alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Home Assurance Company, Appellant, v Rent A Unit NY, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Amoco Construction Corp. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[964 NYS2d 124]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action in its amended complaint seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Amoco Construction Corp. in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant, upon a search of the record, summary judgment to defendant Amoco, declaring that plaintiff insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify Amoco in the underlying personal injury action, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

Adolfo Estrada, the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action was employed by Amost Dry Wall Inc., and his injury occurred in the course of his employment. He sued, among others, Amoco, and Amoco sought coverage under a policy issued by the plaintiff in this action. The policy at issue provides coverage where the insured is the employer of the injured worker. The policy defines the insured, “you,” as both Amost and Amoco.

We reject plaintiff’s contention that because Amoco is not Estrada’s direct employer, it need not provide coverage to Amoco under the policy. Defendants Amoco and Amost Drywall Inc. jointly purchased insurance for a joint work site, and the two companies have the same owner and management, and worked together on the same covered location where Estrada was injured. Further, the plain and ordinary meaning of the provisions of the insurance contract clearly cover Amoco with respect to Estrada’s claims because the policy combines Amoco and *636Amost for purposes of coverage *(see generally White v Continental Cas. Co.,*9 NY3d 264, 267 [2007]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0358

_________________ WESTVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,

Plaintiff, Appellee , and Cross - Appellant. v. DAVID LOCKHART AND DOREEN LOCKHART,

Defendants and Appellants. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appell ants’ motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including October 26 , 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file their opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 26 2022

09/26/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0358
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News & Events 
-  Multimedia Library 

# World Hearing Day Is March 3

Share this on: 

## Embed this multimedia on your website

Copy and paste this code to embed the content in your website, blog, or other distribution channels. Information on our website is in the public domain, but we appreciate when you link to the source and when credit is given to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health. 

<a href="https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/news/multimedia/world-hearing-day-march-3?utm_source=nidcd-multimedia-library&utm_medium=embeddable-image&utm_campaign=world-hearing-day-is-march-3"><img src="https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024_worldhearingday_eng_600.jpg" alt="Young boy whispering into older adult’s ear. Text reads: World Hearing Day is March 3. Changing mindsets: Let’s make ear and hearing care a reality for all!"></a>

 

February 15, 2024

## Language

          - English
          - Español

## Media Inquiries

Contact the NIDCD press office at news@nidcd.nih.gov.
# Cage Accountability
Exhibit
32.(a)
 
 This
Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
filing.
 
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
 Of Title
18 of the United States Code
 
 In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Companies (as
defined below) on Form 10-K/A (the “reports”) for the year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Michael G. Morris, the chief executive officer of
 
 American
Electric Power Company, Inc.
 AEP
Generating Company
 AEP Texas
Central Company
 AEP Texas
North Company
 Appalachian
Power Company
 Columbus
Southern Power Company
 Indiana
Michigan Power Company
 Kentucky
Power Company
 Ohio
Power Company
 Public
Service Company of Oklahoma
 Southwestern
Electric Power Company
 
 (the
"Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Companies.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
Michael G. Morris
 Michael
G. Morris
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 May 6,
2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report of ARAMARK Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, L. Frederick Sutherland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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/    L. FREDERICK
SUTHERLANDL. Frederick Sutherland
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    ASSOCIATES CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                             ----------------------------------------------------
                                               1996       1995       1994       1993       1992
                                             --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Fixed Charges (a)
  Interest expense.........................  $2,206.7   $1,979.8   $1,509.7   $1,291.8   $1,222.8
  Implicit interest in rent................      13.0       11.4        9.6        9.7        9.5
                                             --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
          Total fixed charges..............  $2,219.7   $1,991.2   $1,519.3   $1,301.5   $1,232.3
                                             ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Earnings (b)...............................  $1,305.1   $1,121.4   $  972.6   $  834.4   $  690.4
Fixed Charges..............................   2,219.7    1,991.2    1,519.3    1,301.5    1,232.3
                                             --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
          Earnings, as defined.............  $3,524.8   $3,112.6   $2,491.9   $2,135.9   $1,922.7
                                             ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.........      1.59       1.56       1.64       1.64       1.56
                                             ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(a) For purposes of such computation, the term "fixed charges" represents
    interest expense and a portion of rentals representative of an implicit
    interest factor for such rentals.
 
(b) For purposes of such computation, the term "earnings" represents earnings
    before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of changes in
    accounting principles, plus fixed charges.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

ARAMARK Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-143232 and 333-143233) on Form S-8 of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated December 16, 2010,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries as of October 1, 2010 and October 2, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholder’s equity for thefiscal years ended October 1, 2010, October 2, 2009 and October 3, 2008 and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the October 1, 2010, annual report on Form 10-K of ARAMARK Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

December 16, 2010
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3231 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax incentives 

for alcohol used as fuel and to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States to extend additional duties on ethanol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2010 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. THUNE, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON, and Mr. HARKIN) 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 extend 

certain tax incentives for alcohol used as fuel and to 

amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to extend additional duties on ethanol. 

