alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Gail Herlihy, Respondent, v A.F. Supply Corp. et al., Defendants, and Munaco Packing & Rubber Co., Inc., of South Carolina, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 876]

*530Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 7, 2013, which denied defendant Munaco Packing & Rubber Co., Inc., of South Carolina’s motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s decedent allegedly was injured during his employment in New York by his exposure to asbestos materials produced by a New York corporation that was the predecessor in interest to defendant Munaco, a South Carolina corporation (Munaco SC). The record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding that Munaco SC may be subject to successor jurisdiction (see *Schumacher v Richards Shear Co.,*59 NY2d 239, 244-245 [1983]). Further, we find that jurisdictional discovery is not necessary given our decision (see CPLR 3211 [d]). Concur— Tom, J.P, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF REALMARK PROPERTY INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VI-A FOR
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
        

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0              
<SECURITIES>                                         0              
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,337        
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0             
<INVENTORY>                                          0             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,180,343       
<PP&E>                                      19,864,555    
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,674,205              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,167,572            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,233,662     
<BONDS>                                     10,734,646     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                     
<PREFERRED>                                          0             
<COMMON>                                             0 
<OTHER-SE>                                           0             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,167,572            
<SALES>                                              0                     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,962,723             
<CGS>                                                0             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,262,765     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,355        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             485,283       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (363,397)              
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     
<CHANGES>                                            0             
<NET-INCOME>                                  (363,397)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.24)         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0             
                                                                    
                                           

</TABLE>
SUPERVISORY AUDITOR

WILLIAM THOMAS

William Thomas is a Supervisory Auditor for the National Indian Gaming

Commission, working in the Tulsa, OK regional office. Thomas directly supervises

the day-to-day work of the Audit Team, including conducting Internal Control

Assessments and other Audit services, compiling yearly Gross Gaming Revenues

from submitted annual audited financial statements, performing analysis of financial

statements and Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) reports, developing training

material, and providing technical assistance and training, all to ensure regulatory

compliance, gaming integrity, and that tribes are the primary beneficiaries of their

gaming revenues.

Thomas has been an auditor in the gaming industry for 20 plus years. Prior to

becoming Supervisory Auditor in December 2016, Thomas served as an Auditor

since starting with the Commission in October of 2005. Prior to working for the

NIGC, he was an Auditor-in-Charge with the Missouri Gaming Commission.

Thomas earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from the University of

Tulsa. He is a Certified Fraud Examiner.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created the National Indian Gaming Commission to support tribal self-sufficiency and the integrity of Indian gaming.

NIGC oversees the efficient regulation of 524 gaming establishments operated by 248 tribes across 29 states.

Updated 12/9/2021

National Indian Gaming Commission

Biography
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 334 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Moldova. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 

Moldova. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV 

4 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PROD5 UCTS OF MOLDOVA. 

6 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN7 SION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith8 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

9 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may— 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 334 IS

1 (1) determine that the denial of nondiscrim2 inatory treatment should no longer apply to the 

3 products of Moldova; and 

4 (2) after making a determination under para5 graph (1) with respect to Moldova, proclaim the ex6 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 

7 trade relations treatment) to the products of 

8 Moldova. 

9 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF TITLE

10 IV.—On and after the date on which the President ex11 tends nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of 

12 Moldova pursuant to subsection (a), title IV of the Trade 

13 Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to Moldova. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
97-151.

#### State v. Dillon.

Monroe App. No. 725. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Hybred International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: July 8, 2008



/s/ Gary Kouletas

Gary Kouletas

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY LAMB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (4:02-cr-00058-RGD)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Walter B.

Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Scott Walker Putney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lamb appeals his twenty-month term of

imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his

supervised release. Lamb’s attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), raising

the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that

he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not

file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do

so, Lamb did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Pursuant to United States v. Crudup, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2006 WL

2243586, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), revocation sentences are

reviewed to determine whether they are “plainly unreasonable” with

regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors applicable to

these sentences. We find that Lamb’s sentence is not plainly

unreasonable because the district court sentenced Lamb within the

statutory maximum and sufficiently stated a proper basis for its

conclusion that Lamb should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence

than one within the advisory range. We therefore affirm Lamb’s

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform

Lamb, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Lamb requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
- 3 -

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Lamb.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: ESTATE OF MARIO SACCHETTI, 

DECEASED 

PETITION OF: LINDA SACCHETTI 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 63 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the decision of this matter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Pacheco, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered on or about March 8, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3305 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3305

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to require oil polluters to pay 
          the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2010

 Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
 Cardin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Sanders) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to require oil polluters to pay 
          the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. LIMITS ON LIABILITY FOR OFFSHORE FACILITIES.

