alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Christine Martinkus, Appellant, v Jennifer L. Dahmen, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 378]

*1015In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), entered April 20, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The plaintiffs argument that the defendant failed to establish that she did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/ 180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is without merit, as the plaintiff failed to allege such an injury in her bill of particulars *(see MacDonald v Meierhoffer,*13 AD3d 689 [2004]; *Kenney v Amodei,*119 AD2d 1006 [1986]). In any event, the evidence submitted by the defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain such an injury, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition *(see generally Karpinos v Cora,*89 AD3d 994, 995 [2011]).

Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

            NATIONAL BANCSHARES CORPORATION OF TEXAS AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1998                               1997                             1996
                         ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
                          Income         Shares    Per-Share   Income       Shares     Per-Share   Income       Shares     Per-Share
                         (Numerator) (Denominator)   Amount  (Numerator) (Denominator)   Amount  (Numerator) (Denominator)  Amount
                         ----------- ------------- --------- ----------- ------------- --------- ----------- ------------- ---------
<S>                      <C>         <C>           <C>       <C>         <C>           <C>       <C>         <C>           <C>  
Income before
   extraordinary credit  $     8,161                         $     7,475                         $    5,710

BASIC EPS
Income available
   to common                                                                                                           
   shareholders          $     8,161         4,503 $    1.81 $     7,475         4,659 $    1.60 $    5,710          4,640 $    1.23
                                                   =========                           =========                           =========

EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES
   Stock options                                                                                  
                                               122                                  90                                  57
   Convertible                                                                                    
   Preferred A                                  --                                  --                                  --
   Convertible                                                                                    
   Preferred B                                  --                                  --                                  --
                         ----------- -------------           ----------- -------------           ----------- -------------

DILUTED EPS
Income available to common
   shareholders +
   assumed
   conversions           $     8,161         4,625 $    1.76 $     7,475         4,749 $    1.57 $     5,710         4,697 $    1.22
                         =========== ============= ========= =========== ============= ========= =========== ============= =========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the
  "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal
  financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

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





|Date:  May 4, 2005 | /s/ John R. BiggarJohn R. Biggar
        Executive Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
        PPL Corporation
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-19-1997
<CASH>                                              33,073
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        134,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   187,562
<PP&E>                                             935,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                     465,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,023,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              183,198
<BONDS>                                            599,868
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              107,057
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               100
<OTHER-SE>                                        (234,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,023,694
<SALES>                                            707,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   707,983
<CGS>                                              518,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      518,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   236,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (79,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (79,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       (79,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (8.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 
                                                   


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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         588,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  934,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                    313,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,840,698
<PP&E>                                         891,218
<DEPRECIATION>                               (719,312)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,758,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,132,475
<BONDS>                                      1,563,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       496,606
<OTHER-SE>                                   (433,769)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,837
<SALES>                                      1,550,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,550,745
<CGS>                                          876,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  876,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               781,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (41,045)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (148,076)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (148,076)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (148,076)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

7 CFR Part 3407


Revision of Delegations of Authority

CFR Correction

    In Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2000 to End, 
revised as of January 1, 2014, on page 442, in Sec.  3407.4, in 
paragraph (a), add a heading to read ``Director'', and in the first 
sentence, add the word ``Director'' between ``The'' and ``is''.

[FR Doc. 2014-30467 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RODNEY CAMPBELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2456

[January 8, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Susan L. Alspector, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-

007892CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CONFESSION OF ERROR

KUNTZ, J.

Rodney Campbell appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated 

battery. On appeal, he argues the record is insufficient to allow appellate 

review of certain issues at trial. In response, the State explains:

The court reporter filed an affidavit indicating part of the notes 

for [Campbell’s] trial were damaged and unable to be 

transcribed. Following an attempt at reconstructing the 

missing portion of the transcript, the trial court entered an 

order that the missing portion of the proceedings could not be 

reconstructed.

