alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,453
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                27,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     47,253
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          51,919
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            51,202
<LOANS>                                        235,070
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,393
<DEPOSITS>                                     331,178
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,154
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,793
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 375,393
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,317
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,614
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,931
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,857
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,074
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      450
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,921
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.90
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.60
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,317
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,582
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (380)
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,965
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,965
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies that to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(i)            theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated: February 10, 2010 |   | /s/  Albert P.L. Stroucken            |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Albert P.L. Stroucken                 |
|                          |   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |   | Owens-Illinois  Group, Inc.      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Juliet Osbourne, Appellant, v 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[978 NYS2d 87]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 21, 2011, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC, AM Property Holding Corp., and The Chetrit Group, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendants 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC, AM Property Holding Corp., and The Chetrit Group, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

*899The plaintiff alleged that she fell on an accumulation of rainwater in the lobby of a building owned by the moving defendants. “A defendant [landowner] may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action” *(Mentasi v Eckerd Drugs,*61 AD3d 650, 651 [2009]; *see Miller v Gimbel Bros.,*262 NY 107, 108 [1933]; *Murphy v Lawrence Towers Apts., LLC,*15 AD3d 371 [2005]).

Here, since the moving defendants failed to present any evidence as to when the subject area was last cleaned or inspected before the plaintiffs fall, they failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition *(see McPhaul v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co.,*81 AD3d 609, 610 [2011]; *Babb v Marshalls of MA, Inc.,*78 AD3d 976, 977 [2010]; *Roy v City of New York,*65 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

# ACTION:

Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.

# SUMMARY:

The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the third quarter meetings of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.

# DATES:

The meetings for the fourth quarter will be held on the following dates:

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 1 p.m. EST.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 1 p.m. EST.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 1 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

These meetings will be held via conference call.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.

*The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:*

— Summer Site Visit

— ASBDC Fall Conference

— White Paper Issues

— SBA Update

— Member Roundtable

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Alanna Falcone by Friday, July 17th by fax or e-mail. Her contact information is Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202-619-1612, Fax: 202-481-0134, e-mail:                         *alanna.falcone@sba.gov*.                    

Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above.

Meaghan Burdick,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-15712 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0242. PAMELA ELAINE KEMP v. HENRY D. GREEN, JR et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014cv244856 2014CV244856
@conference{1214096,
  author = {Shanee Dawkins and Jody Jacobs},
  title = {How to Scale a Phish: An Investigation into the Use of the NIST Phish Scale},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-07 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Anaheim, CA, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956177},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                             668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1017
<ALLOWANCES>                                       275
<INVENTORY>                                      28961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 35990
<PP&E>                                           58759
<DEPRECIATION>                                   17575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   79364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            21673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                       51778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     79364
<SALES>                                         294692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                294692
<CGS>                                           175754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   175754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 29204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1291)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1304)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1304)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

COREY DALANO BROOKIINS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0278 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-443470-001

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Philip D. Garrow

Counsel for Respondent

Corey D. Brookins, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 2-15-2024
STATE v. BROOKINS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley, Judge Kent E. Cattani, and Judge D. Steven 

Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Corey Delano Brookins seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is Petitioner’s fourth successive petition. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

Petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (Petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that Petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### Alvin M. MARKS and Depix Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. POLAROID CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 53-168.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Dec. 8, 1964.

*426Cedric W. Porter, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff Marks.

Donald L. Brown, Brown & Mikulka, Cambridge, Mass., for defendant.

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

This matter is now before the court on objections filed by both parties to the Master’s Report. Counsel waived argument and submitted their objections in the form of briefs.

This case was referred to the Master under Rule 53 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on April 1, 1957 directing the Master to “hear the evidence and to report to the court his findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon.” On November 14, 1958, the defendant sought to join new parties to the action and it became necessary for the Master to file an “Interlocutory Report.” Thereafter, motions were filed by the defendant with this court and these motions were denied on June 5, 1959.

On June 30, 1961, the Master filed a Pretrial Memorandum with the court holding that Marks and Depix could not be held liable, by estoppel or otherwise, for infringements occurring after May 15, 1953. At the request of the defendant, he filed a Supplemental Pretrial Memorandum outlining what he considered to be the undisputed or adjudicated facts. The Master in his memorandum offered to “correct this outline in respect to any statement of fact in which I am in error.” In his final report he states that neither party requested correction and the Master found that he was, hereafter, bound by prior court’s finding that the damages ceased on May 15, 1953. His final report is based upon that same finding and is affirmed by this court.

Although many years have elapsed since the reference, I find that the Master has been diligent in performing his duties and that much of the delay in this action has been caused by the defendant trying to overreach on the question of damages.

