alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patricia Flynn, Appellant, v Mikhael N. Haddad, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 639]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered May 11, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is' hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell immediately after descending the single step that led into defendant’s garage. In her complaint and bill of particulars, plaintiff alleged that the premises were defective in that the garage floor was painted with a paint that created an unreasonably slippery surface.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “ ‘[I]n the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish [or other substance], the mere fact that a smooth floor may be slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence’ ” *(Ciccarelli v Cotira, Inc.,*24 AD3d 1276, 1276 [2005]; *see Waiters v Northern Trust Co. of N.Y.,*29 AD3d 325, 326-327 [2006]; *see generally Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969, 971 [1994]). In support of the motion, defendant submitted his deposition testimony, wherein he testified that he painted the garage floor 8 to 10 years prior to the accident with a paint that he believed gave the floor a nonslip finish. He further testified that, prior to the accident, no one ever slipped and fell on the garage floor; no one ever told him that the floor was slippery; and he did not detect that the floor was slippery. Defendant thus established as a matter of law that he did not apply the paint in a negligent manner, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Walsh v Super Value, Inc.,*76 AD3d 371, 374-377 [2010]).

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff raised for the first time *1210the theory that she fell due to a defect in the step, i.e., it was too high and threw off her balance. It is well settled that “ ‘[a] plaintiff cannot defeat an otherwise proper motion for summary judgment by asserting a new theory of liability for negligence for the first time in opposition to the motion’ ” *(Marchetti v East Rochester Cent. Sch. Dist.,*26 AD3d 881, 881 [2006]; *see Mullaney v Royalty Props., LLC,*81 AD3d 1312, 1313 [2011]; *Rumyacheva v City of New York,*36 AD3d 790, 790-791 [2007]; *Forester v Golub Corp.,*267 AD2d 526, 527 [1999]). Plaintiff may therefore not rely on that theory to defeat defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment *(see Rodriguez v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y.,*107 AD3d 651, 651 [2013]; *Taylor v Jaslove,*61 AD3d 743, 744-745 [2009]; *Wilson v Prazza,*306 AD2d 466, 467 [2003]). Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL SMITH, a/k/a Lil Mikey , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr
- 00677

- GLR

- 21 ; 1:17

- cv
- 02828

- GLR )

Submitted : November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appe al must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 15, 2019. The notice of appeal was filed on May 18, 2019

. * Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. A pp. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, N. Malone Mitchell 3rd,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TransAtlantic Petroleum
Ltd.; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2016 |  |  |  | /s/ N. Malone Mitchell 3rd   
|                     |  |  |  | N. Malone Mitchell 3rd       
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001370

30-NOV-2015

09:42 AM
---

EXHIBIT 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT
TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of ACME Communications, Inc. (the Company) hereby
certify that, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350:

| | (i) the annual report on Form 10-K for the twelve months ending December 31, 2005
of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: April 7, 2006 |  | /s/ Thomas D. Allen
Thomas D. Allen
Executive Vice President &
   Cheif Financial Officer
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ Jamie Kellner
Jamie Kellner
Cheif Executive Officer &
   Chairman of the Board
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (“CRM”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerome S. Flum, 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | Jerome S. FlumChief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

 

May 15, 2009

 

This certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability of that section.

 

18

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2223 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2223

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
    Agencies, National Endowment for the Arts 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, National Endowment for the Arts 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, 
              NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Woodrow Flemming, Appellant, v David Rock, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 901]

*534Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry Stephen, J.), entered January 24, 2012, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was improperly brought in a county other than the county of incarceration *(see People ex rel. Harris v Conway,*48 AD3d 353 [1st Dept 2008], *appeal dismissed, lv denied*10 NY3d 884 [2008]). Furthermore, to the extent the petition raises claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not available *(People ex rel. Ragland v Bellnier,*83 AD3d 1351 [3d Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 706 [2011]), and such claims are unavailing in any event. “[A] writ of habeas corpus is not an appropriate vehicle for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel” *(People ex rel. Grant v Scully,*190 AD2d 543, 544 [1st Dept 1993], *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 946 [1998]). Concur— Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Carl Allen, Appellant, v Evelyn Maribel, Respondent.

