alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John J. Farese, Respondent, v Town of Carmel et al., Appellants.

[745 NYS2d 197]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated February 4, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, who was driving his motorcycle on a road in the Town of Carmel, alleged that his accident occurred when he suddenly, and without warning, came upon a tractor belonging to the defendant Town of Carmel Highway Department, operated by the defendant Gerald Doyle, an employee of the defendant Town of Carmel. Doyle was using a flail mower to *437mow the grass at the highway guardrail, and in doing so, the tractor was partially on the pavement of the road. The plaintiff alleged that he had to bring his motorcycle to the ground to avoid driving into the tractor. He further alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to post signs regarding the tractor’s work and failing to provide an escort vehicle for the tractor. The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), since the vehicle was actually engaged in work on a highway, the defendants could only be liable for acts which were committed in reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established that Doyle was actually engaged in work on a highway as that term is used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) (see *Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d 455, 461-463; *Skolnick v Town of Hempstead,*278 AD2d 481, 482). Thus, the standard to be applied to the conduct of the defendants is that liability will attach only if they act in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow (see *Riley v County of Broome, supra*at 465-466; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 501). The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under the circumstances of this case, the tractor was being operated in reckless disregard of others resulting in a risk so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow *(see Bliss v State of New York,*95 NY2d 911, 913; *Saarinen v Kerr, supra; Skolnick v Town of Hempstead, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00362-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

4. JIMMY HUTCHINSON,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR RETURN OF PASSPORT

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Jimmy Hutchinson's Unopposed

Motion for Return of Passport filed July 21, 2015. The Court, having reviewed the

motion and finding good cause therefor,

ORDERED that Defendant Jimmy Hutchinson’s Unopposed Motion for Return of

Passport [ECF No. 451], filed July 21, 2015, is GRANTED. Pretrial Services shall

return the passport to Defendant Jimmy Hutchinson.

Dated: August 10, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 453 Filed 08/10/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Richard E. Gathright, certify that:

   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Streicher Mobile
Fueling, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      second fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting.

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

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

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

Date: February 17, 2004


/S/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
--------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
El Chico Restaurants, Inc.:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
333-16699  and No.  33-63474) on Form S-8 of El Chico  Restaurants,  Inc. of our
report dated February 6, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of El
Chico  Restaurants,  Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related  consolidated  statements of  operations,  changes in  stockholders'
equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the three  year  period  ended
December 31, 1996,  which report  appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of El Chico Restaurants, Inc.





                                             KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 25, 1997
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 42 filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 42 filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.34


 


Description of Severance Agreement provisions
between Boston Biomedica, Inc. and Richard D’Allessandro, Vice President –
Information Technology, contained in an internal Boston Biomedica, inc.
memorandum dated March 21, 2001 between Kevin Quinlan, President and Chief
Operating Officer of Boston Biomedica, Inc. and Richard D’Allessandro, Vice
President, Information Technology of Boston Biomedica, Inc.:


 


 


If Mr. D’Allessandro is terminated for any reason other than cause, the
Company commits that he will receive 3 weeks of severance for every completed
year of service.  This does not apply to
a voluntary termination on Mr. D’Allessandro’s part.


 


1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02561-CMA-CBS

CINDY QUINTERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ER SOLUTIONS, INC., a Washington corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Notice

of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. # 7), filed November 1, 2011, it is

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to pay

her or its own attorney’s fees and costs.

DATED: November 02 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02561-CMA-CBS Document 8 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# SUMMARY:

On September 24, 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force, acting as Executive Agent of the Secretary of Defense, determined that the service of the group known as the “Vietnamese Citizens Who Served in Vietnam Under Contract With the U.S. Armed Forces and Were Assigned to Reconnaissance Teams and Exploitation Forces Within the Military Assistance Command, Studies and Observations Group (MACVSOG), Ground Operations OP-35, Command and Control (C&C), From January 1964 to April 1972.” 

Shall not be considered “active duty” for purposes of all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Mr. James D. Johnston at the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC); 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3d Fl.; Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-23966 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0463

CITY OF BOZEMAN,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHEA TARYN SAMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including December 31, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 29 2023

11/29/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0463
Case 1:02-cv-00337-RPM Document 166 Filed 09/01/05 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:02-cv-00337-RPM Document 166 Filed 09/01/05 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02523-RBJ-CBS

BRITTANY THURMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

Deputy ARTHUR PETERSON, individually and in his capacity as a paid peace officer and as an 

Employee and/or agent of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Jefferson County, and the 

Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

Sergeant DAVID HOOVER, individually and in his capacity as a paid peace officer and as an 

Employee and/or agent of the Lakewood Police Department, the City of Lakewood and the 

Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE in its capacity as the Employer of Deputy Arthur 

Peterson, as an agent and/or independent contractor for Jefferson County and/or as an agent, 

independent contractor/or employer of the Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

JEFFERSON COUNTY in its capacity as the employer of Deputy Arthur Peterson, as a 

governmental entity, and/or as an agent, independent contractor or employer of the Jefferson 

County Auto Theft Task Force; 

LAKEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, in its capacity as the employer of Sergeant David 

Hoover, and as an agent and/or independent contractor of the City of Lakewood and the 

Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

CITY OF LAKEWOOD, in its capacity as the employer of Sergeant David Hoover, as a 

governmental entity and as an agent/or employer of the Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