Based on these facts, the State concedes error and agrees that the 

judgment and sentence must be reversed.
2

A defendant is not entitled to a full transcript of all proceedings. “When 

portions of the appellate record are incomplete, ‘[t]he question to be asked 

is whether the portions are necessary for a complete review.’” Smith v. 

State, 801 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Velez v. State, 

645 So. 2d 42, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). The defendant must also 

“demonstrate that there is a basis for a claim that the missing transcript 

would reflect matters which prejudice the defendant.” Jones v. State, 923 

So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla. 2006).1 

Here, both Campbell and the State agree that an attempt to provide 

meaningful appellate review through other means did not succeed. They 

also agree that Campbell satisfied his threshold burden of demonstrating 

a basis for his claim that the missing transcript would reflect matters that 

prejudiced him. See Jones, 923 So. 2d at 489. So we accept the State’s 

concession that the judgment and sentence must be reversed because of

the missing transcript and remand for a new trial. See, e.g., Robinson v. 

State, 262 So. 3d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Reversed and remanded.

CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 A transcript itself is not specifically required. See, e.g., Terry v. State, 263 So. 

3d 799, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (discussing Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(4)); Griffin 

v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 20 (1956) (A state is not required to provide a transcript 

to a defendant if there are “other means of affording adequate and effective 

appellate review.”).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2226 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2226

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Agencies, Commission on Fine Arts, National Capital Arts and Cultural 
                     Affairs for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Agencies, Commission on Fine Arts, National Capital Arts and Cultural 
                     Affairs for fiscal year 2024.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              COMMISSION ON FINE ARTS, NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND 
              CULTURAL AFFAIRS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
Commission on Fine Arts, National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $2,750,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1931 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations, 

Program Administration for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, State Unemployment Insurance and 

Employment Service Operations, Program Administration for fiscal year 2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1931 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, STATE UNEMPLOY3 MENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERV4 ICE OPERATIONS, PROGRAM ADMINISTRA5 TION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Labor, State Unemployment In9 surance and Employment Service Operations, Program 

10 Administration for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $108,674,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
11955.

#### Nickajack Milling *&*Grain Co. *v.*International Vegetable Oil Co.

Decided March 9, 1921.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. October 6, 1920.

*Hewlett & Dennis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Little, Lowell, Smith & 6-oldstein,*contra.

Luke, J.

The judgment of the judge of the superior court sustaining the certiorari in this case has the effect of granting a new trial; and this being the first grant of a new trial, and the evidence not having demanded the verdict, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the judgment of the judge of the superior court will not be set aside. See *Shirley*v. *Swafford,*119 *Ga.*43-4 (45 S. E. 722), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J.', concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY McCANTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00027-CG-M

)

GREDE II, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT is 

entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, Anthony McCants. It is, 

therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice. Costs are to be taxed against Plaintiff.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00027-CG-M Document 50 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 1
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

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of Preferred Investment
Solutions Corp., the Managing Owner of World Monitor Trust II  Series E (the Registrant), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                                                                               
|David K. Spohr Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration (Principal Financial/Accounting
Officer)

Date: March 30, 2007
#### Annette MCCLENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-16783.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 23, 2006.

John Foster Cruikshank, Esq., Cruikshank and Cruikshank, Stockton, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shelley L. Green, City Attorney’s Office, Dana A. Suntag, Esq., Suntag *&*Feuerstein, Stockton, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Annette McClendon appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that police officers illegally searched her house. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.,*194 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants because the evidence showed that McClendon’s son, who had acquiesced to warrantless searches of his residence as a term of his probation, had represented to his probation officer that he resided in McClendon’s house. *See Motley v. Parks,*432 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Defendant officers thus had probable cause to believe McClendon’s son was a resident of her house, and were entitled to maintain that belief despite McClendon’s assertions to the contrary. *See id.*at 1080-82. The record shows that the officers did learn that McClendon’s son was in jail, but not until the search was completed.

All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.