alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

143 CA 16-00184 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL HOMEOWNERS AND BRIGHTON EASTBROOKE HOMEOWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 1.)

---------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 2.)

---------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

TOWN OF BRIGHTON BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, ASSESSOR OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON AND TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 3.) (APPEAL NO. 2.)

DAVIDSON FINK, LLP, ROCHESTER (THOMAS A. FINK OF COUNSEL), FOR-2- 143 CA 16-00184

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

JACOBSON LAW FIRM, P.C., PITTSFORD (ROBERT L. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended modified order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered November 18, 2015. The amended modified order granted in part the motion of petitioner to modify an order and judgment entered March 27, 2015 to the extent of designating owners entitled to refunds.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Villar v Howard , 126 AD3d 1297, 1300, affd 28 NY3d 74).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 206 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 206

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that 
 artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify 
  as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the 
  State involved and approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and 
              Drug Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that 
 artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify 
  as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the 
  State involved and approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and 
              Drug Administration, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Technology Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR MACHINE 
              LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES.

    Section 503(b) of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
353(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(6) In this subsection, the term `practitioner licensed by law to 
administer such drug' includes artificial intelligence and machine 
learning technology that are--
            ``(A) authorized pursuant to a statute of the State 
        involved to prescribe the drug involved; and
            ``(B) approved, cleared, or authorized under section 
        510(k), 513, 515, or 564.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES WARD, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-515-M

 :

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Commission of Social Security, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Plaintiff James Ward and against Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff be AWARDED an EAJA 

attorney’s fee in the amount of $3,319.97.

DONE this 11th day of September, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00515-M Document 26 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 1
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
                   18 U.S.C.Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, Peter A. Forman, Chief Executive Officer of Register.com, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(Section)1350 adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (i) The Company's accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                             /s/ Peter A. Forman
                                             -------------------
                                             Peter A. Forman
                                             Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  November 9, 2004
```
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-92049 on Form S-8 of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries of
our report dated February 16, 2000, except for Note 14 which is as of March 15,
2000, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of XM Satellite Radio
Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) as of December 31,
1998 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999 and for the period from December 15,
1992 (date of inception) to December 31, 1999, and related schedule, which
report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of
XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries.

Our report, dated February 16, 2000, except for Note 14 which is as of March 15,
2000, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has not
commenced operations and is dependent upon additional debt or equity financing,
which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP


McLean, Virginia
March 15, 2000
Exhibit 32.2




Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Mandalay Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 of the
Company (the “Form 10-Q”) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
November 16, 2009




/s/ Russell BurkeRussell
      BurkeChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Exhibit 99.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of AdStar, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leslie Bernhard,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Leslie Bernhard
-----------------------
Leslie Bernhard
Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2003

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1823 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 535
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1823

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 25, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, as the 
   ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 535

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1823

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, as the 
   ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 of
Cytomedix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Andrew S. Maslan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:




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
      for said period.









/s/Andrew S.
Maslan


Andrew S.
Maslan


Chief
Financial Officer


Date:  August
10, 2009




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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1836

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ALBERT LOWRY,Personally and in his capacity as: Leader agent for EAI and ES; ENTREPRENEURIAL SYSTEMS, LLC, and/or its successor(s) and assigns; EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT INSTITUTE, personally and in his official capacities; ADAM LEVINE, Esq., personally and in his official capacities Agent for Lowry, EAI and ES; SETH BERENZWEIG, Esq., personally and in his official capacity as Agent(s) for Lowry, EAI and ES; SARAH ZAFFINA, Esq., personally and in her official capacity as: Agent for Lowry, EAI and ES; DOUGLAS HERNDON, Judge; DENIS SMITH, Judge, In his personal and official capacities,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00394-JRS)

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM:

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Fiorani v. Lowry , No. 3:08-cv-00394-JRS (E.D. Va.,

July 21, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### 30 E. 33rd St. Realty LLC, Appellant, v PPF Off Two Park Avenue Owner, LLC, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 106]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 3, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In 1927, defendant’s predecessor in interest built a taller building on property adjoining plaintiffs building. Defendant’s predecessor in interest also extended plaintiffs chimney, in order to bring plaintiffs existing chimney into compliance with the height requirements of the then applicable Building Code. In 1968, the Building Code was amended and, for the first time, required the owner of a taller, later-built building, not only to extend the height of any chimneys in adjoining buildings to conform to Code requirements, but also to maintain and repair the chimney extensions. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendant is responsible, pursuant to the 1968 Building Code of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 27-860 (f) (4), to repair the chimney on its property. Plaintiffs arguments are unavailing.

It “has long been a primary rule of statutory construction that a new statute is to be applied prospectively, and will not be given retroactive construction unless an intention to make it so can be deduced from its wording” *(Aguaiza v Vantage Props.,*
      *516
      *LLC,*69 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, Administrative Code § 27-860 does not contain any language indicating an intent that it be given retroactive effect. Further, there is no common-law duty to maintain or repair a chimney extension constructed under any of the New York City Building Codes. Indeed, an owner’s “responsibility to alter the chimneys of [adjoining properties] to conform to height requirements (§ 27-860 [a]), and to maintain and repair them (§ 27-860 [f] [4]), is clearly imposed by statute and did not exist at common law” *(Mindel v Phoenix Owners Corp.,*17 AD3d 227, 228 [1st Dept 2005]; *see also Bondoc v Zervoudis,*270 AD2d 105, 106 [1st Dept 2000]). The two older cases relied on by plaintiff are neither controlling nor persuasive *(see People v Siegal,*62 Misc 2d 921 [Crim Ct, NY County 1970]; *Grau v McNulty & Sons Holding Co., Inc.,*170 Misc 1 [App Term, 1st Dept 1939], *revg*168 Misc 165 [NY City Ct 1938]).

Given the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties’ arguments regarding the statute of limitations.

Concur—Andrias, J.E, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
#### Jose Luis Zaragoza MURILLO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*971Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Richard Mendez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jose Luis Zaragoza Murillo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal and denying his application for remand to the Immigration Judge.

To the extent petitioner seeks review of the BIA’s decision not to remand petitioner’s appeal to the Immigration Judge, the petition is summarily denied because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

We have reviewed the response to the court’s August 27, 2007 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID L. JOHNSON, AIS 134016, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CA. 11-0228-CG-C

)

PENTON ASHWORTH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Orders entered on March 27, 2014 (Doc. 214) and 

March 31, 2015 (Doc. 250), it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 

JUDGMENT is entered against Plaintiff, David L. Johnson, and in favor of:

1) Defendant James English on all claims asserted against him; 

2) Defendants James Pate and Roger Marsh on the Plaintiff’s claims for 

assault and battery, for negligent failure to allow ADOC procedure, and for willful 

and wanton misconduct; 

3) Defendant Penton Ashworth on Plaintiff’s claims for negligent failure to 

follow ADOC procedure relating to Dunn’s alleged use of excessive force, for willful 

and wanton failure to prevent Dunn from kicking and punching plaintiff, for 

negligent retention and supervision1; and 

4) Defaulting Defendants Donald Bell and Christopher Mummert on all 

claims asserted against them.

 1 As noted in the Report and Recommendation entered on January 27, 2015 (Doc. 248), the 

Plaintiff entered into a compromise settlement with Defendants Kevin Dunn, Penton Ashworth, 

James Pate, and Roger Marsh on the remaining pending claims prior to the evidentiary hearing held 

on August 13, 2014.

Case 1:11-cv-00228-CG-C Document 251 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Penton Ashworth, Kevin Dunn, James 

Pate, Roger Marsh, Donald Bell, Chris Mummert, and James English are hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00228-CG-C Document 251 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 2
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

		 that the motion is:

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months  ! "# .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

		.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

FRANK JEFFERY McGILL 06-00176-004

09554-003

January 15, 2008

Pro Se

✔

✔

131 105 months

January 15, 2008

January 26, 2012 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 802 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 1