alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tiffany Brown et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff, v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 784]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 5, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff Tiffany Brown, as well as the derivative cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff Vanessa Brown with respect to Tiffany Brown, on the ground that the plaintiff Tiffany Brown did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on behalf of the infant plaintiff Tiffany Brown, as well as the derivative cause of action of the plaintiff Vanessa Brown with respect to Tiffany Brown, the defendant relied upon the medical records and reports concerning Tiffany Brown prepared by her treating physicians. Those reports and records failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Tiffany Brown did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Indeed, one of those reports noted the existence of limitations in the range of motion of Tiffany Brown’s knees without sufficient quantification or qualification to establish that the limitation of motion was not significant. Since the defendant’s assertions were thus belied by the documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion *(see Smith v Delcore,*29 AD3d 890 [2006]; *Sano v Gorelik,*24 AD3d 747 [2005]; *Kaminsky v Waldner,*19 AD3d 370 [2005]; *Spuhler v Khan,*14 AD3d 693 [2005]; *Omar v Bello,*13 AD3d 430 [2004]; *Scotti v Boutureira,*8 AD3d 652 [2004]; *see also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Willis v New York City Tr. Auth.,*14 AD3d 696 [2005]). Since the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.E, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
Who’s working at 2 a.m.? Data from the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) can tell you.

According to the BLS American Time Use 

Survey, more than 3 percent of all full-time workers 

aged 15 and over were at their primary job at 2 a.m. 

on the day that they were surveyed. The chart shows 

the occupational groups that were most likely to 

have workers clocked in at this early hour.

Occupations of many working night owls are not 

surprising. Protective services workers must work 

around the clock to keep people and property safe. 

And healthcare workers are on call at all hours in 

hospitals and nursing homes. But workers in other 

groups might be more unexpected, such as the 

almost 6 percent of workers in farming, fishing, and 

forestry occupations toiling at 2 a.m. 

The American Time Use Survey gathers detailed 

information on how Americans spend their time. 

Data are averaged across 4 years, 2003 to 2006. For 

more information about this survey, write to BLS, 

2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 4675, Washington, D.C. 20212; call (202) 691–6339; or visit 

www.bls.gov/tus.

To learn more about night work and other 

alternative or shift schedules, see the summer 2007 

0ERCENTOFFULL
TIMEWORKERSONTHEIRMAINJOBATAM

*OTUBMMBUJPO
NBJOUFOBODF
BOESFQBJS

#VJMEJOHBOEHSPVOETDMFBOJOHBOENBJOUFOBODF

"SUT
EFTJHO
FOUFSUBJONFOU
TQPSUT
BOENFEJB

'PPEQSFQBSBUJPOBOETFSWJOHSFMBUFE

'BSNJOH
ñTIJOH
BOEGPSFTUSZ

)FBMUIDBSFQSBDUJUJPOFSBOEUFDIOJDBM

1SPEVDUJPO

5SBOTQPSUBUJPOBOENBUFSJBMNPWJOH

)FBMUIDBSFTVQQPSU

1SPUFDUJWFTFSWJDFT 



















Quarterly article “Flexible work: Adjusting the when 

and where of your job,” available online at 

www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2007/summer/art02.pdf, 

and the December 2007 Monthly Labor Review

article “A time to work: recent trends in shift work 

and flexible schedules,” online at 

www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/12/art1full.pdf. 

On the clock at 2 a.m.

Percent of full-time workers on their main job at 2 a.m.

56 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Spring 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAMI SHALHOUB : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-10-2640

:

Plaintiff : (CHIEF JUDGE KANE)

: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

v. :

:

OFFICER JAMES DEPRETA, :

et al. :

:

Defendants :

O R D E R

Before the Court in the captioned action is a December 28, 2010 report of the

Magistrate Judge. No timely objections have been filed. 

Accordingly, upon review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Carlson.

2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

3) The case is TRANSFERRED to the District of New Jersey for further

proceedings. 

 s/ Yvette Kane 

 YVETTE KANE, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: January 18, 2011

Case 2:11-cv-00368-JLL-CCC Document 6 Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 39
Exhibit
32.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Driver Passport, Inc. a North Dakota
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),
Daniel Correra,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Driver Passport, Inc., and will be retained by Driver Passport, Inc.. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


/s/ Daniel
      CorreraDaniel
      Correra
                  Chief Financial
      Officer
                  November
      14, 2008
# table119_q14.1_state
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Part IV - Particular Types of Compensation Payments

Chapter 5: Back Pay

1

Back Pay Defined

Back pay, as used in these instructions, is a retroactive wage increase. For example, a negotiated 

contract expires December 31st but employees continue to work while a new contract is 

negotiated. A new contract is approved in the following August which includes a pay increase 

retroactive to January 1st. The retroactive increase, or back pay, is paid in September, for work 

beginning January 1st.

Crediting Back Pay

Like other compensation, back pay may be creditable for the month compensation is paid or for 

the period earned. Also, like other compensation, if back pay is reported for the month paid and 

the employee makes a timely request that it be allocated instead to the month(s) earned, the 

employer must submit an adjustment report accordingly. See Part II, Chapter 5 for more 

information about employee protests of service and compensation records.

No Service Month With Back Pay

A service month should not be reported for the month that back pay was paid. In the case of a 

retroactive wage increase, it is presumed that service has already been credited based on the 

initial wage payment prior to the increase.

Distinguishing Between Back Pay and Pay for Time Lost

Back Pay under the RRA and RUIA is defined differently than pay for time lost. Employers have 

used the term back pay to refer to pay for time lost. For example, an employer may indicate that 

a discharged employee won reinstatement with back pay from the termination date. This would 

be payment for the period of lost wages, not back pay as defined under the RRA and RUIA. The 

name the employer gives to the payment does not govern the rules under which the payment is 

creditable. See the next chapter for instructions on reporting pay for time lost.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Greg Grant, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 457]

*936Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated December 19, 2005, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered September 20, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The alleged failure of the defendant’s trial counsel to advise the defendant that deportation was a possible consequence of his conviction did not warrant vacatur of his judgment of conviction *(see People v McDonald,*1 NY3d 109, 113 [2003]; *People v Baldares-Lima,*29 AD3d 813 [2006]). Florio, J.P, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30520-30521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14985]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


 Notice of meeting

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Siskiyou Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

SUMMARY: The Siskiyou Resource Advisory Committee will meet on

[[Page 30521]]

Friday, July 31, 2009 to recommend Title II projects for fiscal year 
2010 under the reauthorized Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 
Determination Act, Public Law 110-343. The meeting will be held at 
Smith River Rancheria (Howonquet Hall Community Center), 101 Indian 
Court, Smith River, CA 95567. It begins at 9:30 a.m., ends at 4:30 
p.m.; the open public comments begin at 11 a.m. and end at 11:30 a.m. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the meeting and delivered to 
Designated Federal Official, Scott Conroy, Rogue River-Siskiyou 
National Forest, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 
Public Affairs Patty Burel at telephone: (541) 618-2113, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0c0d2c5c2d5dcf0d6c39ed6d5d49ec5c3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6d6c4d3d4c3cae6c0d588c0c3c288d3d5">[email protected]</span></a>, or USDA Forest Service, Patty Burel, 3040 Biddle 
Road, Medford, OR 97504.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Scott Conroy,
Forest Supervisor, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9-14985 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Corse, Also Known as Erik Corse, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 669]

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 May 25, 2010 *{People v Corse,*73 AD3d 1208 [2010]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 30, 2008.

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]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### Cheryl Freeman, Respondent, v Prince Leasing Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[853 NYS2d 517]

The issue that plaintiff failed to establish she had suffered a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is not properly before us. No appeal lies from denial of a motion for *456reargument *(see Trexler v Kahanovitz,*41 AD3d 161, 162 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
WRIT NOS. W06-00445-K(B), W06-00448-K(B), W06-00450-K(B) and 

W06-00453-K(B)

In the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin

From the CDC No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

EX PARTE 

RAUL DAVID JACKSON,

Applicant,

11.07 Writ

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO TURN IN 

FINDING OF FACTS AND CONLUSIONS OF LAW

Bruce Kaye

TBN. 00784374

2309 Boll St.

Dallas, TX 75204

(214) 722-7438

Appointed Writ Master, CDC 4

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

WR-73,697-06,07,08,09

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 5/19/2015 2:50:52 PM

Accepted 5/22/2015 8:26:08 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 5/22/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
I.

On or about November 26, 2014, the undersigned was appointed as Writ Master by 

the Honorable Judge Dominique Collins, Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, 

Texas. The Court’s Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law are due on or about May 20, 

2015.

II.

This issues to be resolved are as follows:

a. Is Applicant’s judgment and sentence void;

b. Does Applicant’s sentence violate double jeopardy;

c. Was Applicant’s plea involuntary; and

d. Did Applicant receive ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

III.

The undersigned Writ Master has been involved in numerous Appellate matters for 

both state and federal cases. One case was a Capital Murder (non death penalty) which 

produced a 100 page brief. Currently, there are three (3) appeals all due within the next 30 

days and two (2) trials also scheduled in the same time frame. An additional 90 days is 

required in order to properly read Applicant’s paperwork, review the State’s response, 

research the issues and thereafter prepare the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law for 

the Court.
WHEREFORE,	 PREMISES	 CONSIDERED,	 the	 undersigned Writ	 Master	 prays	

this	 Court	 grant	 his	 Motion	 for	 Extension	 of Time	 to	 Turn	 in	 Finding	 of	 Facts	 and	

Conclusions	of	Law.

Respectfully	submitted,

/s/ Bruce Kaye

BRUCE C. KAYE

By: Bruce Kaye

TBN 00784374

 Appointed Writ Master

2309 Boll. St.

Dallas, TX 75204

(214) 722-7438

(866) 649-8757 facsimile

Bruce@brucekaye.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document

was tendered to Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, on the 20th Day of

May, 2015, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 /s/Bruce Kaye

BRUCE C. KAYE

,
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 3, 2009 

d0331 

Order 

 

April 3, 2009 

138506 & (10)(11) 

In re WELLINGTON HAYES and 

ELIZABETH L. HAYES REVOCABLE 

TRUST 

_________________________________________/ 

ROBERT P. LADD, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 138506 

 COA: 290931 

St. Clair CC: 09-000230-AV 

PATRICIA SUNDERMAN, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Joint
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
      Required by Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Vanilla eXchange, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Steven Yevoli, CEO and
      Principal Executive Officer, and John A. Cook, Principal Financial Officer
      and
      Principal Accounting Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company.




May
      21,
      2007






/s/
      Steven Yevoli





Steven
      Yevoli


Principal
      Executive Officer








/s/
      John
      A. Cook





John
      A.
      Cook


Principal
      Financial Officer
#### Joseph Saint et al., Respondents, v Syracuse Supply Company, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Smith, J.E, Feradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
# table93_q11.3_size
Exhibit
10.1            Amendment to Stock Option Plan



                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                            HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN

Pursuant  to  Section  16  and  Section  3  of that certain Stock Option Plan of
Hyperdynamics  dated effective May 7, 1997, the Board of Directors hereby amends
the  Stock  Option  Plan  (the  "Plan")  this  December  3,  2001,  as  follows:


1.   The  new  name  of  the  Plan  is  "Stock  and  Stock  Option  Plan."

2.   By  adding  the word "shares of common stock; or " in Section 1 immediately
     after  the  first  appearance  of  the  word  "granted".

3.   By deleting the term "1,620,000" where ever it may appear and substitute in
     its  place  the term 5,120,000. The purpose of this amendment is to provide
     for  an additional 3,500,000 shares of common stock that may be optioned or
     granted  pursuant  to  the  Stock  Option  Plan.

4.   By  adding  the word ", attorneys" in Section 1 immediately after the first
     and  second  appearance  of  the  word  "consultants."

5.   By adding the word "shares of common stock, or " in Section 3 paragraph two
     before  all  appearances  of  the  word  "Options."

6.   By  adding  the word "issuance of shares of common stock, or " in Section 3
     paragraph  three  before  all  appearances  of  the  word  "Options."

7.   By  renaming  Section  4.  "Shares  and  Shares  Subject  to  Option."

8.   By  adding  the word "issued or" in Section 4 before all appearances of the
     word  "optioned."

9.   By adding the word "and the other persons set forth in Section 1" after the
     first  appearance  of  the  word  "Director"  in  Section  5(a).

10.  By adding the word "shares of common stock, or " in Section 5(a) before all
     appearances  of  the  words  "[an]  Option[s]."

11.  By  adding  the word "shares of common stock, or " in Section 15 before all
     appearances  of  the  words  "Options."



<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

     The undersigned officer of Wellman, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is
provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a
part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: March 15, 2006


                                        /s/ Keith R. Phillips
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 925 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the powers of 

the president remain limited by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2020 

Mr. MALINOWSKI (for himself, Mr. PHILLIPS, and Mr. AMASH) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the powers of the president remain limited by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives affirms 

2 that when someone is the president of the United States, 

3 their authority is not total. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# table4a_q2_naics

# table4b_q2_naics

# table4c_q2_naics

# table4d_q2_naics

# table4e_q2_naics

# table4f_q2_naics

# table4g_q2_naics
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6631

NATHANIEL GOODE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent Lanesboro Correctional,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00022-FDW)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Goode, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an unauthorized 

successive petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 

Goode has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny Goode’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED