alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[890 NYS2d 242]

#### Pedro Cabrera, Respondent, v New York University College of Dentistry, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 11, 2009

*52APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.,*New York City, for appellant. *Kerner & Kerner,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders, entered April 24, 2008, and June 17, 2008, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to renew based upon the affirmation of plaintiffs attorney explaining why his medical expert’s affirmation was unsigned and redacted (see *Mattis v Keen, Zhao,*54 AD3d 610 [2008]) and correcting the procedural error pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see *Cespedes v McNamee,*308 AD2d 409 [2003]; *Puntino v Chin,*288 AD2d 202 [2001]). On renewal, the court correctly determined that factual issues were presented by the conflicting opinions offered by the parties’ medical experts as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure proximately caused plaintiffs injuries *(see Prigorac v Park,*20 AD3d 363 [2005]).

McKeon, PJ. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with the majority that Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal and permitting plaintiff to cure deficiencies in the expert affirmation submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(see Mattis v Keen, Zhao,*54 AD3d 610 [2008]). I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the affirmation of plaintiffs expert was sufficient to raise issues of fact warranting a trial.

While plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant’s employees departed from good and accepted dental practice in their treatment of plaintiff, apparently in not initially utilizing more conservative modalities, nary a word is uttered on how that supposed deviation caused the multitude of physical complaints alleged in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion on causation consisted of nothing more than a generalized, conclusory statement that plaintiffs pain and suffering, both past and future, were caused by defendant’s alleged malpractice.

Defendant’s expert, on the other hand, was quite specific in explaining that plaintiffs claimed injuries were either preexisting, caused by smoking or poor oral hygiene, or neurologically and/or physiologically impossible, based on the treatment rendered by defendant.

*53Plaintiffs submissions, in my view, were legally insufficient to establish a causal nexus between the claimed departure and plaintiffs injuries *(Koeppel v Park,*228 AD2d 288 [1996]). Thus, on renewal, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur; McEeon, EJ., concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS WAYNE ROWSEY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-00053-MSD-TEM-1; 4:14-cv-00015-MSD)

Submitted: July 31, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Wayne Rowsey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Wayne Rowsey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Rowsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of  Flanigan's  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year  ended  October  2, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
G. Flanigan,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge and belief:

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

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                 /s/  Joseph G. Flanigan
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Name: Joseph G. Flanigan
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Date: December 30, 2004
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Baily,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/
              Scott
              BailyScott
              Baily
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              August
                13, 2007
Exhibit
 32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 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 report on Form 10-Q ofHigh End
 Ventures, Inc. for the
 quarterly period endedDecember 31, 2008 as filed with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kurt Dalmata,
 do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | This 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 this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theregistrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of
theregistrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:February
 18, 2009



/s/
 Kurt Dalmata

Kurt
 Dalmata

Chief Executive
 Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theregistrant
 for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
 shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
 of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement
 required by §906 has been provided to theregistrant
 and will be retained by theregistrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



24
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00680-CV

ELIZABETH COPELAND, Appellant

V.

BARRY COPELAND, Appellee

Appeal from the 311th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-39055).

TO THE 311TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 31st day of March, the case upon appeal to revise or to 

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court 

below on April 29, 2014. After being notified that this appeal 

was subject to dismissal want of prosecution for failure to file a 

brief, appellant did not adequately respond. Accordingly, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered March 31, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices 

Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 17, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               235
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                          17
<INVENTORY>                                          672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     123
<PP&E>                                             2,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                       455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     5,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              6,800
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               6
<OTHER-SE>                                        (2,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       5,303  
<SALES>                                           11,751 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  11,751 
<CGS>                                              9,552  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     12,678 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     351    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   475    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (189)  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,467)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0      
<CHANGES>                                              0      
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,467)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.25)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.25)  
                                               


</TABLE>
; ' .. 

DAMIAN GALVAN HERNANDEZ 

ESTES UNIT- TDC # 1916190 

·~ llartleft lJnit 

1018 Arnold Dr. 

Bartlett, '"fX 76511 

Abel Acosta, Clerk 

! 

I 

I II I I IIIII 'l' I II J
# Serving on a Peer Review Committee 

**Alert**: For due dates on or after January 25, 2025 - changes coming to how most research grant applications will be reviewed. Learn about the new simplified review framework **.

