alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60867-60868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24030]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA-2015-001]


Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App) and the second United States Open Government National 
Action Plan (NAP) released on December 5, 2013, NARA announces the 
following committee meeting to discuss improvements to the 
administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

[[Page 60868]]


DATES: The meeting will be held on October 21, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 
1:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESS: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room (Room 105), 
Washington, DC 20408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public. 
However, due to space limitations and access procedures, NARA requests 
that individuals planning to attend register for the event via 
Eventbrite at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/freedom-of-information-act-foia-advisory-committee-meeting-registration-13398355843. Eventbrite 
registration will go live on Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 
EDT. Members of the media who wish to register and those who are unable 
to register via Eventbrite should contact Christa Lemelin at the phone 
number, mailing address, or email address listed below. NARA's Office 
of Government Information Services will provide an agenda and 
additional instructions for participation on the FOIA Advisory 
Committee Web page at https://ogis.archives.gov/foia-advisory-committee/meetings.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christa Lemelin, Designated Federal 
Officer for this committee, at National Archives and Records 
Administration, Office of Government Information Services, 8601 Adelphi 
Road--OGIS, College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at 202-741-5773; 
or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86c5eef4eff5f2e7a8cae3ebe3eaefe8c6e8e7f4e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94d7fce6fde7e0f5bad8f1f9f1f8fdfad4faf5e6f5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 1, 2014.
Patrice Little Murray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-24030 Filed 10-6-14; 1:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Eutelia Corina Cortez, Appellant, v Manhattan Bible Church et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 117]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered November 24, 2003, which granted the motion by defendants Wheels, Inc. and Hickman and the cross motion by defendants Manhattan Bible Church and Rengifo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was a passenger in the Church vehicle, operated by Rengifo, when it was struck by the Wheels vehicle, operated by Hickman. She did not seek treatment for her purported injuries until six days later, complaining of pain and nausea. Over the next eight months, all treatment was performed at American Chiropractic in Manhattan, or by referrals to other chiropractors or physicians. Following discovery, summary judgment was granted based on plaintiffs failure to establish a causal relationship between her alleged injuries and the accident.

Defendants met their initial burden on the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff then failed to come forward with sufficient proof establishing a triable issue of fact on whether she had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law § 5102 (d). None of the evidence constituted objective proof that plaintiffs injuries had been caused by the accident (see *Vaughan v Baez,*305 AD2d 101 [2003]). “Objective proof of the nature and degree of a plaintiffs injury is required to satisfy the statutory serious injury threshold” *(Martin v Schwartz,*308 AD2d 318, 319 [2003]; *see also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 351 [2002]). Disc bulges and herniations, standing alone, are simply not enough to meet that threshold (see *Arjona v Calcano,*7 AD3d 279 [2004]). There is no objective proof concerning the extent or degree of any physical limitation, such as an expert’s designation of a numeric percentage of her loss of range of motion (see *Toure,*98 NY2d at 350), to demonstrate that injuries allegedly attributable to the accident have at all restricted her physical abilities and general lifestyle. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy A. Larkin, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe 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/ Timothy A. Larkin              |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy A. Larkin                  |
| *Executive Vice President,*        |
| *Chief Financial Officer*          |
| *And Principal Accounting Officer* |
| * *                           |
| November 2, 2006                   |

 

----
##### 



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 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rent-Way, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to
such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, (the Form 10-Q) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 10, 2005
    
    /s/ William S. ShortWilliam S. Short
Chief Executive OfficerDated: May 10, 2005
    
    /s/ William A. McDonnellWilliam A. McDonnell,
Chief Financial Officer
 This certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Form-10Q pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company unless such
incorporation is expressly referenced herein.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.2.4



                      OPTIONS GRANTED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      NUMBER OF       EXERCISE
NAME                       GRANT DATE                 OPTIONS         PRICE
                           ----------                 ---------       --------
<S>                        <C>                        <C>             <C>
Robert C. Hood             December 22, 1999          10,000          18.25
William J. Dawson          December 22, 1999           4,000          18.25
Ronald H. Zech             December 22, 1999           4,000          18.25
</TABLE>
#### Wallace Dillon, Appellant, v Valgo American Corp. et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 74]

In action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 5, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion to disqualify the law firm of Wolin & Wolin from representing him in this action and to dismiss the sixth cause of action for failure to state a cause of action sounding in fraud against the individual defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the sixth cause of action is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs counsel should have been disqualified based on its prior representation of the corporate defendant and its prior representation of the plaintiff in his divorce from the individual defendant in which the plaintiffs counsel allegedly obtained confidential information from each of the defendants. However, this contention was supported only by conclusory allegations. They failed to show that counsel actually obtained relevant confidential information *590from the defendants during the course of the earlier representation. Nor did they show that allowing the continued representation of the plaintiff would create the appearance of impropriety *(see Olmoz v Town of Fishkill,*258 AD2d 447 [1999]; *Matter of Homola,*234 AD2d 295 [1996]; *see also Nesenoff v Dinerstein & Lesser, P.C.,*12 AD3d 427 [2004]; *cf. Nationwide Assoc. v Targee St. Internal Med. Group,*303 AD2d 728 [2003]; *Aversa v Taubes,*194 AD2d 579, 580 [1993]).

The Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for failure to state a cause of action sounding in fraud against the individual defendant. The plaintiffs allegations, if proven, would be sufficient to warrant piercing the corporate veil and holding the individual defendant liable in fraud for her own individual tortious actions *(see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]; *Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales,*4 NY2d 403, 406 [1958]; *Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Moskowitz,*297 AD2d 724, 725 [2002]; *cf. S.S.I.G. Realty v Bologna Holding Corp.,*213 AD2d 617 [1995]; *see generally Becker v Schwartz,*46 NY2d 401, 408 [1978]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

May 23, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00176

- CV

Adonis Zuniga GOLDWATER , M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Sylvia G. VALDEZ , Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Josefina Leonor Trevino Gonzalez, Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CVB001938D3 Justice Sandee Bryan Mario n , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, appellee’s brief originally was due to be filed on May 23, 2022. On May 20, 2022, appellee filed an unopposed motion requesting a thirty

- day extension of time to file the brief. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED, and appellee is ORD ERED to file her brief no later than June 22, 2022

. Appellee is advised that further requests for an extension of time to file the brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said court on this 23rd day of May, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
#### Georges Y. Takle et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[787 NYS2d 904]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), dated November 14, 2003, as denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to how the subject incident occurred, whether Marotta was faced with an emergency situation and, if so, whether his actions were reasonable and prudent in that context *(see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77*NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; *Gildersleeve v Leo, 21A*AD2d 547 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JUNE 30, 1997 AND FROM CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893577
<NAME>                        CarrAmerica Realty Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                                        U.S. Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1.000
<CASH>                                                 35,866
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          11,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0 <F1>
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                              1,475,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                        119,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,536,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       0
<BONDS>                                               655,449
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                17
<COMMON>                                                  438
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,552,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,536,564
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      151,913
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         117,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        35,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    35,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           31,790
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.58
                                                    
<FN>
<F1> Notes & accounts receivable are presented net of allowance for doubtful
     accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial 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.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



Date: November 10, 2005



                                           BY:   /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  David J. Mickelson
                                                  Executive Vice President,
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  and Chief Operating Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Banc Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Wise, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
enacted 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/ Jeffrey A. Wise


Jeffrey A. Wise
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTINI .

### 223-able PstrUk 0. Naelaad, ?afgo4
**The** pertinent **8tEtUte8 In**  **that opln%on**  **and to**  thi8 ?sOt 8itIXatiOIiWe the I-. ~hillbeitQ$t~,OIlP oonelu8lon i8 t&t you have eoroeotly held t&t 8ubrequent to Jamaryl, 1940, 

### therevu 

### anew eaployingun%t and a 

### nevarrployem.

w. OMaindtul Of thOha??d8~JWthatOftOIIlW8~t -9Jlthir 

### appllaationofthe **8trtUt~.** 

### Auemployervlthagoocl reoord 

### thattaker in 

### a rmv 

### Dartnor18 penalMod by having to take the 88me **tax** rate **as** 

### aaother **f&at had**  

### a **brd** 

### rate. **tie** oenaot 

### *eqpertllertatute

## to 8Uit OuP'8On80 of Ju8tiee emd oqpitj vhen tlaelegirlatwe hu #paken. Hwever, ue are ad**li8bd** that **thdl?b i8**  **18gi8ltbtiOXl**nOV pa that vould JBrait the 8uo0em80~ to aoquire the 

### employmentreoord **0r it8**  

### urlgnor.



# m &LIlAAG/ a, t!! 

### Norrll Hodg A88lat t 

### NNrdb znolo8uPe
#### In the Matter of John Albert Steel, Appellant, v Department for the Aging of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 869]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), entered June 16, 2003, dismissing this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the denial of a senior citizen rent increase exemption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent agency’s decision to deny petitioner’s request for this exemption benefit was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but was rationally based on the facts. There was no violation of due process rights by the court’s failure to set forth concrete figures in concluding that the agency’s determination was correct and not irrational. The court reviewed the agency’s calculation, finding it based on careful analysis of the documentation and consistent with the rules and regulations. Petitioner’s constitutional challenges to the Urstadt Law and legislative procedure are without merit *(see Matter of 241 E. 22nd St. Corp. v City Rent Agency,*33 NY2d 134 [1973]), improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(Matter of Wallace v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y.,*8 AD3d 78 [2004]), and inappropriately raised in an article 78 proceeding *(Press v County of Monroe,*50 NY2d 695, 702 [1980]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Reply to Attn of

@ @

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center
Lewis Field
Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

December 17, 2008
DB

ASRC Aerospace Corp.
Attn: John W. Morton, Program Manager
21000 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH 44135

Dear Mr. Morton:

The Award Fee Evaluation Board for the Glenn Engineering and Scientific Services (GESS-2) Contract
NNCO06BA07B met on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, to determine the fee awarded for the fourth
evaluation period, which ran from April 1, 2008, to September 30, 2008.

The input from the Board indicates that ASRC’s overall performance over the fourth period was
excellent. Technical performance, cost, and business management were all rated as excellent. ASRC’s
continuing efforts in technical performance, identifying efficiencies and savings to the Government,
holding the distributed rate within the annual projected rate, and maintaining a qualified workforce
during this time of growth are all noted. Further, your continuing efforts in cultural diversity are
recognized.

Consistent with the Award Fee process and plan, I have assigned a score of 100 percent for your rating
for this period. This score applies to the total award fee pool of $1,405,119.

In the interest of continued process improvements, the Government challenges ASRC to continue
working toward incremental improvements in both technical and business operations. I look forward to
our continuing partnership in providing excellent customer service in support of our programmatic and
institutional requirements.

Sincerely,

Verne WO-t0)
Ray Lugo
Fee Determination Official