alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth Vail, Respondent, v 1333 Broadway Associates, L.L.C. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. 1333 Broadway Associates, L.L.C., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Sherry Hill Painting Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 647]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered May 14, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and granted the motion of third-party defendant Sherry Hill Painting Corporation (Sherry Hill) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party contractual indemnification claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he fell after the six-foot baker’s *637scaffold upon which he was working shifted, despite the fact that he had locked the wheels; it is undisputed that the scaffold lacked guardrails. Such evidence establishes that plaintiffs injuries were proximately caused by defendants’ failure to provide proper protection against the elevation-related risk *(see Zengotita v JFK Intl. Air Term., LLC,*67 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2009]; *Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC,*21 AD3d 279 [1st Dept 2005]).

Given that the scaffold was inadequate in the first instance, any failure by plaintiff to hydrate himself could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1*NY3d 280, 290 [2003]; *Lajqi v New York City Tr. Auth.,*23 AD3d 159 [1st Dept 2005]).

Dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim against Sherry Hill was proper, since there was no indemnification agreement in existence at the time of the accident, and nothing indicates that the terms and conditions on the back of the purchase order, which contains the indemnification clause, were to have a retroactive effect *(see Regno v City of New York,*88 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2011]; *Temmel v 1515 Broadway Assoc., L.P.,*18 AD3d 364, 365-366 [1st Dept 2005]).

We have considered defendants’ course of conduct argument and find it unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5077 September Term, 2022

1:23-cv-00030-UNA

Filed On: June 16, 2023

Mousen Yisak Adem,

Appellant

v.

United States of America, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for

miscellaneous relief, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 10, 2023, order be

affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant’s complaint, which lacked

an arguable basis either in law or in fact, was frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the court

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . .

. is frivolous or malicious”). It is
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5077 September Term, 2022

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for miscellaneous relief be dismissed as

moot. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.

41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Torres, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 914]

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), imposed October 21, 2010, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), and thus does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, EJ., Rivera, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Mary L. Kessler, Petitioner, v Scott M. Fancher, Respondent. Scott A. Otis, Attorney for the Children, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[978 NYS2d 501]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered September 10, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for modification of a custody order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The Attorney for the Children (AFC) appeals from a decision of Family Court dismissing various petitions filed by the parents of two minor children. We note at the outset that no appeal lies from a decision *(see Pecora v Lawrence,*28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2006]). We exercise our discretion, however, to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeals as taken from the seven orders in the respective appeals that were entered upon the single decision *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]).

We conclude that the children are not aggrieved by the orders in appeal Nos. 1 and 3 through 6 inasmuch as those orders dismissed petitions filed by one parent alleging that the other parent had violated an order of custody or seeking a personal order of protection against the other parent *(see Matter of Lagano v Soule,*86 AD3d 665, 666 n 4 [2011]; *see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 539, 544-545 [1983]; *Mixon v TBV, Inc.,*76 AD3d 144, 148-149 [2010]). Moreover, inasmuch as the AFC opposed the relief requested in the petition in appeal No. 7, we conclude that the children are not aggrieved by the order dismissing that petition. We therefore dismiss the AFC’s appeals from the orders in appeal Nos. 1 and 3 through 7.

With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, which dismissed *1324the petition of Mary L. Kessler (mother) seeking modification of a custody order, the mother has not taken an appeal from that order. The children, while dissatisfied with the order, cannot force the mother to litigate a petition that she has since abandoned *(see Matter of McDermott v Bale,*94 AD3d 1542, 1543-1544 [2012]). As we wrote in *McDermott,*“children in custody cases should [not] be given full-party status such that their consent is necessary to effectuate a settlement . . . There is a significant difference between allowing children to express their wishes to the court and allowing their wishes” to chart the course of litigation *(id.*at 1543). We thus affirm the order in appeal No. 2 and see no need to address the AFC’s remaining contentions. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 25, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”) Information Card Foundation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Carrillon Information Security, Vaudreuil-Dorion, Quebec, Canada; iMagic Software, Solvang, CA; Kick Willemse (individual member), Haanlem, The Netherlands; and John Bradley (individual member), Santiago, Chile have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Gemalto, Austin, TX has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to                     Start Printed Page 55258                    Section 6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 6, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 21, 2009 (74 FR 42330).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-25625 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**REQUEST FOR ACCESS/RECORDS CONTAINED IN A PRIVACY ACT SYSTEM OF RECORDS**

I, ________________________________, am requesting access/records contained in a Privacy Act System of Records.  I am requesting the following information:

If this request in only for access, the request will be processed in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C 552a, Privacy Act.  If this request is also for copies of records, it will also be processed in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom of Information Act.

