alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Oscar Flores, Respondent, v Viola Stankiewicz et al., Appellants.

[827 NYS2d 281]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglas, J.), dated November 16, 2005, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the defendants, and the respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants are granted.

The defendants satisfied their respective burdens on this motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by establishing, prima facie, on the basis of the same submissions, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The opinions expressed by the plaintiffs treating neurologist asserted on the basis of the unsworn and unaffirmed reports of other physicians were not properly considered by the court *(see Vallejo v Builders for Family Youth, Diocese of Brooklyn, Inc.,*18 AD3d 741 [2005]; *Mahoney v Zerillo,*6 AD3d 403 [2004]; *Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental,*216 AD2d 266 [1995]). The conclusions reached by the neurologist on the basis of his own *805observations and the magnetic resonance imaging report submitted by the plaintiff, which, although uncertified, was properly considered because it was relied upon by the defendants *(see Zarate v McDonald,*31 AD3d 632 [2006]; *Ayzen v Melendez,*299 AD2d 381 [2002]), were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a serious injury within the meaning of the statute. A bulging or herniated disc is not evidence of serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration *(see Yakubov v CG Trans Corp.,*30 AD3d 509 [2006]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Diaz v Turner,*306 AD2d 241 [2003]). The plaintiffs affidavit was insufficient to satisfy that requirement *(see Yakubov v CG Trans Corp., supra).*The plaintiff also failed to proffer competent medical evidence that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days subsequent to the accident *(see Bravo v Rehman,*28 AD3d 694 [2006]; *Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]).

The Supreme Court should not have considered the plaintiffs alleged documentary proof as it was submitted in counsel’s self-entitled “Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition,” which was, in effect, an improper sur-reply *(see*CPLR 2214; *Mu Ying Zhu v Zhi Rong Lin,*1 AD3d 416 [2003]; *Voytek Tech. v Rapid Access Consulting,*279 AD2d 470 [2001]). Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
31.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL KELLEHER


I, Michael Kelleher, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Triad Industries, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the date within 90 days prior to filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 30,2005                     /s/ Michael Kelleher
                                                         -----------------
                                                         Michael Kelleher
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2329 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the United StatesChina Economic and Security Review Commission 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 Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the 

United States-China Economic and Security Review 

Commission 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 THE UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 

5 SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for the United States-China Economic and Security 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2329 IH

1 Review Commission for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $3,500,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32(c)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive 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 7, 2004 | /s/ William F. HechtWilliam F. Hecht
President
PPL Energy Supply, LLC
|------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2382 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to designate September 11 Day 

of Remembrance as a legal public holiday. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. LAWLER (for himself, Mr. D’ESPOSITO, Mr. RYAN, and Mr. TRONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to designate 

September 11 Day of Remembrance as a legal public holiday. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘September 11 Day of 

5 Remembrance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SEPTEMBER 11 DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AS A LEGAL 

7 PUBLIC HOLIDAY. 

8 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

9 amended by inserting after the item relating to Labor Day 

10 the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2382 IH

1 ‘‘September 11 Day of Remembrance, Sep2 tember 11.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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





In connection with the annual report of VLOV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bennet P. Tchaikovsky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





/s/ Bennet P. Tchaikovsky
 Bennet P. Tchaikovsky
 Chief Financial Officer
 March 31, 2011





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.
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 SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the
  "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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: November 10, 2003 | /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.
Exhibit 32(f)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2004

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, 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:  August 6, 2004 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. AbelTreasurerPPL Electric Utilities 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.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 15, 2023

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00274-CV

TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND PATRICIA MCCOLLUM, Appellants

V.

CITY OF MESQUITE, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS 

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16933

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Before the Court is the April 27, 2023 letter of counsel for appellants stating 

that they are withdrawing their notice of appeal. We construe the letter as a motion 

to dismiss, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

230274f.p05

/Cory L. Carlyle//

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND 

PATRICIA MCCOLLUM, 

Appellants

No. 05-23-00274-CV V.

