alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Trevor Sargeant, Respondent, v Village Bindery, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[744 NYS2d 508]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Village Bindery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 11, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*396On August 17,1998, at about 5:15 p.m., the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle owned by the appellant. The driver of the appellant’s vehicle fled the scene of the accident and was never identified. After the plaintiff commenced the present action to recover damages for the personal injuries he sustained as a result of this accident, the appellant moved for summary judgment, claiming that its car was stolen at the time of the accident.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 imputes to the owner of a car the negligence of any person who uses or operates it with the owner’s permission. This section gives rise to a presumption that the vehicle is being operated with the owner’s consent *(see Guerrieri v Gray,*203 AD2d 324; *Bruno v Privilegi,*148 AD2d 652, 653). However, this presumption may be rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary *(see Leotta v Plessinger,*8 NY2d 449, 461; *Headley v Tessler,*267 AD2d 428; *Albouyeh v County of Suffolk,*96 AD2d 543, *affd*62 NY2d 681). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted the affidavit of Michael Hort, an employee of another corporation, who operated the car during the day and kept it in his custody in the evenings. While Hort offered an explanation for not promptly reporting the purported theft to the police after discovering that the car was missing, the discrepancies between Hort’s affidavit and the police incident information slip, inter alia, present issues of credibility which must be assessed by the trier of fact *(see Minaya v Horner,*279 AD2d 333). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending September 29, 2018FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIRST FINANCIAL BANK                                                                                                    * BranchFirst Financial Bank, Cincinnati, OH files an application to establish a branch office at 50 Branigan Road, Franklin, Indiana.Newspaper: 09/29/2018Federal Register: Not applicableRICHWOOD BANKING COMPANY, INC., THE                                                                                     * 18CRichwood Banking Company, Richwood, Ohio, to merge with Home City FSB, Springfield, OH, pursuant to Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
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 New generation  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jacques Mot, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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 result of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ Jacques Mot
----------------
Jacques Mot
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

May 27, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02260-BNB

EUGENE DURAN,

Applicant,

v.

PAMELA PLOUGHE, Acting Warden CTCF, and 

JOHN W. SUTHERS, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado,

Respondents.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

This matter is before the Court on the document titled “Motion to Supplement

Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” that Applicant Eugene Duran,

submitted to and filed with the Court on April 9, 2012. The motion to supplement does

not comply with the order of March 21, 2012 (ECF No. 21), granting Mr. Duran’s motion

to amend and directing him to file an amended application within thirty days, and

therefore is DENIED. 

Mr. Duran will be allowed one final opportunity to file on the Court-approved

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form an amended

application that complies with all the directives of the March 21 order. Mr. Duran’s

attention particularly is directed to the final paragraph beginning on page 2 and ending

on page 3 of the March 21 order, which explains in explicit detail the requirements for

filing an amended application that replaces the application he originally filed, and makes

clear that the amended application must stand on its own without reference to other

documents filed by Applicant. Failure to comply with the March 21 order within twentyone (21) days from the date of this order will result in the dismissal of the instant

action. No extensions of time will be granted without just cause. 

Dated: April 10, 2012

 

Case 1:11-cv-02260-WYD Document 23 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio E. Aristud, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[744 NYS2d 919]

Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Purple, Jr., J.), entered April 24, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of bail jumping in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on count one of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant’s guilty plea “forecloses any challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury” on the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree *(People v Lawrence,*273 AD2d 805, 805, *lv denied*95 NY2d 867; *see People v Shandler,*168 AD2d 648, 649-650, *affd*78 NY2d 986). We reject defendant’s contention that the imposition of a consecutive sentence on the count of bail jumping in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.57) renders the sentence unduly harsh or severe. We conclude, however, that the sentence of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years imposed on the count of bail jumping in the first degree must be vacated. As a second felony offender, defendant cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 2 to 4 years on that class D felony *(see*§ 70.06 [3] [d]; *845[4] [b]), and thus the sentence imposed on that count is illegal *(see People v Price,*140 AD2d 927, 928). We therefore modify the judgment in appeal No. 2 by vacating the sentence imposed on count one of the indictment and remit the matter to Steuben County Court so that defendant may withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial, or be resentenced in compliance with the statute *(see id.).*Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKENS, Education Department,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion to Vacate Final Trial Preparation 

Conference. (Doc. 265.) 

Sufficient cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is 

GRANTED. The Final Trial Preparation Conference set for August 22, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. is 

VACATED. The trial currently set in this matter to commence October 7, 2013, is also 

VACATED.

The parties are jointly ordered to submit either a joint status report or a stipulated motion 

to dismiss this action by no later than close of business September 13, 2013.

Dated this 20th day of August, 2013. 

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

David M. Ebel

U. S. Circuit Court Judge

District of Colorado

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 266 Filed 08/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS OF STREICHER MOBILE FUELING, INC. AS OF JANUARY 31, 1996 AND OCTOBER 31,
1996 (UNAUDITED), AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR
EACH OF THE THREE MONTHS AND THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1995 AND 1996
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          55,896
<SECURITIES>                                    95,023
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,129,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                     69,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,428,648
<PP&E>                                       4,183,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                 876,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,228,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,611,803
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,228,115
<SALES>                                     22,897,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,897,815
<CGS>                                       21,119,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,119,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,909,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             353,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (475,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   176,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (299,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (299,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Lena HIGGINS, Widow of Frank N. Higgins, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GRAND LODGE OF KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, etc. (Colored), Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14505.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 27, 1933.

