth Lee Normand appeals his 235-month sentence for two counts of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); physical interference with a search, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a); and witness-tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Normand contends that the district court erred by finding that it lacked the authority to depart downward based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. Because Normand did not object in the district court, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Castillo-Casiano,*198 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir.1999), *as amended,*204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir.2000).

At the time of resentencing, United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K2.19 (2000) precluded departures based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. This was a change from the prior Guidelines as construed by *United States v. Green,*152 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.1998) *681(per curiam), which applied at the time of Normand’s offense and initial sentencing. To avoid an ex post facto violation at re-sentencing, the district court was required to apply the earlier version of the guidelines, which did not foreclose departure on this ground. *See United States v. Johns,*5 F.3d 1267, 1272-73 (9th Cir.1993). The evidence presented to the district court “might possibly” support a discretionary departure. *See Castillo-Casiano,*198 F.3d at 791. Because the sentencing error may have affected the length of Normand’s sentence, we conclude there is plain error, and vacate the sentence to allow the district court to exercise its discretion on this issue. *See Id.*at 792; *Johns,*5 F.3d at 1272 n. 2. We express no opinion on the merits of such a departure.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentening.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because the district court advised Normand that he had the right to appeal, the appeal waiver contained in the resentencing agreement is not enforceable, and we have jurisdiction. *See United States v. Buchanan,*59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995).
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 194

To require States that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 to enact a law that requires the expulsion of

students who are convicted of a crime of violence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To require States that receive funds under the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to enact a law

that requires the expulsion of students who are convicted

of a crime of violence.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPULSION FOR STUDENT CONVICTED OF VIO4 LENT CRIME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State shall not be eligible to

6 receive Federal funds under the Elementary and Sec7 ondary Education Act of 1965 unless such State has in

8 effect a law which, on the first day of each fiscal year
2

•HR 194 IH

1 succeeding the fiscal year beginning after September 30,

2 2001, requires a local educational agency to expel from

3 school for a period of not less than 1 month a student

4 who is convicted of a crime of violence.

5 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be

6 construed to prevent a State from allowing a local edu7 cational agency that has expelled a student from such a

8 student’s regular school setting from providing edu9 cational services to such student in an alternative setting.

10 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

11 (1) the term ‘‘local educational agency’’ has the

12 same meaning given such term in section 14101 of

13 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

14 1965; and

15 (2) the term ‘‘crime of violence’’ has the same

16 meaning given such term in section 16 of title 18,

17 United States Code.

Æ
LAROCHE PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, LTD.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
                            ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS


         As independent oil and gas consultants, LaRoche Petroleum Consultants,
Ltd. hereby consents to the use of and reference to its name in Westside Energy
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
2006, and the incorporation by reference thereof into the previously filed
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC file no. 333-124890) filed on May 13,
2005 and the previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC file no.
333-114686) filed on April 21, 2004.

                                         LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd.



                                          By: /s/ Edward Paul Travis

                                          Name: Edward Paul Travis

                                          Title: Senior Partner


Dallas, Texas
May 15, 2006
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

  




Exhibit 4.25. 


 
 

Amendment    
    
    to the loan agreement between    
    
    Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V.    
    

Strawinskylaan 1243, 12th Floor    
    1077 XX Amsterdam    
    The Netherlands    
    
    ("Lender")    
    
    and    
    
    Magyar Távközlési
Részvénytársaság (Matáv  Rt.)    
    
    Krisztina krt. 55    
    1013 Budapest    
    Hungary    
    
    ("Borrower")    




        Reference
is made to the loan agreement dated August 14, 2003 (the "Loan Agreement") 


        The
parties to this amendment of the Loan Agreement (the "Amendment") have agreed to modify the terms of the Loan Agreement as follows: 



	1.
	The
maturity of the loan shall be changed to August 20, 2004.




Accordingly,
the first sentence of Clause 5 (Loan Repayment) of the Loan Agreement shall read as follows: "The Borrower shall repay the loan in HUF on August 20,
2004." 



	2.
	Interest
shall be credited to the lenders account on the twentieth of November, February, May and August (interest payment date).




Accordingly,
the first sentence of Clause 4 (Interest, interest payments, interest calculation) subclause 3 of the Loan Agreement shall read as follows: "Interest shall be credited to the
lenders account on every twentieth of November, February, May and August (interest payment date)." 



	3.
	The
charged interest rate of each tranche shall be as follows:



	1.
	tranche  HUF 76.643.750.000,00:




Fix
rate of 9,168% p.a.


