alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Dun-Zheng Yan, Appellant, v Nancy Klein et al., Respondents.

[826 NYS2d 669]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J), dated May 5, 2004, which, after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court dated February 5, 2004, granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, for costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for frivolous conduct, is in favor of the defendants and against him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Conduct is frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 if it is completely without merit and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another *(see Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc.,*18 AD3d 429, 431 [2005]; *Tyree Bros. Envtl. Servs. v Ferguson Propeller,*247 AD2d 376, 377 [1998]). The plaintiff, following two prior actions, has “continued to press the same patently meritless claims,” most of which are now barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel *(Tsabbar v Auld,*26 AD3d 233, 234 [2006]). Moreover, all of the plaintiffs claims are “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 *730NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; *see Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich,*7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]). The plaintiffs conduct in persisting in advancing these claims, despite numerous warnings that doing so was frivolous *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; *see also Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co.,*294 AD2d 582, 584 [2002]), “appears to have been intended primarily to harass the defendants,” his former employer, and its employees *(Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, supra*at 492; *see Matter of Ferraro v Gordon,*1 AD3d 595, 598 [2003]; *Matter of Sud v Sud,*227 AD2d 319, 319 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, for costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWIN DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 124 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWIN DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 125 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2051 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2051

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs 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 Financial Services, and in addition to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs 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 DEPARTMENT OF 
              TREASURY, DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS 
              PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $4,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
**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**

I, Jeffrey S. Ward, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofAnchor Pacific Underwriters, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                       |

Dated:   November 21, 2002

 

|   | /s/   Jeffrey S. Ward                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                      |
|   | Jeffrey S. Ward Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10521 Summary Calendar

__________________
DAVID CHASE BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:92-CV-00121

- - - - - - - - - - January 29, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Chase Boyd contests the denial of his applications for Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income. We AFFIRM. Boyd's motion to file his reply brief in its present form is DENIED. Boyd presents two issues: (1) that the ALJ's hypothetical questions to the vocational expert failed to incorporate all of his limitations and Boyd's counsel did not have an adequate opportunity to remedy the defective hypothetical, and (2) thatNo. 95-10521 -2- the ALJ's decision was contrary to law because the ALJ committed legal errors by a) failing to apply Singletary v. Bowen , 798 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1986), and consider whether Boyd's alcohol abuse would prevent him from keeping employment; b) failing to follow the Appeals Council's instructions on remand; c) failing to consider Boyd's alcohol abuse under the guidance of Social Security Ruling 82-60; and d) failing to complete "B" criteria of new psychiatric review technique. We do not consider the first issue because Boyd did not raise it in the district court. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); James v. Bowen , 793 F.2d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1986). Nor do we consider the second issue because Boyd failed to raise it before the Appeals Council or in the district
court. Paul v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHORYA A. STATON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-49, CA-99-832-2)

Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chorya A. Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chorya A. Staton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which the

court properly construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. In his

motion, Staton sought reconsideration of the court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Staton, Nos. CR-93-49; CA-99-832-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2,

2001); see United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir.

2001) (holding that rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review), cert. denied, U.S. , 2001 WL 1244813 (U.S.

Nov. 13, 2001) (No. 01-6715). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Tyler J. and Another, Infants. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Appellant; David M. et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 840]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), entered January 24, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of the motion with respect to respondent Shana M. and reinstating that part of the petition, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Steuben County, for further proceedings.

*1362Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the neglect petition at the close of petitioner’s case during a fact-finding hearing. Petitioner’s contention that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition is limited to the allegation that the children are neglected children based upon the misuse of alcohol by respondent mother, Shana M., and thus petitioner has abandoned its contention with respect to respondent father/stepfather, David M. *(see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). With respect to the allegation of neglect against the mother, her 16-year-old son testified that she drinks beer nearly every day and that she often drinks beer all day and evening. A caseworker testified that the younger son told her that his mother starts drinking before he goes to school and is still drinking when he goes to bed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, we conclude that petitioner established a prima facie case of neglect based on the evidence that the mother “repeatedly misuses . . . alcoholic beverages ... to the extent that it has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of . . . intoxication” (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; *see Matter of Alfonzo H. [Cassie L.],*77 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2010]). We thus conclude that the court erred in granting the motion to dismiss with respect to the mother.

We reject petitioner’s contention that the court abused its discretion in precluding the testimony of a witness that petitioner failed to identify in response to respondents’ demand for a list of petitioner’s witnesses *(see generally McCarter v Woods,*106 AD3d 1540, 1541 [2013]).

We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition with respect to the mother. Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blindspot Alert, Inc. fka
Promotions on Wheels Holdings, Inc.  (the “Company”) for the year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:




1.           The
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/ Rowland W. Day IIRowland
      W. Day IIChief
      Executive Officer




Dated:
April 10,
2009





This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-K 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 purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Blindspot Alert, Inc. fka Promotions on
Wheels Holdings, Inc. and will be retained 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. 2294 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2294

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Food Assistance and Related Programs, Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export (Loans) Credit Guarantee Program Account 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, Food Assistance and Related Programs, Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export (Loans) Credit Guarantee Program Account 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, FOOD ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS, 
              COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT (LOANS) CREDIT 
              GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Food Assistance and Related Programs, Commodity Credit 
Corporation Export (Loans) Credit Guarantee Program Account for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $6,063,000.
                                 <all>
```
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. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, 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. FlumJerome S. FlumChief Executive Officer




May 14, 2010




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.
Exhibit 32.3
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Maria R. SchekerName:
    
    Maria R. SchekerTitle:
    
    Chief Accounting OfficerDate:
    
    May 16, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                                 HOLLINGER INC.


                  RETRACTION PRICE OF RETRACTABLE COMMON SHARES


          Toronto, Canada, May 11, 2004 -- Hollinger Inc. (TSX: HLG.C) announces
that the Retraction Price of the retractable common shares of the Corporation as
of May 12, 2004 shall be $10.50 per share.

          Hollinger Inc.'s principal asset is its approximately 72.3% voting and
29.7% equity interest in Hollinger International Inc. Hollinger International is
a global newspaper publisher with English-language newspapers in the United
States, Great Britain, and Israel. Its assets include The Daily Telegraph, The
Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator and Apollo magazines in Great Britain, the
Chicago Sun-Times and a large number of community newspapers in the Chicago
area, The Jerusalem Post and The International Jerusalem Post in Israel, a
portfolio of new media investments and a variety of other assets.

For further information please call:

J. A. Boultbee                          Peter G. White
Executive Vice-President                Co-Chief Operating Officer and Secretary
Hollinger Inc.                          Hollinger Inc.
(416) 363-8721                          (416) 363-8721
#### Universal American Corp., Appellant, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 241]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered January 8, 2013, which denied plaintiff insured’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that the policy does not provide coverage for the claimed loss, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly interpreted the policy as a matter of law *(see Dean v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*19 NY3d 704, 708 [2012]; *White v Continental Cas. Co.,*9 NY3d 264, 267 [2007]). The court correctly found that the unambiguous plain meaning of defendant’s computer systems fraud rider, covering loss from a fraudulent “entry of electronic data” or “change of electronic data” within the insured’s proprietary computer system, was intended to apply to wrongful acts in manipulation of the computer system, i.e., by hackers, and did not provide coverage for fraudulent content consisting of claims by bona fide doctors and other health care providers authorized to use the system for reimbursement for health care services that were not provided.

We modify solely to declare the rights of the parties in this action for declaratory relief *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *cert denied 371*US 901 [1962]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 859.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2022-0929

Joseph Gurganus v. Jeffrey Gurganus, Donna Connell, and Trena Wise 

(Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court: CV-17-10).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the ruling on the application for rehearing filed in this 

case and indicated below was entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

APPLICATION OVERRULED. NO OPINION. Bryan, J. -- 

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

WHEREAS, the appeal in the above referenced cause has been duly 

submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the 

judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on June 7, 2024:

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
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 JUNE 30, 2010
 
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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 5, 2010
/s/  Paul A. FarrPaul A. Farr

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.