alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John P. QUINN, Jr., a minor, by John P. Quinn and Phyllis Quinn, parents and natural guardians, and John P. Quinn and Phyllis Quinn, in their own right, Plaintiffs v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Attilio J. Balbo, a/k/a A. J. Balbo, and Richard P. Gray and Jean Gray, Defendants.

Civ. No. 63-344.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 27, 1964.

*35McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Kirkpatrick, Pomeroy, Lockhart & Johnson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Chrysler Corp.

Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Balbo.

Reed & Egler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants Richard P. Gray and Jean Gray.

MARSH, District Judge.

In this personal injury diversity action the plaintiffs allege negligence and breach of warranties on the part of the defendants with respect to an allegedly defective handbraking system installed in the 1958 Plymouth station wagon manufactured by defendant Chrysler. The defendant Chrysler has moved pursuant to Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., for the production of the handbrake assembly presently in possession of the plaintiffs or their expert, A. J. MeKelvey. It avers that photographing, X-ray examination, inspection, and testing of this assembly is essential to the preparation of a defense; specifically, it asks for an order to disassemble the handbrake assembly in order to secure a complete expert inspection. After argument, by letter to the court, counsel for Chrysler withdrew its request to disassemble the handbrake assembly, which was vigorously opposed by the plaintiffs. See affidavit of A. J. MeKelvey. Accordingly, we consider here only the requests for production for the purposes of photographing, X-ray examination, and testing the handbrake assembly. In its brief, Chrysler limits its request for testing the handbrake assembly to installing it in another vehicle of similar make, model, and year, in order that a'ffractional test thereof may be conducted.1

In our opinion, the scope of Rule 34 encompasses the type of discovery herein sought by Chrysler, 4 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 34.19 [5], p. 2480, and good cause has been shown since the plaintiffs, who contend that the injuries sustained by them were caused by the defective handbrake assembly, have possession thereof, and the movant cannot test and photograph the mechanism without an order. The affidavit submitted by plaintiffs does not suggest that the allegedly patent defects of the handbrake assembly will be disturbed by installation and functional testing thereof in a similar vehicle, but addresses itself only to the request of Chrysler, now withdrawn, for *disassembling*of the mechanism. Accordingly, defendant Chrysler’s motion for production will be granted, consistent with this opinion.

An appropriate order will be entered.

1

. Brief of Chrysler Corporation, defendant, received December 19,1963, j>. 2.
1 Rule 10 Court of Appeals - (a) Affirmance Without Opinion . The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges pa rticipating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when a n opinion would have no precedential value and one or mor

e of the f ollowing circumst ances e xist and are

dispositive

of the ap peal: (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary

implication by the trial cou rt.

. . . . (3) no re versible error o f law app ears. 1 

# FILED Jan. 29, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT JACKS ON

_______________________________________________________ ) MONICA R . WILLIAMS, ) Shelby County Circuit Court ) No. 147704 R.D. Plaintiff/Appellee. ) ) VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9604-CV-00088 ) CLAUDE WIL LIAMS, ) ) Defend ant/Appe

llant. ) )

______________________________________________________________________________ OPINION

AND ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Claude D. Williams (Husband) appeals from thetrial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to be paid

to Monica

R. Williams (

Wife) at $ 500 per month for e ightee n months. This was a mar

riage of approximately

five y ears dur ation. Wife

was a jun

ior in colle ge attending schoo l full-time and work ing two p art-time

jobs. She testifiedthat her net incom

e was $880 and h

er expens es $1,507 per month . Husband has a n engi neering degree

and earns approxima

tely $ 38,000 annually. No childre n were born to the marriage. Wife wa s granted the divorce on the g rounds of inapprop riate ma rital conduct. Upon reviewing thi s record, we conc lude that the trial court wa s correct in determining that this was a proper case for reha bilitative alimony. The evidence supports need on the part of Wife and the ability to pa y on the part of H

usband. The judgment is affirmed in accordanc e with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a)(1)(3). 12

Co st s o f t hi s a pp ea l a re ta xe d t o t he ap pe ll an t, fo r w hi ch ex ec ut io n m ay i ss ue if ne ce ss ar y.

________________________________ FAR MER , J.

______________________________ HIG HERS, J. (Conc

urs)

______________________________ LI LL ARD, J. (Conc

urs)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3657 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3657

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed by 
     the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2006

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed by 
     the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds.

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

SECTION 1. BONDS GUARANTEED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 149(b)(3)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for certain insurance 
programs) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' after ``Corporation,'', and
            (2) by inserting at the end the following: ``or the Federal 
        home loan banks,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wallkill Medical Development, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Sweet Constructors, LLC, Respondent.

Submitted January 20, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                 HOLLINGER INC.

                       INTEREST PAYMENT DUE MARCH 1, 2004


Toronto, Canada, March 1, 2004 -- Hollinger Inc. ("Hollinger") (TSX: HLG.C;
HLG.PR.B; HLG.PR.C) announced today that it has not made the interest payment
due March 1, 2004 on its outstanding US$120.0 million aggregate principal amount
of 11.875% senior secured notes due 2011 (the "Senior Secured Notes"). The
non-payment of interest does not constitute an event of default under the
indenture governing the Senior Secured Notes unless such non-payment continues
for a period of 30 days from the date such interest is due. Hollinger, together
with its advisors, are continuing to actively examine Hollinger's available
options in order to satisfy its obligations under the Senior Secured Note
indenture in a timely manner.

Hollinger's principal asset is its approximately 72.4% voting and 30.0% 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.


Media contact:                             For more information, please contact:

Jim Badenhausen                            Peter G. White
646-805-2006                               416-363-8721


                              www.hollingerinc.com
#### Ard v. Owens-Illinois

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 493

No. 220P07

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-376)

2. Pit’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 10/11/07

2. Dismissed as Moot 10/11/07
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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         February 4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 3E61, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-3679,                         *schleefrr@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 14, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00812 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of Opportune N., Respondent, v Clarence N., Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 245]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about September 2, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing in proceedings brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, determined that respondent husband had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the second degree; attempted assault in the third degree; menacing in the third degree; disorderly conduct; harassment in the second degree (two counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Family Court by appearing in the family offense proceeding commenced by petitioner wife, who was then residing in a shelter in New York State, and the Family Court therefore had personal jurisdiction over him. Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense is not limited by geography *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 318), and the court therefore could receive evidence and make fact-findings concerning incidents *431that occurred in Pennsylvania before respondent’s wife moved to New York with her daughters *(see Matter of Richardson v Richardson,*80 AD3d 32, 37-38 [2d Dept 2010]).

The determination that respondent committed the family offenses as enumerated above is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832). The court’s credibility determinations are supported by the record, and there is no basis to disturb them *(see Matter of Lisa S. v William V.,*95 AD3d 666 [1st Dept 2012]).

Respondent’s arguments concerning the order of protection issued on August 24, 2012 are not properly before this Court since he did not appeal from that order. In any event, an appeal from that order, except to the extent it gives rise to a permanent and significant stigma that might adversely affect respondent in future proceedings, would be moot since it has expired by its terms *(see Matter of Diallo v Diallo,*68 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 854 [2010]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MELANIE KRAMER, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-067 DECISION

On April 30,2009, the defendant was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Montana Women’s Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence, for the offense of Forgery, a felony. Defendant shall not be considered for parole until she has completed all programs as recommended by the initial classification board.

On October 9, 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).

*67The 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 9th day of October, 2009.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          60,220
<SECURITIES>                                   578,561
<RECEIVABLES>                                      320
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               644,287
<PP&E>                                         107,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,260)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 757,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       959,288
<OTHER-SE>                                   (254,036)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   757,793
<SALES>                                         13,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,305
<CGS>                                           11,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,909
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (144,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (144,569)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (144,569)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)


</TABLE>
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Finance Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other 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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 10th day of November,
2010.





/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief Finance
Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Property Investors 4;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 13, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long



Senior Vice President of NPI Equity Investments, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership
(January 15, 2009)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford McLeod, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 924]

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), entered August 28, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005.

Defendant, serving concurrent prison terms of six years to life and 1 to 3 years for his convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, respectively, moved for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643). County Court denied defendant’s application and this appeal ensued.

Defendant’s appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be pursued on appeal. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, defendant’s pro se letter and the record and are in agreement *(see People v Mills,*11 NY3d 527, 534-535 [2008]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw *943is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Rose, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.