CITY OF MESQUITE, ACTING BY 

AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF 

ADJUSTMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16933.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF MESQUITE, ACTING BY AND 

THROUGH ITS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellants TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND PATRICIA MCCOLLUM.

Judgment entered this 15th day of May, 2023.
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00577-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.P., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-00991

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s November 15, 2022 unopposed second motion 

for extension of time to file his brief, which is currently due November 22, 2022. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief filed no later than December 22, 

2022.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Seneca Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Sultana Distribution Services, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 27]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered December 30, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

After occupying the subject premises for a number of years as a sublessee under a 2001 lease, Sultana leased the premises directly from defendant. Under this new lease, Sultana accepted the premises “as is,” acknowledging its previous occupancy and familiarity with the physical condition. Sultana agreed to take care of the water connections, pipes and mains, inter alia, to the extent they are part of the premises, and to keep, maintain and “make all repairs therein and thereon, interior and exterior, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen” (§ 13.01). Article 18 of the lease provided that the landlord would not be *249liable for any damage to the premises or property caused by “use, misuse or abuse ... or that may arise from any other cause whatsoever,” although the landlord would be liable for damage resulting from its own gross negligence. The lease also held the landlord harmless from all liabilities (art 19), and required the tenant to obtain insurance coverage designating the landlord as an additional insured with a waiver of subrogation (art 8).

After Seneca paid its insured on a claim based on the malfunctioning of the sprinkler system, it commenced this subrogation action against defendant landlord. The court properly granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint since Seneca, as a subrogee, stood in the shoes of a tenant that could not avoid the covenants of the lease *(see Kaf-Kaf, Inc. v Rodless Decorations,*90 NY2d 654, 660 [1997]). Even if the insurance policy did not name the City as an additional insured, such breach by Sultana would not have imposed on defendant any liability for the property damage, and Seneca would have no additional rights against the City.

While the lease does hold the landlord liable for gross negligence and failure to perform certain maintenance and repairs (§ 13.04 [b]), these lease provisions are inapplicable here.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Opinion issued March 26, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00740-CV

———————————

ZAMICK TANNARPATIA MILHOUSE, Appellant

V.

EBONIE MCCAIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2006-74892

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Zamick Tannarpatia Mihouse, attempts to appeal from the trial 

court’s August 25, 2014 “Order on Motion for New Trial.” We dismiss.

The trial court issued an “Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child 

Relationship” on March 17, 2014. On April 8, 2014, the amicus attorney filed a 
2

“Motion for New Trial or In the Alternative Motion to Withdraw the Final Order.” 

The trial court granted the motion for new trial on August 25, 2014. Appellant 

filed a notice of appeal on August 30, 2014, attempting to appeal from the trial 

court’s order granting the motion for new trial.

“An order granting a new trial is an unappealable, interlocutory order.” 

Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993); see Shqeir v. Shqeir, 

No. 05-00-00044-CV, 2000 WL 370914, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 12, 2000, 

no pet.) (not designated for publication) (“If [a] court grants [a] motion for new 

trial after [the] plenary power of the court has expired, as appellant claims in this 

appeal, remedy for that act lies by original proceeding.”). 

Further, the trial court’s September 17, 2014 order vacating its August 25, 

2014 order granting the motion for new trial appears to have rendered this appeal 

moot. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzales, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000); 

In re Blatty, No. 01-14-00345-CV, 2014 WL 4354169, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Sept. 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Mallory, No. 12-12-

00195-CV, 2012 WL 4097307, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 19, 2012, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that trial court order vacating previous trial court 

order rendered complaint about previous order moot).

On February 19, 2015, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice that this Court 

might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response 
3

within 10 days of the Notice explaining how this Court had jurisdiction over this 

appeal. Appellant did not adequately respond to the Notice.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-144338 on Form S-8 of our reports dated September 12, 2008,relating to the consolidated financial statements of ShoreTel, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of ShoreTel Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB StatementNo. 109,*effective July 1, 2007*,*and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment,*effective July 1, 2006), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ShoreTel,Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2008. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

September 12, 2008