[966 NYS2d 685]

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated December 8, 2011, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

During the course of a pending criminal action against the petitioner on the charge of murder in the second degree, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that preindictment delay in the commencement of the prosecution violated his constitutional *832right to due process (see *generally People v Singer,*44 NY2d 241 [1978]). Generally, “[h]abeas corpus does not lie to determine whether the right to a speedy trial has been denied in a pending criminal action” *(People ex rel. Harrison v Greco,*38 NY2d 1025, 1025 [1976]; *see People ex rel. McDonald v Warden, N.Y. City House of Detention for Men,*34 NY2d 554, 555 [1974]). Rather, the issue could be raised on the petitioner’s direct appeal from any judgment of conviction rendered against him *(see People ex rel. Hunter v Buffardi,*15 AD3d 736 [2005]; *People ex rel. Braxton v Warden,*254 AD2d 381 [1998]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the circumstances of this case did not present a situation where “[departure from traditional orderly proceedings, such as appeal, should be permitted ... by reason of practicality and necessity” *(People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257, 262 [1966]; *see People ex rel. Chakwin v Warden, N.Y. City Correctional Facility, Rikers Is.,*63 NY2d 120, 125 [1984]; *People ex rel. Latta v Morgenthau,*73 AD3d 593 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certifications of Chief Executive and Chief FinancialOfficers**

 

 

*The following statement is being furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349), which carries with it certaincriminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.*

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC  20549

 

Re:  Andrew Corporation

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In accordance with therequirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349),each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

(i)                                     thisCurrent Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Andrew Corporation.

 

 

Dated as of this 1st day ofAugust 2003.

 

 
|  /s/ Ralph E. Faison              |                                       |  /s/ Charles R. Nicholas |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Ralph E.  Faison                       | Charles R.  Nicholas                       |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer | Vice  Chairman and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to AndrewCorporation and will be retained by Andrew Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
12114.

#### Wallace *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Accusation of possessing intoxicating liquor; from city court of Hall county — Judge Wheeler. December 29, 1920.

From the evidence it appears that two policemen in an automobile saw the defendant standing in a road by his Ford car, which had broken down; they stopped and he started across the road, on the other side, and they told him to stop and wait; they “saw his tracks where he had got out of the car and gone down a little bluff;” the ground was muddy, and the tracks were those of a long keen-toed shoe; one of the policemen followed the tracks and found in the woods, at a distance of about 20 or 30 feet from the ear, a jug containing about three gallons of whisky, and brought it back; the other policeman then followed the tracks a little further and found a ten-gallon keg of whisky, which he bro'ught back; the policemen put the jug and the keg in their automobile, and, *622taking the defendant with them in their ear, went “ back to town.” The defendant said there was a man at Cain’s shop who would make his bond; that a man who had come with him from Pendergrass was waiting at Cain’s shop; they went there in the automobile, and the defendant pointed to a man standing across the street from Cain’s shop and said that this man was the man; the policemen motioned or called to him to come up to them, and the first thing the man said was that he knew nothing at all about “ that liquor;” that he “ just rode up with that man.” The defendant was present and heard this. When the man said this the doors of the car were shut and the man was standing on the sidewalk. In the motion for a new trial it was alleged that the court erred in admitting the testimony of the policeman as to the statement of this man that he knew nothing about the liquor, counsel for the defendant having objected to it as being irrelevant and hearsay, and as being a voluntary expression which would not bind the defendant or connect him with the liquor.

*621Luke, J.

The court did not err in admitting the evidence complained of in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial; and, the evidence being sufficient to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, the judgment denying a new trial must be

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodwortfh, J., eonew.*

*622
      *B. P. Gaillard Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. D. Kenyon, solicitor,*contra.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2209 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Gifts, Donations, and Bequests for Forest and Rangeland 

Research 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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Gifts, Donations, and Bequests for Forest and Rangeland Research 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 2209 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GIFTS, 

3 DONATIONS, AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST 

4 AND RANGELAND RESEARCH FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Gifts, Donations, 

9 and Bequests for Forest and Rangeland Research for fis10 cal year 2024 may not exceed $45,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
----

|   | 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 Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual      Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 31, 2008 |   |                               |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                      | By:    | /s/                                |
|                      |   | Timothy      Carnahan              |
|                      |   | Chief      Executive Officer & |
|                      |   | Principal      Financial Officer   |

----
|   | · | 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:  November                3, 2006 | /s/  James                H.                Miller                                         |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             | James                H. MillerChairman,                President and Chief Executive OfficerPPL                Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                   |
#### In the Matter of Daniel Clay, Petitioner, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 918]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding after he was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting smuggling. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to his inmate account. Petitioner provides nothing to support his assertion that he is entitled to any additional relief and, thus, the proceeding is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Santiago v Fischer,*101 AD3d 1206, 1206 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.