alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Gary M. Phillips, Deceased. Kelly E. Heberlein, as Executor of Gary M. Phillips, Deceased, Respondent; Cheril M. Eberth et al., Respondents; Lorrie MacDiarmid, Appellant.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***CARD GAMES (CG)***

Page 7 of 7
*Monday, May 19, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

97-682.

#### State ex rel. Robison v. Kence.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On May 14, 1997, relator filed a document titled “Motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss petition.” Relator’s motion is, in substance, a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss and, as such, is untimely. Whereas S.CtPract.R. XIV(1)(C) prohibits untimely filings,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that relator’s motion be, and hereby is, stricken.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   Exhibit 12(d)

                                Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
                Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
          Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends


                                                             1994      1995      1996       1997      1998     1999
<S>                                                          <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest                                             $52,764   $51,635   $48,007   $45,274   $40,927   $38,840
  Interest applicable to rentals                               1,716     2,173     2,165     1,947     1,864     2,261
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges, as defined                               54,480    53,808    50,172    47,221    42,791    41,101

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)                            9,447     9,004     7,610     5,123     4,878     4,878
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------

Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined   $63,927   $62,812   $57,782   $52,344   $47,669   $45,979
                                                             =========================================================
Earnings as defined:

  Net Income                                                 $48,779   $68,667   $79,210   $66,661   $59,268   $41,588
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes:
    Total income taxes                                        12,476    34,877    41,107    26,744    28,031    17,537
    Fixed charges as above                                    54,480    53,808    50,172    47,221    42,791    41,101
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------

Total earnings, as defined                                  $115,735  $157,352  $170,489  $140,626  $130,090  $100,226
                                                             =========================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined                  2.12      2.92      3.40      2.98      3.04      2.44
                                                             =========================================================

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                                1.81      2.51      2.95      2.69      2.73      2.18
                                                             =========================================================


------------------------
(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by
    dividing the preferred dividend requirement by one hundred percent (100%)
    minus the income tax rate.


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of 91st Street Crane Collapse Litigation. Xhevahire Sinanaj, as Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ramadan Kurtaj, Deceased, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.) In the Matter of 91st Street Crane Collapse Litigation. Maria Leo, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[976 NYS2d 376]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 14, 2013, which denied the City defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 claims as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted.

The city defendants established prima facie that they were not owners under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Scaparo v Village of Ilion,*13 NY3d 864 [2009]). The City had transferred ownership of the construction site to the New York City Education Construction Fund, a state agency, nearly a year and a half before the May 2008 crane accident in which plaintiffs’ decedents were killed, and had neither retained nor exercised any ownership rights with respect to the property or the construction project. In opposition, plaintiffs rely on *Vigliotti v Executive Land Corp.*(186 AD2d 646, 647 [2d Dept 1992]), in which the transfer of a deed was found to be “nothing more *478than a financing mechanism, not a genuine transfer of ownership.” However, nothing in the record before us casts doubt on the genuineness of the City’s transfer of ownership in this case. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 31051(U).]
#### Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd., Appellant, v GML Tower LLC et al., Defendants, and The Pike Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 892 (2012)].
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MANU E L DE J E S US AS I JGA R C I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71736 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 066- 053 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M anue lde J e s us A s i

j G ar c i a , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of G uat e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din ab s e n tia . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED SEP 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71736 2 W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n and r e vi e w de n o v o c la im s o f

du e p r o c e s s v io latio n s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g e n c ya c te dw ith in its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g A s ij G ar c ia ’s m o tio n to r e ope n be c aus e he di d note s t abl i s h thathi s f a i l ur e t o appe ari ns i de the c ourtr oom w a s o n a c c o u n t o f

e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s tan c e s . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 23 (b)( 4)(i i ). It f o llo w s th at h is du e p r o c e s s c la im f a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C i r. 20 00 ). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 35249]

## Correction

In notice document E9-12366 beginning on page 25798 in the issue of Friday, May 29, 2009, make the following correction:

On page 25799, in the first column, under DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, in the first paragraph, lines 3-5 of the text, “603.0, at Water Valley Junction, MS, and milepost 614.42, at Bruce Junction, MS” should read “603.0, at Bruce Junction, MS, and milepost 614.42, at Water Valley Junction, MS”.

Dated: June 8, 2009.

Kulunie L. Cannon,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. E9-13747 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 32(l)

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, 2005 (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/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of System Energy Resources, Inc.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	March 9, 2006
For Immediate Release Contact: Shawn Pensoneau 

 (202) 632-7003 

NIGC Announces Tribal Consultation set for New Mexico 

Washington, DC, December 21, 2010 — The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (Commission) has announced a government-to-government 

consultation to be held January 20, 2011, at the Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort & 

Spa in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

. 

“The Commission places a high priority on consultation. We are eager to engage 

in a meaningful dialogue with tribes as we begin to consider the relevance of the 

Commission’s current regulations for today’s industry and what can be done to 

improve them in order to better protect the industry,” said Chairwoman Stevens. 

“As the primary regulators for the Indian gaming industry, tribes and tribal 

regulators are uniquely positioned to provide the NIGC with relevant information 

and feedback. We look forward to the discussion.” 

A Notice of Inquiry was published in the Federal Register November 18, 2010, 

notifying the public that the Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of 

all regulations promulgated to implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA). The NOI encourages input regarding which regulations need revision 

and what process should be utilized to revise them. 

This process is consistent with Executive Order 13,175, “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and reflects the Commission’s 

commitment to hold discussions prior to initiating the rulemaking process and 

before drafting proposed rules. 

All information on the regulatory review, including the Federal Register notice can 

be found by visiting our website at www.nigc.gov. 

The consultations are scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Puma Conference 

Room at the Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort & Spa. Consultations are being held 

utilizing a group discussion format. 

If you have questions or need additional information prior to the meetings, please 

contact Rita Homa, at (202) 632-7003. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant 

to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 

###
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 329 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 

energy property credit for property placed in service during 2008. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2009 

Mr. LEAHY 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 

the nonbusiness energy property credit for property 

placed in service during 2008. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROP4 ERTY CREDIT FOR PROPERTY PLACED IN 

5 SERVICE DURING 2008. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (g) of section 25C of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

8 as follows: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 329 IS

1 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply 

2 with respect to any property placed in service after Decem3 ber 31, 2009.’’. 

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

5 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

6 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Infinity, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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.

/s/ Stanton E. Ross
------------------------
Stanton E. Ross
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2004

Jon D. Klugh
------------------------
Jon D. Klugh
Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Infinity, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 12(f)System Energy Resources, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Fixed Charges2003
2004
2005
2006
2007Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$64,620
$58,928
$60,424
$59,931
$57,117Interest applicable to rentals
3,793
3,426
3,039
3,914
4,463Total fixed charges, as defined
$68,413
$62,354
$63,463
$63,845
$61,580Earnings as defined:Net Income
$106,003
$105,948
$111,644
$140,258
$136,081Add:Provision for income taxes:Total
75,845
78,013
69,343
54,529
45,447Fixed charges as above
68,413
62,354
63,463
63,845
61,580Total earnings, as defined
$250,261
$246,315
$244,450
$258,632
$243,108Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
3.66
3.95
3.85
4.05
3.95
#### Angele Stridiron et al., Plaintiffs, v Jacob’s Ladder Realty, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. Otis Elevator Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Robert Vertical Transportation, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 579]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J), entered January 10, 2006, which, upon reargument of a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered August 15, 2005, vacated third-party defendants’ default only to the extent of converting that third-party action to a cross claim in the main action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendants’ “reargument” motion was properly treated as one for renewal, in light of facts brought to the IAS court’s attention for the first time since entry of the default judgment *(see e.g. Mejia v Nanni,*307 AD2d 870 [2003]). While certain of the “new” facts may have been known to third-party defendants at the time of third-party plaintiffs default motion, the court properly exercised its discretion in considering such facts to achieve substantive fairness in the case *(see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York,*280 AD2d 374, 376-377 [2001]).

On the instant motion, the court learned that third-party defendants had been added to the main action pursuant to an amended complaint and, in accordance with a stipulation signed by all parties, they were granted an extension of time to answer that amended pleading and assert cross claims against the defendant that brought the third-party complaint. Because all parties appeared in the main action, where limited discovery was being conducted, no prejudice could result from transforming the third-party complaint to a cross claim in the main action. The court further found evident, from all the facts now before it, that third-party defendants’ eight-month default was not willful, but rather a consequence of attorney incompetence *321and lack of communication among counsel, client and third-party defendants’ insurance broker. There was evidence that the accident occurred only weeks after third-party defendants had sold their elevator servicing contracts to third-party plaintiff, and there was an issue as to when the negligent conduct took place that led to the claimed elevator defect. Vacatur of the default and conversion of the third-party claims into cross claims in the main action was, accordingly, a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Maisonet, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 905]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 14, 2003 *(People v Maisonet,*304 AD2d 674 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 12, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Adams, J.E, Crane, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3198 

To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 

adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a 

cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF 

4 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

6 (1) the national unemployment rate for March 

7 2010 was 9.7 percent; 

8 (2) the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 was 

9 $1,400,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3198 IS

1 Office estimates the budget deficit for fiscal year 

2 2010 to be $1,349,000,000,000; and 

3 (3) the National Bureau of Economic Research 

4 has declared the United States economy to be in a 

5 recession since December 2007. 

6 (b) NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.—Notwith7 standing any other provision of law, no adjustment shall 

8 be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorga9 nization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of 

10 living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal 

11 year 2011. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          300,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,287,718
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               310,058
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (310,058)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL LOMBARDI

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD

PETITION OF: DANA E. GREENSPAN, 

ESQ.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 34 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of September, 2023, the “Application for Leave to Withdraw 

Appearance” is GRANTED.