alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steve Johnson, Appellant, v Paul G. Broder, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[977 NYS2d 291]

In an action to reform a deed, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated July 12, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Paul G. Broder which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, so much of the complaint insofar as asserted against him as was predicated upon an alleged mutual mistake.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“A cause of action seeking reformation of an instrument on the ground of mistake is governed by the six-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 213 (6), which begins to run on the date the mistake was made” *(Taintor v Taintor,*50 AD3d 887, 888 [2008]). In this case, the defendant Paul G. Broder established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing, as time-barred, so much of the complaint insofar as asserted against him as was predicated upon an alleged mutual mistake by submitting evidence that the alleged mistake occurred in 1979 and the plaintiff did not commence this action until 2011 (see *id.*at 889). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(cf. Hart v Blabey,*287 NY 257, 262-263 [1942]).

The plaintiff, in his notice of appeal, limited the scope of his appeal to so much of the order as granted that branch of Broder’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, so much of the complaint insofar as asserted against him as was predicated upon an alleged mutual mistake. Thus, the plaintiff’s contention on appeal that the Supreme Court improperly denied his cross motion is not properly before this Court *(see*CPLR 5515 [1]; *Hatem v Hatem,*83 AD3d 663 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31926(U).]
[940 NE2d 555, 914 NYS2d 729]

#### Joan Orphan, Appellant, v Samuel Pilnik, M.D., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued October 20, 2010;

decided November 23, 2010

*908APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Office of Stephen H. Weiner,*New York City *(Stephen H. Weiner*of counsel), for appellant.

*Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP,*New York City *(Ellen B. Fishman, John L.A. Lyddane*and *Michael E. Gallay*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

To succeed in a medical malpractice cause of action premised on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the practitioner failed to disclose the risks, benefits and alternatives to the procedure or treatment that a reasonable practitioner would have disclosed and (2) a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position, fully informed, would have elected not to undergo the procedure or treatment *(see*Public Health Law § 2805-d [1], [3]). Expert medical testimony is required to prove the insufficiency of the information disclosed to the plaintiff (CPLR 4401-a).

On this appeal, the sole remaining cause of action alleges that plaintiff did not give informed consent to a procedure to remove a suspicious mass from her breast, because she was not made aware that the procedure would leave a 6.5 centimeter scar. The remaining defendant—the doctor who performed the procedure—moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Because plaintiff does not dispute that defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the only issue remaining is whether plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact *(see Ferluckaj v Goldman Sachs & Co.,*12 NY3d 316, 320 [2009]).

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and the affirmation of her medical

*909expert. The expert’s affirmation was tentative and vague, and would not state with certainty that the information plaintiff allegedly received prior to the procedure was a departure from what a reasonable practitioner would have disclosed. Moreover, the evidence proffered by plaintiff did not establish that a fully informed reasonable person would have declined the procedure. Indeed, plaintiff herself alleged only that, if fully informed, she would have sought a second opinion. Accordingly, plaintiffs opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6948** 

DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL C ENTER; DR. KHLID EL SAYED; DR. KOWAN; DR. HELSEL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 02512

- JFM )

Submitted : August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER , DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Daniel Thomas Lanahan , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Thomas Lanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition * without prejudice for lack of exhaustion . The notice of appeal was received in the district court after expiration of the appeal period. Because Lanahan is confin ed in a Maryland institution responsible for evaluating the competency of criminal defendants to stand trial, his notice of appeal is considered filed as of the date it was deposited in the institution’s internal mailing system. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988) ; Jones v. Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926

- 27 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the mailbox rule embodied in Rule 4(c) “applies broadly to any inmate confined in an institution” and that there are “no express limitation[s] of the rule’s application to prisoners, or to penal institutions” (internal quotation marks omitted)) . The record does not reveal when Lanahan gave his notice of appeal to institution officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limite d purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). The record, as

* The district court construed Lanahan’s civil complaint as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.3 supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

R EMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's March 31, 2000 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,468,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,808,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                 32,291,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,679,569
<PP&E>                                      33,610,569
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,201,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,453,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,772,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,770
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,621,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,453,938
<SALES>                                    175,846,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           175,846,383
<CGS>                                      123,496,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            42,524,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (283,432)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,109,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,626,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,483,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,483,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1997 and Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the 3 months ended December 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (59)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,012
<PP&E>                                          23,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,835
<BONDS>                                         22,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              228
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,489
<SALES>                                          3,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,193
<CGS>                                            2,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.79)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,126,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,842,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   164,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,447,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,379,000
<PP&E>                                         469,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 886,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,848,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,779,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 17,022,000
<COMMON>                                    12,065,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,848,000
<SALES>                                      9,746,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,746,000
<CGS>                                        7,315,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,680,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             125,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,059,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,059,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,059,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)


</TABLE>
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 89 -C R

______________________________ TOMMI E L OYD PRATER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 336th J udicial District Court

Fa nnin County , Texas Trial Court No. 21977

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyPrater a ppeals fr om eig ht convictions. In cause number 06-07- 00187-CR, he appe als from 1 his conviction of indece ncy with a child (A.C.P.) by sexual c ontact; in c ause numbe rs 06-07-00188- C R thr o u g h0 6
- 0 7
- 0 0 1 9 2
- C R , h e a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s o f s e x u a l a s s a

u l to f a c h i l d ( A
. C
. P
. )
. In eac h of these case s, Prater was sentenc ed to twenty year s' imprisonment, to run consecutively , and $1 0, 00 0. 00 fi ne s. Pr ate r app eal s h is c onvic tio n in c a us e numbe r 0 6- 07 -0 01 93 -C R of ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d (J.A.P .) by sexual contac t. Prater was sentenced in this case to twenty year s' imprisonment, to run consec utively , and a $10,000.00 f ine. Prater a lso appeal s h is conviction in cause numbe r 06-07- 00194-CR of ag g ravated sexual as s au lt of a child (T.L .P.). He wa s sentence d to life imprisonment, to run consec utively , and a $10,000.00 fine. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON To mmi e L oyd Prate r a

pp e a ls f ro m hi s c onvic tio n b y

a jur y fo r s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d w ith A.C.P. The jury

assessed his punishment at t we n t y year s' imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine
. Pr ate r p re se ntl y

ha s se ve n o the r c onvic tio ns c ur re ntl y on a pp e a l be fo re thi s Co ur

t. 1 On appe al, Prater

contends that the tria l court er red in a llowing the introduc tion of hear say statements through the testimony of J u d ith Hart, a nur se who e x amined A.C.P. duringher initial hospital visit . Prater a

rgues that her

testimony

and re cords we re ina dmissibl e bec ause the y wer e he ars ay , n ot m a de a dmi ssi ble un de r a me dic a l e xce pti on , a

nd tha t th e outc ry

e xce pti on

did no t a pp ly be c a us e Ha rt wa s n ot t he outc ry wi tne ss. We a dd re sse d thi s is su e in deta il i n o ur op ini on of thi s d ate on

Pr ate r' s a

pp e a l in c a us e number 06-07- 00187-CR. For the r easons state d there in, we likewise c onclude that err or has not been shown.3

We affir m the judgme nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: August 8, 2008 Date D ecide d: September 15, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
No. 919.

#### Fifth Avenue Bank, Trustee, *v.*United States.

March 30, 1942.

*Mr. Frederick L. Pearce*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark,*and *Mr. J. Louis Monarch*and *Mrs. Elisabeth B. Davis*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         131,737
<SECURITIES>                                 5,605,302
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      82,123,975
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,464,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,419,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,273,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,419,187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,281,919
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,260,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               580,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,578,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,578,160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,578,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
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 of International Packaging and Logistics Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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.








/s/  Steve Westlund


Steve Westlund


Chief Executive Officer, President


and Director





August 17, 2010
# Drill #18

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Medical Emergency Response		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Drill #18

&P	

&P	

# Code Page

# image1.png
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
      OFFICER**







Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Patco Industries, Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies that based on his knowledge:




(i)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and




(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
      for
      the periods covered in the Report.







Dated:
                July 14, 2005
            /s/
                William C. Patridge
              Name:William
                C. Patridge
              Title:Chief
                Executive Officer (principal executive officer and principal financial
                officer)








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. The foregoing certification
      is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit
      to
      the Form 10-QSB and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form
      10-QSB.
#### Yeghisabet HARUTYUNYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76589.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 14, 2006.

Yeghisabet Harutyunyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Boris Baladjanian, Valencia, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, *663Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Yeghisabet Harutyunyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition.

The IJ found Harutyunyan incredible based upon inconsistent statements about who was present during her confrontation with the chief physician, nonresponsiveness regarding her ability to gain access to the chief physician at the hospital, and an inconsistency regarding the conditions imposed by the police upon her release. Because these inconsistencies go to the heart of Harutyunyan’s asylum claim, regarding persecution by the Armenian police, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS,*904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir.1990); *see also Li*378 F.3d at 964 (so long as one finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, the court is bound to accept the negative credibility finding).

Because Harutyunyan has failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that she has failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir .2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Harutyunyan did not establish that it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured if returned to Armenia. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.