alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Flaherty Funding Corporation et al., Respondents, v Jennifer K. Johnson et al., Defendants, and MGIC Investor Services Corporation, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 374]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered August 9, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant MGIC Investor Services Corporation to dismiss.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is *1446unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint against defendant MGIC Investor Services Corporation is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, money damages after defendant MGIC Investor Services Corporation (MISC) allegedly made negligent misrepresentations while performing underwriting services with respect to two mortgage loans on which the borrowers subsequently defaulted and the subject properties were sold at a loss. MISC contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the complaint against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. We agree.

A cause of action for negligent misrepresentation must allege “ ‘(1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information’ ” *(Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein,*16 NY3d 173, 180 [2011], quoting *J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky,*8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007], *rearg denied*8 NY3d 939 [2007]). In this case, we agree with MISC that plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite special relationship between it and plaintiff Flaherty Funding Corporation (Flaherty) to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs alleged that MISC was “Flaherty’s underwriter” with respect to the first loan and was “the underwriter” on the second loan. Moreover, in the evidentiary material submitted by plaintiffs in support of their complaint, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is listed as MISC’s “client,” not Flaherty. “Generally, a special relationship does not arise out of an ordinary arm’s length business transaction between two parties” *(MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*87 AD3d 287, 296 [2011]; *see Wright v Selle,*27 AD3d 1065, 1067 [2006]) and, here, we conclude that plaintiffs alleged, at most, that Flaherty and MISC had an ordinary business relationship *(see MBIA Ins. Corp.,*87 AD3d at 296; *Niagara Foods, Inc. v Ferguson Elec. Serv. Co., Inc.,*86 AD3d 919, 920 [2011]). The court therefore erred in denying MISC’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it *(see generally Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; *Grossman v Pharmhouse Corp.,*234 AD2d 918, 919 [1996]).

In light of our conclusion, we need not address MISC’s remaining contentions.

Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 865 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 865

    To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to reauthorize the Price-
                          Anderson provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 2005

 Mr. Voinovich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to reauthorize the Price-
                          Anderson provisions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

    (a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees.--
Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``licenses'' and 
        inserting ``licensees'';
            (2) by striking ``December 1, 2003'' and inserting 
        ``December 1, 2025''; and
            (3) by striking ``December 31, 2003'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2025''.

SEC. 3. REPORTS.

    Section 170p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(p)) 
is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and inserting ``August 1, 
2025''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act take effect on December 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Tommy W. Davis, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00005

- CV v.

Northeast Texas Farmers Co

- Op, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV

41189 ). Opinion deliv ered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Tommy W. Davis, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 8, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joshua R. Peterson, Senior Vice President and Trust Officer of Compass Bank, on behalf of Compass Bank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust(the “Trust”),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 

COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

By:
 
/s/ Joshua R. Peterson

Name:
 
Joshua R. Peterson

Title:
 
Senior Vice President and Trust Officer

Date:
 
May 10, 2019

* The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD BORBON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1868

[ July 19, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Scott Suskauer , Judge ; L.T. Case No. 502021CF001722

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney Ge neral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Rodriguez v. State , 299 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 5th DC A 2020) (“ [E] ven if the trial court had separately erred in finding no legal basis to depart under section 921.0026(2)(j) [(step 1)],” because the trial

court “determined that this was not a case where it should depart (step 2)

, . . . such error would be harmless.”).

K LI NGENSMITH

, C.J.

, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30406 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANDRES ALCANTARA-LUZ, also known as Andres Perez Hernandez, also known as Jose Gonzales Luna, also known as Andres Alcantara, also known as Andres Alcantara Uribe, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. 99-CR-50068-1

-------------------- February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Andres Alcantara-Luz’s appointed counsel has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Alcantara-Luz received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Although counsel did not address the validity of Alcantara-Luz’s guilty plea, our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief reveals that the plea was valid and that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.No. 00-30406 -2- Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities in this case, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
#### Price v. N.C. Dep’t of Corr.

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 482P07

Pit’s PWC to review Decision of COA (COA06-492)

Denied 10/11/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                         40,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,153,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   509,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,781,000
<PP&E>                                         584,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 364,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,175,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,393,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       22,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,921,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,175,000
<SALES>                                        17,412,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,412,000
<CGS>                                          13,462,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,462,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,158,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,356,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             858,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,422,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,422,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,422,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>




                      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 of Alfa International
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, the undersigned certifies, 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
result of operations of Alfa International Corp.

/s/Frank J. Drohan
------------------
Frank J. Drohan
Chief Executive & Financial Officer

August 19, 2003

The originally executed copy of this Certification will be
maintained at the Company's offices and will be made available
for inspection upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements No. 333-72756 and 333-176740 of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. of our report dated November 16, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended August 31, 2011. 

/s/ KWCO, P.C.

KWCO, P.C. 

(Formerly Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.) 

Houston, Texas 

November 16, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             357,757
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        128,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             723,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,979,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,189,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,979,632
<SALES>                                            121,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   807,983
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      461,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    81,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    346,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                346,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       346,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.51
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Written Statement of Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended June 30,
2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Garrett E. PierceGarrett E. PierceVice Chairman and Chief Financial OfficerJuly 26, 2006
EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Thousands except                                            Three Months                     Nine Months
per share amounts)                                        Ended September 30,              Ended September 30,
                                                         1996            1995             1996            1995
                                                         ----            ----             ----            ----
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>   
PRIMARY

    Average shares outstanding                          12,929          11,804           12,872          11,100

    Net effect of dilutive stock
     options--based on the
     treasury stock method using
     average market price                                  514             539              513             466
                                                        ------        --------           ------        --------

                                     TOTAL              13,443          12,343           13,385          11,566
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======

Net income                                              $2,689         $ 2,500           $8,372          $5,701
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======

Per share amount                                        $ 0.20         $  0.20           $ 0.63         $  0.49
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======

FULLY DILUTED

    Average shares outstanding                          12,929          11,804           12,872          11,100

    Net effect of dilutive stock options--  
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the quarter-end market price, 
     if higher than the average market
     price                                                 526             549              526             549
                                                        ------        --------           ------        --------

                                     TOTAL              13,454          12,353           13,398          11,649
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======

Net income                                              $2,689         $ 2,500           $8,372         $ 5,701
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======

Per share amount                                        $ 0.20        $   0.20           $ 0.62        $   0.49
                                                        ======         =======           ======          ======
</TABLE>

NOTE:  Financial  data for all  periods  have been  restated  to  reflect  three
acquisitions  in May 1996 and May  1995,  each  accounted  for as a  pooling  of
interests in which 318,366 total shares were issued.
J

- A12023

- 16

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GENE C. BENCKINI
Appellant No. 1827 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 39

- SA

- 0000032

- 2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J. and STEVENS  , P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Gene C. Benckini received five summary citations for violations of the
Dog Law. He failed to appear for his summary trial before the magisterial
district justice. The magisterial district justice convicted him in absentia

. Benckini appealed to the court of common pleas. He continued his first de

novo trial. He later contacted the assistant district attorney assigned to the
case and indicated he was going to seek another continuance. He writes in

his brief that the assistant district attorney warned him to “make sure” he
filed a “continuance form.” Appellant’s Brief, at 3 (unpaginated). 1 He did not.

____________________________________________

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The argument section of Benckini’s brief consists of just two paragraphs. See Appellant’s Brief, at 5 (unpaginated ). In it, he focuses exclusively on alleged machinations involving a hit and run homicide case from September (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- A12023

- 16

- 2

-

And he failed to appear for the de novo trial. The trial court dismissed the
appeal.
It is undisputed that Benckin i had notice of the de novo trial or of his
knowledge that he needed to request, in writing, a continuance. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 106. When he failed to appear the trial court acted entirely
within its discretion to dismiss the summary appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
454(F)(2)(b) (“ [T]he defendant must appear for the de novo trial or the
appeal may be dismissed[.]”)
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/20/2016

(Footnote Continued )

_______________________ 1999. These allegations have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying matter here

— his five summary citations and the dismissal of his appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of A-Fem Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
Harvey, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to 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.


                                                 /s/ Martin Harvey
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Martin Harvey,
                                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer

Date:    September 1, 2005


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.