One of the following items is required for contact purposes and processing purposes.  ***(This cannot be agency information.)***

Address: ________________________________________________________________

Phone Number: __________________________________

Email Address: __________________________________

_______________________________________________

SignatureDate

Approved by:  ___________________________________Date: ________________ 

Information provided by:  __________________________Date: ________________

The collection of the information requested is authorized by 5 U.S.C., Section 552.  The primary use of the information requested is only used as a means to contact the requester for clarification of any issues, and for the ability to provide any copies requested.  The information above is not mandatory, however, failure to provide the information identified will result in our inability to properly process the request.  This request is covered by two Privacy Act System Notices, Interior/OS-57 and Interior/OS-71.  Unauthorized disclosure of the above information may subject to both civil and criminal penalties as provided for in 5 U.S.C. 552a.

P-91
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Number 84.405A]


Teacher Quality Partnership Grants Program

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year 
(FY) 2009; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 
25221) a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2009. This 
notice corrects an error in that notice.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 27, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-12180, on 
page 25227, in the third column, under the heading Poverty Data, at the 
end of line six, insert the word ``not'' after the word ``serves.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teacher Quality Partnership Grants 
Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 
4W320, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-0563 or by e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66323736071412080314150e0f1626030248010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="da8e8b8abba8aeb4bfa8a9b2b3aa9abfbef4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
    Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as 
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the 
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


    Dated: June 1, 2009.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. E9-13086 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JONATHAN LLOYD HARTZELL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3686

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Charlotte County; Donald H. Mason, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005); Teal v. 

State, 862 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Greenlee v. State, 591 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 1991); Middleton v. State, 721 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

MORRIS, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
PETRIE RAYMOND


Exhibit 10.3




PETRIE RAYMOND

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS – L.L.P

255 CRÉMAZIE BLVD. EAST – SUITE 1000

MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC)  H2M 1M2

TEL.: (514) 342-4740

FAX: (514) 737-4049




The Board of Directors

Cadiscor Resources Inc.:

We consent to the use in the General Form for Registration of Securities of Small Business Issuers (Form 10-SB) of our report dated May 4, 2006, except for note 3 which is as at August 2, 2006, with respect to the opening balance sheet of Cadiscor Resources Inc. as at April 1st, 2006. 



Limited Liability Partnership

Chartered Accountants




Montréal, Canada

November 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on
pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         429,770
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                  325,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    187,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               971,760
<PP&E>                                       4,419,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,546,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,273,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,716,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,546,062
<SALES>                                      1,437,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,437,705
<CGS>                                          800,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  800,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               643,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (68,932)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (70,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (70,666)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2550 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain personalized jewelry. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. BURRIS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain personalized 

jewelry. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PERSONALIZED JEWELRY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2550 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Jewelry personalized with a 

person’s name or displaying 

written sentiments or 

sayings, individually packaged for the ultimate purchaser and put up for mail 

order retail sale, and each 

having an import value of 

less than $60, (provided for 

in subheading 7113.11.50) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2945 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, as the ‘‘Private First 

Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New 

York, as the ‘‘Private First Class Garfield M. Langhorn 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS GARFIELD M. 

4 LANGHORN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1210 West Main Street in 

7 Riverhead, New York, shall be known and designated as 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2945 IS

1 the ‘‘Private First Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Private First Class 

7 Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CEO Certification
 
 I, Steve Westlund, certify that:
 
 The undersigned certifies that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kaire Holdings, Incorporated. (the "Company");
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
 
 4. The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5. The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 21, 2004
 
 /s/ Steve Westlund
 Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer,
 President, Chief Accounting Officer and Director
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2866 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 

fiscal year 2014. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Mr. BURRIS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to reauthorize the juvenile accountability 

block grants program through fiscal year 2014. 

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 ‘‘Juvenile Accountability 

5 Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2866 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY 

2 BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL 

3 YEAR 2014. 

4 Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

5 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in section 1801A(a), by striking ‘‘section 

8 1810(b)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1810(c)’’; 

9 (2) in section 1810(a), by striking ‘‘2009’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘2014’’; and 

11 (3) in section 1810(b), by inserting ‘‘and each 

12 of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014’’ after 

13 ‘‘2004’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS