alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michele Windisch, Appellant, v Anna G. Fasano, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 401]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Asarch, J.), entered November 30, 2011, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, and denied, as academic, her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated May 22, 2012, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered November 30, 2011, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 22, 2012, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 22, 2012, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon renewal, the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to determine the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant met her 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 defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiffs spine and to the plaintiffs left shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). The defendant also established, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs left shoulder were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 786 [2011]). Finally, the de*1040fendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Karpinos v Cora,*89 AD3d 994, 995 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising triable issues of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to the cervical region of her spine and to her left shoulder *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]), and as to whether the injuries to her left shoulder were caused by the subject accident *(see Crespo v Aparicio,*59 AD3d 384, 385 [2009]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to determine the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the merits

*(see Alvarez v Dematas,*65 AD3d 598 [2009]).

Dillon, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Francisco Javier GARFIAS-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72603.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 1, 2012.

Matt Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Stephen William Manning, Immigrant Law Group PC, Portland, OR, for Amicus Curiae.

Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge CHRISTEN did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**DEGOLYERAND MAC NAUGHTON**

 

**5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD**

**SUITE 800 EAST**

**DALLAS, TEXAS 75244**

March 10, 2008 

Dune Energy, Inc.

Two Shell Plaza 

777 Walker Street, Suite 2300 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the use of the name DeGolyer and MacNaughton and to the inclusion of the text of our “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2007on Certain Properties owned by Dune Energy Inc.” (our Report) as Exhibit 99.1 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dune Energy, Inc. We further consent to the use of information from our Report in the sections “Natural Gas and OilReserves” and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Business Strategy” of the Annual Report on 10-K of Dune Energy, Inc. 

Very truly yours,
##### 



News Announcement
 CONTACT:Richard E. Gaetz, President/CEO
    
    Robert L. RindermanKevin Glass, VP Finance/CFO
    
    Purdy R. TranVitran Corporation Inc.
    
    Jaffoni & Collins Incorporated416/596-7664
    
    212/835-8500 or VVN@jcir.com
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE VITRAN SHAREHOLDERS APPROVE TWO NEW BOARD DIRECTORS
AT COMPANYS ANNUAL MEETING - Georges Hébert and William Deluce Join Vitran Board - TORONTO, ONTARIO (April 28, 2004)  Vitran Corporation Inc. (AMX: VVN, TSX:
VTN.A), a North American transportation and logistics firm, today announced
that Company shareholders at Vitrans recent Annual General Meeting voted in
favor of the appointments of William Deluce and Georges Hébert to Vitrans
Board of Directors. Deluce and Hébert replace Carl Cook and Mark Curry, who
both retired after many years of valuable service and contributions as members
of the Board. Additionally, Vitran mourns the passing of Albert Gnat, one of Vitrans
founding partners and a long-serving Board member. Mr. Gnat provided
invaluable advice and support to the Board for many years. Mr. Deluce has been President and Chief Executive Officer of CSAE Inc. since
1998 and also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of McComas
Industries International Inc. and SMT Surface Modification Technologies Inc.,
from 1998 to 2000. Mr. Hébert is co-owner of Prosys-Tec Inc. and has been its President since
August 2003. From 1988 to 1998, Mr. Hébert was President of J.A. Provost Inc.
He is currently a director of Laurentian Bank of Canada. Vitran President and Chief Executive Officer Richard E. Gaetz stated, On
behalf of our entire Board, I would like to thank the departing directors for
their commitment to Vitran for many years and at the same time extend a warm
welcome to Mr. Hébert and Mr. Deluce. We look forward to their contributions
in the years ahead. About Vitran Corporation Inc. Vitran Corporation Inc. is a North American group of transportation companies
offering
less-than-truckload, logistics, truckload, and freight brokerage services. To
find out more about Vitran Corporation Inc. (AMX: VVN , TSX: VTN.A), visit the
website at www.vitran.com. Information in this news announcement relating to projected growth,
improvements in productivity and future results constitutes forward-looking
statements. Actual results in future periods may differ materially from the
forward-looking statements because of a number of risks and uncertainties,
including but not limited to economic factors, demand for the Companys
services, fuel price fluctuations, the availability of employee drivers and
independent contractors, risks associated with geographic expansion, capital
requirements, claims exposure and insurance costs, competition and
environmental hazards. Additional information about these and other factors
that could affect the Companys business is set forth in the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. # # #
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Perry, Also Known as William Johnson, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 908]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2006, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level *(see People v Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]). The court had assessed 105 points, which is nearly enough for a level-three adjudication. Furthermore, the underlying sex crime was very serious, and although defendant has not been convicted of additional sex crimes, he has since been convicted of significant drug crimes. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, 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 Websafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 14, 2011





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 WebSafety, Inc. fka Blindspot Alert, In. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2611 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the Secretary 

of the Treasury to permit an election relating to property transferred 

in connection with services to be made in electronic form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. MCHENRY (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and 

Ms. DELBENE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

the Secretary of the Treasury to permit an election relating to property transferred in connection with services 

to be made in electronic form. 

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 ‘‘Eliminating Paperwork 

5 for Startups Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2611 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING OF ELECTION RELATING TO 

2 PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN CONNECTION 

3 WITH SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 83(b)(2) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘(except 

6 that such election may be made in electronic form)’’ after 

7 ‘‘in such manner as the Secretary prescribes’’. 

8 (b) CONFIRMATION.—In the case of any election 

9 under section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

10 which is made in electronic form, the Secretary of the 

11 Treasury shall ensure that a confirmation of such election 

12 is sent in electronic form to the person making such elec13 tion. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this Act shall apply to elections made after the date that 

16 is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DEBRA LANEY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-98-620 DECISION

*21On July 1, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of two (2) years for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Count I: Deceptive Practices (Common Scheme), a felony, all of which shall run concurrently with the sentence received in Criminal Cause No. DC-98-225. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant be screened for the Passages program and upon acceptance follow all requirements and provisions. If not accepted, the defendant will be placed at a Department of Corrections Facility at the discretion of the department.

On April 3, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kris Copenhaver. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 3rd day of April, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
#### David J. BODNAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 06-2792.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 2006.*

Decided Oct. 23, 2006.

David J. Bodnar, Urbana, IL, pro se.

Before Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After an examination of the appellant’s brief and the record, we have con-eluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the brief and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

David Bodnar filed a complaint against the State of Texas for what he says were constitutional violations arising from a wrongful arrest and prosecution in Bexar County, Texas. Although it is difficult to decipher the exact nature of his allegations, what is clear is that he wishes to sue Texas, the only named defendant, for damages in the Central District of Illinois. But that is not allowed unless Texas consented to suit in the federal courts or Congress validly abrogated Texas’s immunity. *See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,*465 U.S. 89, 98-99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (explaining that the Eleventh Amendment confers upon *721States immunity from suit in federal courts absent State’s consent or Congress’s unequivocal intent to abrogate that immunity); *see also Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,*491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2804, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (“Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties” unless the State has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity); *Quern v. Jordan,*440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (explaining that Congress did not intend for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to override States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity). Neither exception is present here. Accordingly, the district court was correct that it lacked jurisdiction over this subject matter and properly dismissed the case without prejudice to Bodnar’s refiling his claim in the proper jurisdiction. *See Enk v. Brophy,*124 F.3d 893, 898 (7th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; TEDDY Data Coordinating Center (UC4).                    

*Date:*                         February 5, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dianne Camp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, Md 20892-2542, 301-594-7682,                         *campd@extra.niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 7, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00290 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ZACHERY WILSON, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00160-KD-N

TAWANNA BYRD, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (doc. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 15th day of April 2016.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 1 Wilson’s motion for status (doc. 34) is MOOT. 

Case 1:15-cv-00160-KD-N Document 35 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 1
**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |   |                                     |
|--------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | /s/ Waseem                A. Sayed  |
|                    |   |   | Waseem                A. Sayed           |
|               |   |   | Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KENNETH JAMES HANNA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth James Hanna, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Kenneth James Hanna appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), the court’s subsequent order granting 

his motion for reconsideration, granting his § 3582(c) motion, 

and reducing his sentence, and the court’s order denying his 

second motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hanna, 

No. 4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1 (D.S.C. June 23, 2008; July 17, 2008; 

Sept. 9, 2008). See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th 

Cir. 2009). We deny Hanna’s motion to remand and his motion for 

stay. 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