Accordingly,
the Clause 4 (Interest, interest payments, interest calculation) subclause 1.a of the Loan Agreement shall read as follows: "The Borrower shall pay interest on Tranche 1 part of
the loan at the fix rate of 9,168% p.a." 









1







 


	2.
	tranche
HUF 50.000.000.000,00: 



The
interest margin on the 3-month BUBOR basis shall be 0,55% p.a. for the first interest period starting on 14 August 2003 and
ending on 20 November 2003. 


Accordingly,
one sentence shall be inserted in the Clause 4 (Interest, interest payments, interest calculation) to the end of subclause 1.b of the Loan Agreement reading as follows: "The
interest margin on the 3-month BUBOR basis shall be 0,55% p.a. for the first interest period starting on 14 August 2003 and ending on
20 November 2003." 






	4.
	All
other provisions of the Loan Agreement shall remain unchanged.



	5.
	This
Amendment shall enter into force when duly signed by each party and delivered to the other party. 







	
Amsterdam, August 13, 2003	
 	

Budapest, August 13, 2003
	

Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V.	
 	

Magyar Távközlési Részvénytársaság
	

	
 	

	
 	

	
 	


	Stephan Wiemann	 	Thilo Junkes	 	Dr. Klaus Hartmann	 	Szabolcs Gáborjáni




2











QuickLinks


Amendment to the loan agreement between Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V. Strawinskylaan 1243, 12th Floor 1077 XX Amsterdam The Netherlands ("Lender") and Magyar Távközlési
Részvénytársaság (Matáv Rt.) Krisztina krt. 55 1013 Budapest Hungary ("Borrower")
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES POULSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1 MM 2024

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2 nd day of May , 2024, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1619 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1619

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
              on capital losses applicable to individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

 Ms. Lofgren 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 capital losses applicable to individuals.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON CAPITAL LOSSES APPLICABLE TO 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1211(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on capital losses for 
taxpayers other than corporations) is amended by striking ``$3,000 
($1,500'' and inserting ``$8,250 ($4,125''.
    (b) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 1211 of such Code (relating 
to limitation on capital losses) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(c) Adjustment for Inflation.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
        beginning in a calendar year after 2001, the $8,250 and $4,125 
        amounts contained in subsection (b)(1) shall each be increased 
        by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins 
                        by substituting `calendar year 2000' for 
                        `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) 
                        thereof.
                    ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
                paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $5, such increase 
                shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $5.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2004: Q3... 15 47 38 5 63 33 10 5

 Q4... 20 30 50 5 56 40 11 42005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3 Q2... 17 58 25 5 62 33 8 5 Q3... 33 61 6 9 68 23 28 6 Q4... 26 32 42 4 55 41 18 52006: Q1... 37 38 25 6 62 32 22 5 Q2... 40 47 13 9 59 32 27 5 Q3... 52 41 7 20 59 21 47 4

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2004: Q3... 11 51 38 6 71 23 12 6

 Q4... 10 40 50 5 60 35 9 52005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5 Q2... 15 59 26 5 64 31 14 6 Q3... 35 52 14 15 54 31 34 5 Q4... 30 49 21 13 58 30 27 52006: Q1... 31 52 16 13 58 29 27 5 Q2... 37 57 6 15 60 25 37 5 Q3... 42 48 10 15 54 31 31 5

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2004: Q3... 5 36 59 0 73 27 9 4

 Q4... 17 30 52 13 57 30 13 42005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5 Q2... 13 50 38 8 58 33 8 5 Q3... 24 38 38 19 62 19 29 5 Q4... 24 29 48 14 62 24 24 42006: Q1... 36 45 18 18 68 14 27 5 Q2... 35 48 17 17 65 17 32 5 Q3... 23 55 23 5 86 9 23 5 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
#### FINK v. STATE ex rel. HIRSCH.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Charlie JONES v. Robert Aswell FARRIS et al.

No. 3934.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1955.

Russell E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, Wood & Jackson, Leesville, for appellant.

Breard Snellings, New Orleans, Kay & Kay, DeRidder, for appellee.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This suit was instituted by Charles Jones for property damages resulting from a vehicular accident between two trucks. The defendants are Robert Aswell Farris, the driver of one of the vehicles involved in the accident, and Continental Casualty Company of Chicago the liability insurer of defendant Farris. A companion case entitled Jones v. Farris, La.App., *77*So.2d 736, was consolidated with this suit for trial and separate judgments were rendered below. A complete discussion of the issues involved, and of the conclusions of this Court, will be found in the opinion this day handed down in the companion suit.

For the reasons therein assigned, the judgment of the Lower Court, dismissing petitioner’s demand, is affirmed, all costs to be paid by the petitioner.

Judgment affirmed.