alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 104042.)

[789 NYS2d 255]

In a claim to recover for damage to property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 19, 2002, granting the claimant’s motion for summary judgment, and an order of the same court entered June 11, 2003, adopting a stipulation of the parties as to damages, is in favor of the claimant and against it in the principal sum of $8,500.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the orders are vacated, and the motion is denied.

The defendant’s employee was mowing the grassy area alongside a state highway when the tractor he was operating struck a wire attached to the claimant’s utility pole, causing the *676pole to fall to the ground. Contrary to the claimant’s contention, to the extent that the defendant’s employee was engaged in work “on a highway” at the time of the accident, the applicable standard of care is prescribed in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), and therefore liability would attach only if the defendant’s employee acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]; *see Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d 455 [2000]; *Wenger v Broome County Govt.,*296 AD2d 642 [2002]; *Farese v Town of Carmel,*296 AD2d 436 [2002]). Since triable issues of fact exist as to, inter alia, whether the employee acted recklessly, the claimant was not entitled to summary judgment.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Santucci and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,283
<PP&E>                                           3,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,133)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,010
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,151)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,719
<SALES>                                         14,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,093
<CGS>                                            4,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,916)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                         13,445
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    62,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,640
<PP&E>                                         3,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (614)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,335
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,092
<SALES>                                        690,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               690,621
<CGS>                                          499,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  499,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               151,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                37,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            34,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   34,721
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.01



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

RAYMOND GARNETT BATES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1543-06-2 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 7, 2006 

MOLINS RICHMOND, INC. AND 

 INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE 

 OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Associates, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (S. Vernon Priddy III; Paul W. Emigholz; Nancy J. Wan; Sands 

Anderson Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees. 

 Raymond Garnett Bates (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Claimant argues the 

commission erred in failing to apply the doctrine of imposition to save his claim.1

 We have 

reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Bates 

v. Molins Richmond, Inc., VWC File No. 201-16-16 (May 23, 2006). We dispense with oral 

argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Because claimant limited his argument on appeal to the issue of imposition, that is the 

only issue we consider. 
- 2 - 

in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 1.2


EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE MEMBERS OF
SATYAM INFOWAY LIMITED HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AT 11.00 A.M. AT THE
CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY AT AT 2ND FLOOR, TIDEL PARK, 4, CANAL BANK ROAD,
TARAMANI, CHENNAI -- 600 113.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

     RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 31 of the Companies Act, 1956 (including
     any statutory modification or reenactment thereof for the time being in
     force), the existing Article 7 of the Articles of Association be deleted
     and in its place the following Article be substituted:

     The Company shall keep a "Register of Transfers" and therein shall be
     fairly and distinctly entered, the particulars of every transfer or
     transmission of any share, whether or not held in material form.

     Shares in the Company shall be transferred by an instrument of transfer in
     writing in such form as prescribed under Section 108 of the Companies Act,
     1956, or under rules made there under from time to time.

     Nothing contained in the foregoing Article shall apply to transfer of
     security effected by the transferor and the transferee both of whom are
     entered as beneficial owners in the records of a Depository.

     There shall be no restriction on the transfer of the shares/stock by a
     shareholder/stockholder, or between the shareholders/stockholders or any of
     them, except as specifically provided for under the terms by way of any
     agreement between the shareholders/ stockholders to which the Company is
     also a party; such agreement providing for restriction may also include tag
     along rights and other similar terms and conditions which a shareholder/
     stockholder has agreed with another shareholder/ stockholder to be bound
     by.
#### BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MATAWAN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MATAWAN REGIONAL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of New China Homes, Ltd., a Cayman Islands
company (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peggy Pui Ki Ng, 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 to my knowledge:

     (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/ Peggy Pui Ki Ng
-----------------------------------
Peggy Pui Ki Ng                                            Date: 28 January 2003
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



QDM INTERNATIONAL INC.

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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 QDM International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Huihe Zheng, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|Dated: June 29, 2023 | By: | /s/ Huihe Zheng                      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                     |     | Huihe Zheng                          
|                     |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Carlos A. Liaros, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and John Doe, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 290]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, sued herein as John Doe, ap*663peals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 30, 2004, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellant demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to comply with CPLR 306-b as he did not attempt to effect service upon it until nearly IV2 years after the filing of the initial summons and amended verified complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff was required to establish that he was entitled to an extension of time to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice *(see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95 [2001]). The plaintiff failed to satisfy either standard. In fact, the plaintiff did not seek to validate the late service until after the appellant moved to dismiss the complaint *(see Leadbeater v Beaubrun,*299 AD2d 458, 459 [2002]).

Under these circumstances, the appellant was entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against it *(see Ludemann v Maisel,*292 AD2d 428 [2002]; *Carbonaro v Maimonides Med. Ctr.,*289 AD2d 437, 438 [2001]). H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
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**





The
      undersigned, Mechael Kanovsky, Chief Executive Officer of Mazal Plant
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth
      and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report
      on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








Dated:
      August 24, 2006





By: /s/
      Mechael Kanovsky


Name:
      Mechael Kanovsky


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### KNIGHT v. ABBOTT LABS.