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 ‘‘Grow Renewable En5 ergy from Ethanol Naturally Jobs Act of 2010’’ or the 

6 ‘‘GREEN Jobs Act of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3231 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL 

2 USED AS FUEL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 40(e) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ in sub6 paragraph (A) and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’, 

7 and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2011’’ in subpara9 graph (B) and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

10 (b) CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.—Subparagraph (H) of 

11 section 40(b)(6) of such Code is amended by striking 

12 ‘‘January 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

13 (c) REDUCED AMOUNT FOR ETHANOL BLENDERS.— 

14 Paragraph (2) of section 40(h) of such Code is amended 

15 by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

19 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL 

20 USED AS FUEL. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 6426(b) 

22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik23 ing ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

24 2015’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3231 IS

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

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

4 SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON ETHANOL. 

5 Headings 9901.00.50 and 9901.00.52 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each 

7 amended in the effective period column by striking ‘‘1/1/ 

8 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘1/1/2016’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Carmen LUGO-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51256.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 3, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Carmen Lugo-Regalado (Lugo) appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He contends that his sentence was unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Lugo’s sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Giving “great deference” to such a sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Lugo has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. *See Alonzo,*435 F.3d at 554.

Lugo challenges 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Lugo’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United*
      *432
      *States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Lugo contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Lugo properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Smith, Appellant, *v.*Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *Smith v. Seidner*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172.]

(No. 96-2710

Submitted March 4, 1997

Decided April 16, 1997.)

*173
      *Stanley Smith, pro se.*

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael L. Bachman,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Smith asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Smith’s petition challenged the common pleas court’s verdict form because it did not include the physical-harm specification contained in his indictment.

As the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. *State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937. In addition, habeas corpus is not available to raise claims of improper jury instructions or verdict forms. See, *e.g., State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136-1137. Smith’s claim could have been raised in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. *Simpson,*75 Ohio St.3d at 571, 664 N.E.2d at 937; *Richard,*76 Ohio St.3d at 152, 666 N.E.2d at 1136-1137; see, also, *State v. Hill*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 208-209, 661 N.E.2d 1068, 1081-1082 (issue of propriety of jury verdict form raised in direct appeal).

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition because Smith possessed an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of ARAMARK Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 2,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Neubauer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 15, 2009



/s/    JOSEPH
NEUBAUERJoseph NeubauerChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clive McMillan, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 370]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered July 19, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree and petit larceny with the understanding that if he successfully completed a substance-abuse treatment program, he would be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to robbery in the third degree, and would be sentenced to a term of probation upon his conviction of petit larceny. However, the Supreme Court explained to the defendant that if he did not complete the program, he would be sentenced to a prison term of 2V2 to 5 years. It is undisputed that the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement by leaving the treatment program without permission. As a result, the court sentenced the defendant to the enhanced term of 2V2 to 5 years of imprisonment.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to afford him a second chance to attend the substance-abuse treatment program after he violated the plea agreement and in imposing the enhanced sentence *(see People v Rodriguez,*46 AD3d 356 [2007]; *People v Wilson,*11 AD3d 206, 207 [2004]; *People v Floyd,*306 AD2d 496 [2003]; *see*
      *971
      *also People v Gary,*106 AD3d 932 [2013]; *People v Emma,*101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*0 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., oncur.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12
                                     APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
                  Computation of Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                Year Ended December 31,             
                                                                   1991      1992      1993        1994       1995 
     <S>                                                        <C>        <C>       <C>         <C>        <C>     
     Fixed Charges:                                                                                              
       Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . . . . .    $ 72,800   $ 84,177  $ 80,472    $ 75,815   $ 80,777
       Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . . . . .      18,282     17,986    16,846      16,415     16,404
       Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3,089      1,792     1,615       3,366      5,119
       Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . . . . .       3,011      2,617     2,954       3,913      5,323
       Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . . . . .       5,700      6,700     7,900       7,700      7,000
                                                                                                 
            Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $102,882   $113,272  $109,787    $107,209   $114,623


     Earnings:
       Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $140,419   $131,419  $125,132    $102,345   $115,900
       Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      47,227     46,017    51,681      39,599     53,355
       Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3,650      2,649     8,887       5,910      7,273
       Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . . . . .     102,882    113,272   109,787     107,209    114,623

            Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $294,178   $293,357  $295,487    $255,063   $291,151

                                                                                                               
     Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . .        2.85       2.58      2.69        2.37       2.54
</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3013 

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

216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Sergeant 

Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 

Mr. REID (for Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ)) 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 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek 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. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER R. HRBEK POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 216 Westwood Avenue in 

7 Westwood, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3013 IS

1 the ‘‘Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

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 ‘‘Sergeant Christopher 

7 R. Hrbek Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS