alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David Diaz, Respondent, v Elrac, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[789 NYS2d 116]

*429Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered July 14, 2003, which, in this personal injury action, denied defendant-appellant Elrac, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims for contractual indemnification from plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 31, 2003, denying Elrac’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiff was passenger in a vehicle rented from Elrac and driven by defendant Marco Donofrio at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s mother, Iris Diaz, rented the vehicle at plaintiff’s request because he did not have a credit card available, and plaintiff was named as an additional driver on the rental agreement. The rental agreement contained a “Renter’s Indemnity Provision” pursuant to which the renter agreed to indemnify and hold Elrac harmless from any claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses incurred by Elrac in connection with the rental transaction. Elrac contends in its first two counterclaims that since plaintiff made a claim for damages against it based upon an alleged failure to equip the rental vehicle properly, plaintiff must indemnify it for all amounts in excess of the minimum financial responsibility limits in New York State. Contrary to Elrac’s contentions, these counterclaims are not amenable to summary adjudication. Issues of fact as to whether plaintiff is bound by the “Renter’s Indemnity” were raised by Elrac’s own witness, who testified that the renter was responsible for indemnifying Elrac, and that Iris Diaz, not plaintiff, was the renter of the vehicle in question. Summary relief on indemnification would also be inappropriate since there are unresolved issues of fact respecting Elrac’s alleged negligence in maintaining the rental vehicle *(see Maurillo v Park Slope U-Haul,*194 AD2d 142, 148 [1993]).

Finally, even if plaintiff violated the terms of the rental agreement when he permitted Mr. Donofrio, who was not identified in the agreement as an additional driver, to operate the rental vehicle, Elrac would not be entitled to summary judgment upon its claim for full indemnification because there is a triable question as to whether Mr. Donofrio’s use of the vehicle was, under the circumstances, permissive within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 *(see Murdza v Zimmerman,*99 NY2d 375, 380-381 [2003]; *Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Continental Natl. Am. Group Co.,*35 NY2d 260 [1974]).

We have considered Elrac’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
---

Exhibit 13.2

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 on Form 20-F of Silver
Standard Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                      
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the registrant.

Date: March 30, 2012



|/s/Gregory
      Martin | 
|----------------------- | 
|Gregory Martin          | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher C. Jurey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Northwest Bancorporation, Inc.
and will be retained by Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By

/s/ Christopher C. JureyChristopher C. Jurey, Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains summary financial information extracted from Penn Octane
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April
30,  1998  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by reference to such Financial
Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                      268663 
<SECURITIES>                                     0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              2784541 
<ALLOWANCES>                                 53406 
<INVENTORY>                                 759270 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4579377 
<PP&E>                                     5593177 
<DEPRECIATION>                             1468632 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             9463796 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6285634 
<BONDS>                                      80000 
<COMMON>                                     99527 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0 
<OTHER-SE>                                 2998635 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               9463796 
<SALES>                                   26162629 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          26162629 
<CGS>                                     24119208 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             24119208 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1852400 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          276196 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              91165 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          91165 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0 
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 91165 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### The State *v.*Aydelott.

*Thursday, June*6.

An indictment for malicious trespass alleged that the defendant did “ maliciously and mischievously injure and cause to be injured a certain house, the property of one *William*M‘Mahon,” situate, &c., “ of the value of fifty dollars, to the damage of said *William MMahon*five dollars, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. *Held,*that the offence was insufficiently described.

The indictment should have shown the specific injury done to the house.

ERROR to the *Harrison*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was a prosecution for a malicious trespass. The indictment charged that the defendant did “ maliciously and mischievously injure and cause to be injured a *158certain house, the property of one *William MS Mahon?*situate, &c., “of the value of fifty dollars, to the damage of the said *William McMahon*five dollars, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. The Court, on the motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

*W. A.*Porter, for the state.

*J. W.*Payne, for the defendant.

We think the decision was right. The description of the offence is too vague. It is true, that in describing the crime, the indictment adopts the language of the statute creating it. But this mode of setting out an offence is not always attended with the requisite certainty. There is in general no essential difference, as to the precision required in describing the crime, between an indictment at common law, and one founded on a statute. 1 Chitt. C. L. 275. And it has accordingly been held, that an indictment for obtaining money by *false pretences*was bad, although the description of the offence given by the statute was pursued in the indictment. It was considered necessary for the indictment to show what the false pretences were. *The King*v. Mason, 2 T. R. *581.*

The indictment under consideration should have shown the specific injury done to the house. This was necessary in order to apprize the defendant, with certainty, of the crime with which he was charged, and to enable him to plead the verdict in any future prosecution for the same offence.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"John Gould","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jgould4\/","title":"NASA Selects Awardees for New Aviation Maintenance Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"svlrRH4UAM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-selects-awardees-for-new-aviation-maintenance-challenge\/\">NASA Selects Awardees for New Aviation Maintenance Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-selects-awardees-for-new-aviation-maintenance-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=svlrRH4UAM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Selects Awardees for New Aviation Maintenance Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"svlrRH4UAM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/ui-aviation-maintenance-challenge.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":435}
NASA Organization Chart r Admini.,.- AI 

L 

A-2
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2020-03-03 13:59:04","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["7","14","6","9","71","6","29","21","3","3","9"," ","9","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["5","16","10","19","54","7","28","18","4","5","7"," ","12","1"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2","2"," ","7","33","1","17","6"," ","2","3"," ","5","2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q1"}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00677-CV

Mark Sayers; Jennifer Sayers; Canyon Power Solutions, LLC; Power Solutions Group, 

LLC f/k/a Union Critical Power Solutions, LLC; Sayers Real Estate and Development, 

LLC; and Sayers Construction, LLC, Appellants

v.

The City of Bryan, Texas, and Bryan Texas Utilities, Appellees

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 19-2860, THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

PER CURIAM

Appellant Sayers Construction LLC has filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. See

Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. We therefore abate this appeal until a party files a motion to reinstate or a 

motion to sever. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2, 8.3. Appellants are ordered to inform this Court of the 

resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding or some other event that would allow this appeal to be 

reinstated. Should they fail to provide such notice, the appeal will be subject to dismissal for 

want of prosecution on this Court’s or another party’s motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Bankruptcy

Filed: January 13, 2023
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L 

a 

T 

'I 

il 

0 

m
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PLD CAPITAL
ASSET (U.S.) INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K AND THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PLD CAPITAL ASSET (U.S.) INC. AT AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 CONTAINED THEREIN.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      228
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,595
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,929
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    798
<INCOME-TAX>                                       232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                566
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       566
<EPS-BASIC>                                      566
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      566


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Troulliet,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00266-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/5/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 10, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 840 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Astrid Albaugh","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aalbaugh\/","title":"NASA Ames Astrogram – April 2023","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BAzsAtAnB0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/nasa-ames-astrogram-april-2023\/\">NASA Ames Astrogram – April 2023<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/nasa-ames-astrogram-april-2023\/embed\/#?secret=BAzsAtAnB0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Ames Astrogram – April 2023” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BAzsAtAnB0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/acd23-0035-036_1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":366}