alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



FORM 6-K

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of November, 2003

Commission File Number 333-101591

Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation

5100 W. Lemon Street
Suite 3100
Tampa, Florida
33609

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover
Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F [   ]
    
    Form 40-F [X]


Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the
registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule
12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yes [   ]
    
    No [X]


If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-





---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Management Discussion and Analysis99.2
    
    Financial Statements for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2003






---



##### 



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: November 26, 2003

GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Tom LandaName:
    
    Tom LandaTitle:
    
    Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer and Secretary
#### Amy Vislocky, Appellant, v Zupis Taxi, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 591]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 24, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the plaintiff’s left knee did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Brackeche v Gladiator Trucking Corp.,*104 AD3d 633 [2013]; *Rojas v United Logistic, Inc.,*104 AD3d 667 [2013]; *Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ *732motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jose Figueroa, Petitioner, v John Byrne, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Eractice Law and Rules denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               612676                       0
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                       0
<PP&E>                             10158699                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                      6062929                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      4095770                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                       0
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<COMMON>                                  0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        4809515                       0
<SALES>                             1240247                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1247285                       0
<CGS>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      458178                       0     
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  458178                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         458178                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                       0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the  quarterly  period ended January 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date therein specified
(the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Anthony L. Havens, as Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Anthony L. Havens
-------------------------------
Anthony L. Havens
Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer

Date: March 22, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-303-000]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. American Transmission Systems, Inc.; 
Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective 
Date

    On December 31, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
ER15-303-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 
16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness 
and reasonableness of American Transmission Systems, Inc.'s (ATSI) 
12.38 percent return on equity in conjunction with ATSI's October 31, 
2014 section 205 filing proposing revisions to its with transmission 
formula rate and Protocols. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. et al., 149 
FERC ] 61,292 (2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. ER15-303-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 6, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00249 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 21.1

CURRENT SUBSIDIARIES OF TRIZETTO



|                                            |  |             
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|ENTITY NAME                                 |  | JURISDICTION
|                                            | 
|Creative Business Solutions, Inc.           |  | Texas       
|                                            | 
|Finserv Health Care Systems, Inc.           |  | New York    
|                                            | 
|Healthcare Media Enterprises, Inc.          |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|HealthWeb, Inc.                             |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Infotrust Company                           |  | Illinois    
|                                            | 
|Margolis Health Enterprises, Inc.           |  | California  
|                                            | 
|Novalis Corporation                         |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Digital Insurance Systems Corporation       |  | Ohio        
|                                            | 
|Health Networks of America, Inc.            |  | Maryland    
|                                            | 
|Novalis Development Corporation             |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Novalis Development & Licensing Corporation |  | Indiana     
|                                            | 
|Novalis Services Corporation                |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Options Services Group, Inc.                |  | Illinois    
|                                            | 
|Winthrop Financial Group, Inc.              |  | Illinois    
|                                            | 
|TriZetto Application Services, Inc.         |  | Colorado    
|                                            | 
|Diogenes, Inc.                              |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|CareKey, Inc.                               |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Plan Data Management, Inc.                  |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Quality Care Solutions, Inc.                |  | Nevada      
|                                            | 
|QCSI Puerto Rico, Inc.                      |  | Delaware
#### Daniel Ryan, Respondent, v Kellogg Partners Institutional Services, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 108]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kap-nick, J.), entered March 26, 2008, which, in an action arising out of a securities industry employment relationship, denied defendant former employer’s motion to compel arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA, formerly known as NASD), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant waived any right to arbitration by failing to raise it as a defense in its answer, asserting counterclaims, making a dispositive motion, and otherwise actively participating in this litigation for almost three years through the completion of extensive disclosure proceedings and the filing of a note of issue, all to the prejudice of plaintiff *(see Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc.,*4 NY3d 363, 371-372 [2005]; *see Matter of Advest, Inc. v Wachtel,*253 AD2d 659 [1998] [NASD arbitration subject to Federal Arbitration Act]). It does not avail defendant that plaintiff did not timely respond to defendant’s untimely arbitration demand. Once waived, the right to arbitration cannot be *482regained *(Tengtu Intl. Corp. v Pak Kwan Cheung,*24 AD3d 170, 172 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 30855(U).]
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Donald Speer, II, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 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 result of operations of
the Company.



By:

/s/    L. DONALD SPEER, IIL. Donald Speer, II Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Dated:
May 14, 2004
#### Stacey Falcone, Appellant, v Michael Falcone, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 132]—

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated March 26, 2012, which granted her motion for an award of interim counsel fees only to the extent of awarding her the sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in awarding her only $10,000 in interim counsel fees, when she had provided evidence that her unpaid counsel fees as of December 12, 2011, totaled $41,297.21. She contends that the court failed to consider all of the defendant’s sources of income. The plaintiff’s contentions are without merit.

*788Domestic Relations Law § 237 provides that in any action for a divorce, the court may direct either spouse to pay counsel fees directly to the attorney of the other spouse to enable the other party to carry on or defend the action as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties. The statute provides that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse. A determination of an application for interim counsel fees is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Such an award is intended to ensure that the nonmonied spouse “will be able to litigate the action, and do so on equal footing with the monied spouse” *(Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]; *see Coven v Coven,*82 AD3d 1144 [2011]). The issue of interim counsel fees is controlled by the equities of the case and the financial circumstances of the parties *(see Silver v Silver,*46 AD3d 667 [2007]; *Wald v Wald,*44 AD3d 848 [2007]). An award of interim counsel fees to the nonmonied spouse will generally be warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties *(see Kaminash v Levi,*102 AD3d 837 [2013]; *Palmeri v Palmeri,*87 AD3d 572 [2011]; *Penavic v Penavic,*60 AD3d 1026 [2009]; *Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d 61 [2008]).

The Supreme Court properly found that the defendant was the monied spouse, but that there was no significant disparity in the parties’ base salaries. The court considered that the defendant received approximately $25,000 annually in net rental income that was utilized solely by him, and that he had worked as a plumber in the past in addition to his other employment. Given the parties’ respective financial circumstances, the court’s award of $10,000 in interim counsel fees to the plaintiff was a provident exercise of discretion *(see Messinger v Messinger,*24 AD3d 631 [2005]; *Ferdinand v Ferdinand,*289 AD2d 195 [2001]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-820-000]


Zone One Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Zone One Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application 
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is January 26, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e080b1c0d01202227202b1d3b3e3e213c3a0e282b3c2d60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe9eafdece0c1c3c6c1cafcdadfdfc0dddbefc9caddcc81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 5, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00159 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Kinley, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 720]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 23, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding that he committed a reckless murder rather than an intentional one is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05; *People v Payne,*3 NY3d 266 [2004]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Santucci, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
* 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. 96-30835 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AMOS J. CONDE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 92-CR-451

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Amos J. Conde, Jr., federal prisoner # 23213-034, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for modification of the imposed term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Conde argues that his offense level should be reduced two levels under Amendment 515 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, his fine exceeds his ability to pay, and he should receive credit for time that he spent under house arrest prior to sentencing. Because Amendment 515 is not listed as retroactive in § 1B1.10(c) of the Guidelines, Conde’sNo. 96-30835 - 2 - claim concerning Amendment 515 is not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Miller , 903 F.2d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 1990). There is no authority to modify Conde’s fine or to credit him with time spent under house arrest under § 3582(c). See United States v. Lopez , 26 F.3d 512, 515 (5th Cir. 1994). Conde’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Conde is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Conde is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.