To fund the best mental health research, we need diverse and inclusive peer review committees. The National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) is looking to expand the pool of peer reviewers with mental health researchers who can bring diverse perspectives to the peer review process. Find out why you might want to apply and how to get involved.

## What is the NIMH peer review process?

The NIMH peer review process aims to ensure that grant applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated by scientific experts in a manner free from inappropriate influences. Peer reviewers provide feedback on the scientific merit of grant applications.

## Who can apply?

Successful applicants should:
                  - Have an academic and/or professional doctorate degree.
                  - Have at least 1 year of experience at the instructor level or higher. Post-doctoral fellows might be considered if they have at least 5 years of experience.
                  - Demonstrate evidence of an active research program through things like publications and funded research studies.

## Why should I apply?

In addition to serving the scientific community, there are many benefits to being a peer reviewer:
                  - Gain a better understanding of how applications are evaluated
                  - Learn what really impresses reviewers and apply that knowledge to your future applications
                  - Get the opportunity to network with eminent mental health researchers

## How do I apply?

                  - Click on the  NIMH Peer Reviewer Registration Form   **  to submit your application.
                  - Your information will be reviewed by staff at NIMH for eligibility to serve as a reviewer.
                  - You will receive an email informing you of the outcome.

If you have questions, contact us at NIMH-ReviewerGroup@groups.nih.gov.
Exhibit 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of  Sharper  Image  Corporation,  a  Delaware  corporation
("Sharper Image"), does hereby certify that:

     a)  The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended  January 31,
         2004 (the  "Form  10-K")  of  Sharper  Image  fully  complies  with the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

     b)  The  information  contained  in the Form 10-K fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         Sharper Image.


By: /s/  Jeffrey P. Forgan
  ------------------------
Jeffrey P. Forgan
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 15, 2004
---

EXHIBIT 12.2

SARBANES-OXLEY CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Principal Accounting Officer of Quartz
Mountain Resources Ltd., certify that:

1.           
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Quartz Mountain Resources
Ltd.

2.           
Based on my knowledge, this 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.           
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 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 period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.           
The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of the 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

(b)           
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial
reporting.

|Date:  | January 26, 2007             | 
|------ | ---------------------------- | 
|       |                              | 
|       | /s/ Jeffrey
      Mason      | 
|       |                              | 
|By:    | Jeffrey R. Mason             | 
|Title: | Principal Accounting Officer | 

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

ROBERT BENTON and HEATHER ) 

STOKES, ) 

 ) 

 Appellants, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-805 

 ) 

U.S. BANK, National Association, as ) 

Trustee for RASC 2006KS6 and MERS, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed July 17, 2015. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.130 from 

the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; 

Sandra Taylor, Associate Senior Judge. 

Damian G. Waldman of Law Offices of 

Damian G. Waldman, P.A., Clearwater, for 

Appellants. 

No appearance for Appellees. 

BLACK, Judge. 

 Robert Benton and Heather Stokes challenge the order denying a 

"renewed" motion to set aside foreclosure sale. As to Mr. Benton, we affirm. See, e.g., 

Huddle House v. Peralta, 754 So. 2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (affirming order 
- 2 -

on appeal due to appellant's failure to file an adequate appendix despite being directed 

to do so pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220). As to Ms. Stokes, we 

dismiss the appeal. See Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2014) (dismissing appeal of foreclosure final judgment where appellants had no 

standing to appeal the final judgment and otherwise failed to seek timely review of the 

order denying the motion to intervene). 

 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 

CRENSHAW and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
@article{1206291,
  author = {Ivan Burenkov and Alexandra Semionova and FNU Hala and Thomas Gerrits and Anouar Rahmouni and DJ Anand and Ya-Shian Li-Baboud and Oliver T. Slattery and Abdella Battou and Sergey Polyakov},
  title = {Synchronization and Coexistence in Quantum networks},
  year = {2023},
  number = {31},
  month = {2023-03-27 04:03:00},
  publisher = {Optics Express},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935535},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.480486},
  language = {en},
}
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY>        U.S.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          15,873
<SECURITIES>                                    15,759
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                       332
<INVENTORY>                                     26,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,752
<PP&E>                                          14,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,405
<SALES>                                         72,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,194
<CGS>                                           42,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   480
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 842 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 842

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 11, 2020.
    Resolved, That an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present and 
voting, a quorum being present, shall be required on final passage of House 
Joint Resolution 79.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```