In his final report, to which objections have been filed, the Master has made two alternative findings of recoverable damages; and the court adopts and confirms the award of damages based on a reasonable royalty of 10% and rejects the other method which would call into play questions of settlements of associated suits in another district. The court overrules all objections to the Master’s Report and adopts and confirms it.

Judgment is to be entered for the defendant Polaroid in the amount of $4,-565 without costs. In denying costs to the defendant the court takes into consideration, as one factor, the various overreaching claims of the defendant as to amount of its damage as well as its éfforts to include in the accounting before the Master various other parties who were not parties to the litigation itself. The court is of the opinion that the hearings before the Master would have terminated much sooner had the defendant taken a reasonable view as to the amount of its recoverable damages.
H. Res. 903 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 14 (legislative day, March 13), 2020. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, ranked as follows on the following standing committee of the House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Jordan, to rank 

before Mr. Collins of Georgia. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### COLE v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.

Civ. No. 26055.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

April 28, 1949.

Morton R. Dworken, Jack B. Dworken, Max M. Dworken, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Dwight B. Buss, Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was struck by one of defendant’s trains. The complaint alleges jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., diversity of citizenship and a jurisdictional amount in excess of $3,000.

Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement with respect to the following matters:

> (1) By stating in Paragraph 4 of the complaint the facts upon which plaintiff bases his claim that at the time of injury he was engaged in interstate commerce, bringing his cause of action with the -F. E. L. A. as' amended.

> (2) By stating in Paragraph 5 of the complaint the particular duties in which plaintiff was engaged on or about October 27, 1948, so that it may be determined whether he was acting in 'the course or scope of his employment at the time of his injury.

It is defendant’s contention that the complaint does not set forth allegations of fact *214to support plaintiff’s “bald assertion” that plaintiff and defendant were, at the time of the accident, engaged in interstate commerce so that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act would be applicable.

A motion for a more definite statement is properly employed only where a pleading, to which a responsive pleading is permitted, is so vague or ambiguous that the responding party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response. Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Such a motion should not be used for the purpose of testing the strength of a party’s case by forcing him either to allege certain supporting facts or retreat from asserted jurisdictional grounds.

Defendant does not allege that it cannot reasonably be required to frame a pleading responsive to the complaint due to vagueness or ambiguity.

The briefs of counsel on this motion relate mainly to argument concerning whether or not a railroad employee who is injured while off duty is subject to the benefits of the Act. Any discussion of such questions at this time is, as it seems to me, premature.

If defendant believes that the complaint in its present form is inadequate, it may file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The discovery processes are available for ascertaining facts concerning plaintiff’s case.

Motion denied.
Here's how you know expand_moreexpand_less
 dot gov iconOfficial websites use .gov
						A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. https lock iconSecure .gov websites use HTTPS
						A **lock ( lock ) or https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Science.gov 
 menuAbout Science.gov expand_moreexpand_less
						FAQs
							Help				
					Open Science & Public Access expand_moreexpand_less
						Open Science Announcements
							Public Access Plans & Guidance
							Submissions for Public Access
							Services for Public Access Collections
					Scientific Integrity


search
				Advanced Search	
				Search


Science.gov provides access to millionsof authoritative scientific research results from U.S. federal agencies.
				Learn More


Federal Agency Members


- Site Map
- Members Only
- Website Policies
- Vulnerability Disclosure Program
- Contact Us

Office of Scientific and Technical Information CENDI
#### Kimberley Sullivan, Appellant, v Ercan Murat Goksan et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[854 NYS2d 305]

The jury’s verdict in favor of respondents was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd.,*9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]), in this action where plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant Lazarus, was injured when a van, owned by respondent Airborne and driven by respondent Goskan, collided into the rear of Lazarus’s vehicle, which was stopped at a red light. Respondents maintained that the collision occurred as a result of the unexpected presence of an oily condition on the street, and Goskan testified as to the nonnegligent operation of his vehicle, including the rate of speed at braking, the distance he maintained from plaintiffs vehicle, the lighting conditions that evening, and the presence of the subject oily puddle. Such testimony was corroborated by respondents’ engineering and accident reconstruction expert, as well as the police officer who responded to the accident. The evidence of Goskan’s negligence came from plaintiff’s engineering and accident reconstruction expert, whose opinion contradicted Goskan’s testimony, and the jury’s decision to credit the testimony of Goskan and the defense *345expert over that of plaintiffs expert is entitled to deference *(see Chepel v Meyers,*306 AD2d 235 [2003]).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs argument that the trial court improperly denied her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability fails, and in any event, the motion was premature as it was made prior to the presentation of respondents’ case *(see*CPLR 4401; *Cass v Broome County Coop. Ins. Co.,*94 AD2d 822 [1983]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.