JEFFERSON COUNTY AUTO THEFT TASK FORCE, in its capacity as a governmental entity 

and as the employer of Arthur Peterson, and David Hoover; 

THE STATE OF COLORADO, in its capacity as a governmental entity and employer of the 

Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force; 

JOHN DOES 1-10, whose names and identities and culpability in the instant matter are yet 

unknown, individually and in their capacity as governmental officers or employees; peace 

officers; and/or agents of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office; the Lakewood Police 

Department; the City of Lakewood, the Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force and/or the State 

of Colorado,

Defendants.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 21 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
I hereby recuse myself from further participation in this case and ask that it be reassigned 

to another judge. I see that I entered an order granting an unopposed motion for an extension of 

time earlier in the case. However, until I read the matters presently pending it did not sink in as 

to what this case involves. As a judge in Jefferson County I learned that Deputy Peterson had 

been injured in the incident that is the subject of this case. I wrote a letter to him wishing him a 

full recovery, and received a letter from him in response. To avoid any concern that I might be 

biased, I think the better course is to disqualify myself. 

DATED this 5

th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 21 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Marvin BENEFIELD v. STATE.

8 Div. 162.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 4.4


                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                CYBERSENTRY, INC.

                                    * * * * *

         CyberSentry, Inc. (the "Company"), a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of CyberSentry, Inc. has approved
and its Shareholders, at the Company's Special Meeting of Shareholders of March
31, 2000, have ratified a resolution duly amending the Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation, as follows:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of CyberSentry, Inc. is
hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph of the Fourth Article thereof and
replacing it with the following:

         "FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the Corporation shall
have authority to issue is sixty million shares (60,000,000) shares, consisting
of fifty million (50,000,000)shares of common stock, pa value $.001 per share
(hereinafter referred to as the "Common Stock"), and ten million (10,000,000)
shares of preferred stock, par value $.001 per share (hereinafter, the
"Preferred Stock"). The powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights (and the qualifications,
limitations or restrictions thereof) of the Common Stock and the Preferred Stock
are as follows"

         SECOND: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         THIRD: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Frank Kristan, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and attested
to by Hal Shankland, its Secretary, this 5th day of April, 2000

                                     By: /s/ Frank Kristan
                                         --------------------------------
                                          Frank Kristan, Chairman and CEO
ATTEST:

By: /s/ Hal Shankland
    -------------------------
     Hal Shankland, Secretary
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4258

___________ Michael L. Rehberg, and all other * similarly situated employees; * Keith W. Asleson; Theodore K. Hull, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Iowa Department of Public Safety, * sued as Department of Public Safety * [UNPUBLISHED] and the State of Iowa, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 14, 1997 Filed: July 16, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM. Michael L. Rehberg, Keith W. Asleson, and Theodore K. Hull commenced this action un der the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (1994) (FLSA) , against their employer--the Iowa Department of Public Safety (DOS) and the State ofThe H onorable Celeste F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). -2- Iowa--seeki ng overtime compensation. Upon defendants’ motion, the District Court 1 dis missedthe action. The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdictio n under Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida , 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996), as Iowa had not cons ented to the suit; the Commerce Clause did not grant Congress the power t o abrogate Iowa’s Eleventh Amendment im munity from suit; and the FLSA was enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that, although the FLSA may have been passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause, Congress subsequentl y passed an FLSA amendment abrogating the states’ immunity pursuant to Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellants’ argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Raper v. Iowa , 115 F.3d 623, ____ (8th Cir. 1997). In Raper , we rejected the argument made by Iow a employees who were seeking overtime compensation that Congr ess revoked the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from FLSA lawsuits under the Fou rteenth Amendment, because we concluded t

hat the FLSA’s overtime provisions cannot be seen as serving a Fourteent

h Amendment purpose. See id. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First National Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, M. Shane Bell, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First National Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|(1) | such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of First National Corporation.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ M. Shane Bell                                   
|Date: March 27, 2009 |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



86
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Key Tronic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Ronald F. Klawitter, 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, that:



| | 1. | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 13, 2010



/s/ Ronald F. KlawitterRonald F. KlawitterExecutive Vice President of Administration,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20237 Su m m ar yC al endar K EV I N A H O PK I N S , P l a i n tiff

–A p p ell a n t,
v. P H ILL IP O B IC K H A M , W a rd en I I, T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce – I nst i t ut i on D ivis i on; LA TU N JAM JO N E S, C as e M anagerI I I , Texas De p a r t me n to f

C r i mi n a lJ u s t i c e –I n s t i t u t i o n Div i s i o n ; S ONI E M ANG UM , Pr ac t i c e M ana ge rTe xa s D e pa r t m e nto f Cr i m i nalJ us t i c e –U TM B D ivi s i o n, D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees. A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V
- 2577 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * K evi n A . H opk i n s, T exas pri soner # 145 493 2, ha s app eal ed the di st ri ct c o u r t’s in te r lo c u to r yo r d e rd e n y in gh is m o t i o n fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. H o pki ns ha s n otsh o w n t hatt hi s c as e pr e s e nt s e xc e pt i o nalc i r c um s t anc e s a nd th u s h a s n ot sh ow n tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sedi ts discretio n in r efu singto United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20237

2 a p p o in t c o u n s e l. S ee C u pitv. Jon es , 8 3 5 F .2 d8 2 , 8 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ); Ul m e rv. Ch an cel lor , 691 F . 2d209 , 212
- 13 (5t h C i r. 198 2) . Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der i s AF F I RMED.