Frank B. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Frank Stich, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied April 24, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons assigned in Mrs. Ernestine Flowers, Widow of William Johnson, v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias (La. App.) 146 So. 782, decided by us this day, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Income and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                            178
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    64,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66,301
<PP&E>                                         56,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                 30,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 93,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          50,437
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           75
<OTHER-SE>                                   (12,701)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   93,025
<SALES>                                        50,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               50,778
<CGS>                                          27,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (5,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (5,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (5,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.73)



</TABLE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 TAMMY BENALLY, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 32,129 4 PHILLIP JOE, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Deborah D. Walker, District Judge 8 Gregory Gahan 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of David R. Jordan, PC 12 Alexander Beattie, II 13 Gallup, NM 14 for Appellant 15
MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 CASTILLO, Judge. 172 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed disposition. No memorandum oppos ing summary affirmance has been filed, 2 and the time for doing so has expired. 3 Affirmed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

___________________________________ 6 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

__________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10

__________________________________ 11 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 12
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,093-01

EX P ARTE ANTHONY MOLINA, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR16001830-F (1) IN THE 214TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of burg lary of a habitation, third-deg ree deadl y conduct, misdemeanor deadly conduct, and evading arr est. He was sentenc ed to imprisonment for one term of twenty y ear s, two terms of ten y ear s, and one term of one y ear . The Thirteenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed the judgme nt of conviction i n h i s b u rg lary case . Molina v. State , No. 13-17-00171- CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi J une 28, 2018) (not desig nated for pu blication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to thi s Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that the State eng ag ed in misconduct, the trial court err ed, and trial and appellate counsel wer e ineffe ctive. On Dec ember 18, 2019, his application was denied in part and2

dismiss ed in part. Be fore disposing of his application, we order ed the Nuec es County District Clerk

to respond to Applicant’s claim that he wa s ch arg ed $23.00 for the State’s response to his application. On October 30, 2019, we rec eived her response . She stated t h at Applicant was inadver tently char g ed $23.00 for the State’s response and that he would be ref unded the $23.00. I n

a letter d at ed J u l y 20, 2020, Applicant notified this Court that he had not y et rec eived a ref und, despite sending a reque st in Marc h to the District Clerk. I n late Aug ust, the District Clerk advised Gene ral Counsel of this Court that her office would be sending Applicant a chec k and that she would send this Court docum en t at i o n t h at she had done so. As of today , we have not rec eived documentation. Acc ording ly , we withdraw our previous dispositi on of this application and order the District Clerk to send to this Court documentation that Applicant was ref unded $23.00. She shall respond within ten day s of the date of this order.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 24, 2021 Do not publish
#### Jessica R. Scalone, Plaintiff, v Frank P. Racanelli, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Beverly Spurling et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Mid Nite Snax, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 442]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Mid Nite Snax, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated February 22, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

*398Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

“In general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” *(Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714). Here, the defendant third-party plaintiff sought only indemnification and contribution from the appellant. Since the complaint in the main action was dismissed, the issues raised on this appeal have been rendered academic, and the record before us fails to present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see *Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra*at 714-715). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 952 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 5, 2008. 

Whereas the education of children in the United States is the 

foundation of the future success of the United States; 

Whereas education is critical for the creation of an innovative 

workforce and for increasing the global competitiveness of 

the United States; 

Whereas teachers help students cultivate the knowledge and 

principles necessary to be successful in life; 

Whereas teachers are held to high expectations, while often 

receiving little compensation; 

Whereas teachers help instill civic responsibility among students in the United States; 

Whereas teachers deserve annual national recognition for 

their knowledge, selfless dedication to their profession, 

compassion, and sacrifice; and 

Whereas the Tuesday of the first full week of May of each 

year is an appropriate day for the establishment of National Teacher Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

(1) there should be established a National Teacher 

Day to honor and celebrate teachers; and 
2 

•HRES 952 EH 

(2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such 

a day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc., Appellant, v Chase Manhattan Bank, Respondent.

[811 NYS2d 688]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 7, 2004, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied, as academic, its motion to strike the defendant’s answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff is a corporation that facilitates the collection of unclaimed property. The plaintiff entered into agreements with the predecessors of the defendant bank to recover unclaimed property held by the New York State Office of Unclaimed Funds in return for 10% of the value of the property recovered. The plaintiff commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, alleging that it did not receive *689its fee for assisting the defendant in recovering certain unclaimed property.

The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract cause of action by submitting the affidavits of its employees, who attested that the defendant did not recover the subject unclaimed property *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The remaining causes of action alleging, inter alia, unjust enrichment, were properly dismissed because they were duplicative of the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract *(see Cooper, Bamundo, Hecht & Longworth, LLP v Kuczinski,*14 AD3d 644 [2005]; *Express Home Care Agency v VIP Health Servs.,*275 AD2d 759 [2000]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vita Food Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |                                         |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|               |   | /s/ R. Anthony Nelson                        |
|               |   | R. Anthony Nelson,                           |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|               |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

21

----