No. 399P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 448

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001. Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 2001. Conditional petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 8 November 2001.
No. 87-6618.

#### In re Harris.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLBERT F. NICHOLS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

ISIDRO BACA, Warden; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF 

NEVADA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-15862 

D.C. No. 

3:13-cv-00671-MMD-WGC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Colbert F. Nichols appeals from the district court’s 

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15862

Nichols contends, and the state concedes, that the district court erred by 

adjudicating his claims on the merits without first requiring the state to submit all 

relevant portions of the state court records, including trial transcripts. In light of 

Nasby v. McDaniel, 853 F.3d 1049, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2017), which was decided 

after the district court's decision in this case, we agree that remand is required. On 

remand, the district court should reconsider its rulings on all claims, including its 

procedural rulings regarding exhaustion, after a full and complete review of the 

relevant state court record.

In light of the complexity of the issues involved and counsel’s familiarity 

with this case, the Federal Public Defender’s Office of the District of Nevada is 

requested to continue to represent Nichols until the conclusion of these section 

2254 proceedings.

Appellant’s motion to remand is denied as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.
NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY

Afterschool NASA Production Club

Christa Speights

6/1/23 - 5/31/25

Through an afterschool club, middle school students 

will be guided through the process of creating live 

planetarium shows about two NASA missions (James 

Webb Space Telescope and Neil Gehrels Swift 

Observatory) using Project Based Learning techniques. 

Students will work as a team and with an 

underrepresented undergraduate Northern Kentucky 

University STEM student mentor. They will also interact 

with a whole team of production experts and NASA 

experts including mission team members. Once the live 

shows are produced, the students will present them to 

their schools at a school-wide meeting and record their 

shows to share online. Haile Planetarium will also 

convert those live shows into recorded, narrated 

planetarium shows and give those shows to every 

middle school group that visits the planetarium for a 

field trip. By using local students to produce these 

shows, local audiences will be more interested and 

likely to engage with the content.

List of Partners:

• Northern Kentucky University Center for

Integrative Natural Science and Mathematics

• Holmes Middle School

NKU Haile Planetarium

Credits: Northern Kentucky University

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC23K0806, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2136

AN ACT

To extend the final report date and termination date of

the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the

United States, to provide additional funding for the Commission, and for other purposes.

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

2

S 2136 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

2 TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED

3 STATES.

4 (a) FINAL REPORT DATE.—Subsection (b) of section

5 610 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

6 2003 (Public Law 107–306; 6 U.S.C. 101 note; 116 Stat.

7 2413) is amended by striking ‘‘18 months’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘20 months’’.

9 (b) TERMINATION DATE.—Subsection (c) of that sec10 tion is amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘60 days’’ and

12 inserting ‘‘30 days’’; and

13 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘60-day pe14 riod’’ and inserting ‘‘30-day period’’.

15 (c) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—Section 611 of that Act

16 (6 U.S.C. 101 note; 116 Stat. 2413) is amended—

17 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub18 section (c);

19 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol20 lowing new subsection (b):

21 ‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—In addition to the

22 amounts made available to the Commission under sub23 section (a) and under chapter 2 of title II of the Emer24 gency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003

25 (Public Law 108–11; 117 Stat. 591), of the amounts ap26 propriated for the programs and activities of the Federal
†

3

S 2136 ES

1 Government for fiscal year 2004 that remain available for

2 obligation, not more than $1,000,000 shall be available for

3 transfer to the Commission for purposes of the activities

4 of the Commission under this title.’’; and

5 (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by

6 striking ‘‘subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘this sec7 tion’’.

Passed the Senate February 27, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2136

AN ACT

To extend the final report date and termination

date of the National Commission on TerroristAttacks Upon the United States, to provide additional funding for the Commission, and for otherpurposes.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EMERSON WADDELL SARTOR, II, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00128-H-1) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Emerson Waddell Sartor, II, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret 

Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Emerson Waddell Sartor, II, appeals the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion 

for a reduced sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Sartor, No. 7:05—cr00128-H-1 (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada v. City of Houston

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 034

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 84026

Trial court: 270 th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 8, 2020

Party filing motion: Appell ee

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49. 7

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

En Banc Court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris

.

Date: June 10, 2021
PORTAGE PARTNERS, LTD.
(A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

                           For the years ended          August 18, 1999
                           June 30,                           (Inception) to
                            2003       2002                 June 30, 2003

Revenue                   -             -                            -

General and
administrative
expenses              460             687                   4,922
Total expenses      460             687                   4,922

Net (loss)             (460)           (687)                 (4,922)

Weighted average
number of
common shares
outstanding -
basic and
fully diluted       4,500,000     4,500,000

Net (loss)
per share -
basic and
fully diluted          (0.00)            (0.00)

The accompanying notes are an intregal part of these financial statements.

Page 1