    Section 1004(a)(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000,000''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on April 
15, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23(i)



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3, No. 333-26769) of Medicore, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated March 8, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Medicore, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2001,
2000 and 1999 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                 /s/ WISS & COMPANY, LLP


March 8, 2002
Livingston, New Jersey
Exhibit 32(k)

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





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Jay A. LewisJay A. Lewis
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 1, 2007
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3380 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment 

of securities of a controlled corporation exchanged for assets in certain 

reorganizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2010 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. KERRY) 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 provide 

for the treatment of securities of a controlled corporation 

exchanged for assets in certain reorganizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CON4 TROLLED CORPORATION EXCHANGED FOR 

5 ASSETS IN CERTAIN REORGANIZATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 361 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrecognition of gain or 

8 loss to corporations; treatment of distributions) is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following new subsection: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3380 IS

1 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING

2 SECTION 355 DISTRIBUTIONS.—In the case of a reorga3 nization described in section 368(a)(1)(D) with respect to 

4 which stock or securities of the corporation to which the 

5 assets are transferred are distributed in a transaction 

6 which qualifies under section 355— 

7 ‘‘(1) this section shall be applied by substituting 

8 ‘stock other than nonqualified preferred stock (as 

9 defined in section 351(g)(2))’ for ‘stock or securities’ 

10 in subsections (a) and (b)(1), and 

11 ‘‘(2) the first sentence of subsection (b)(3) shall 

12 apply only to the extent that the sum of the money 

13 and the fair market value of the other property 

14 transferred to such creditors does not exceed the ad15 justed bases of such assets transferred (reduced by 

16 the amount of the liabilities assumed (within the 

17 meaning of section 357(c))).’’. 

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (3) of 

19 section 361(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

20 amended by striking the last sentence. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para23 graph (2), the amendments made by this section 

24 shall apply to exchanges after the date of the enact25 ment of this Act. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3380 IS

1 (2) TRANSITION RULE.—The amendments 

2 made by this section shall not apply to any exchange 

3 pursuant to a transaction which is— 

4 (A) made pursuant to an agreement which 

5 was binding on March 15, 2010, and at all 

6 times thereafter; 

7 (B) described in a ruling request submitted 

8 to the Internal Revenue Service on or before 

9 such date; or 

10 (C) described on or before such date in a 

11 public announcement or in a filing with the Se12 curities and Exchange Commission. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Ellen Bender, Respondent, v Allan Gross et al., Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 275]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 25, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries when the motorcycle she was operating crossed over a double yellow line into the lane of oncoming traffic and struck the vehicle driven by defendant Allan Gross (the driver). Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants, alleging that the driver failed to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the accident. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the driver could have avoided the accident. We reverse.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the driver was confronted by an emergency situation and that he acted reasonably in the context thereof *(see Studer v Whitsell,*302 AD2d 1009 [2003]; *Camas v Castellanos,*260 AD2d 593 [1999], *lv*
      *418
      *denied*93 NY2d 815 [1999]; *see generally Caristo v Sanzone,*96 NY2d 172, 174 [2001]). The driver’s deposition testimony established that he first observed plaintiff when she was coming around a curve in the roadway approximately 40 to 50 yards ahead of the driver’s vehicle. The driver believed that plaintiff was traveling at an excessive rate of speed and had lost control of the motorcycle. Once plaintiff crossed into the driver’s lane of travel, the driver moved his vehicle to the right, bringing it to a stop in close proximity to a guardrail. The driver’s testimony indicated that only a matter of seconds passed between the time he first observed plaintiff and the collision that ensued.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the affidavit of plaintiffs accident reconstruction expert was conclusory in every relevant respect and thus should have been disregarded entirely *(see Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969, 972 [1994]). Accordingly, the affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the response of the driver in light of the emergency presented. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3367 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3367

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of pension 
 for disabled veterans who are married to one another and both of whom 
      require regular aid and attendance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2010

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of pension 
 for disabled veterans who are married to one another and both of whom 
      require regular aid and attendance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATE OF PENSION FOR DISABLED VETERANS MARRIED TO 
              ONE ANOTHER AND BOTH OF WHOM REQUIRE REGULAR AID AND 
              ATTENDANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1521(f)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``$8,911'' and inserting ``$31,305''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARD MORRISON and 

BARBARA MORRISON,

Appellants,

v.

THE LEGACY REALTY,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00044-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law

of Bastrop County, Texas

(TC# 22-21581)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It 

appearing to this Court that Appellants are indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no 

other order with respect thereto. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.