alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen L. Brenner, M.D., Appellant, v Hartford Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 57]

Under New York law, the incontestability provision contained in plaintiffs policy precludes the insurer from denying coverage beyond the two-year period *(see New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Doe,*93 NY2d 122, 129 [1999]). However, under New Jersey law, it does not preclude denial of coverage on the ground that the insured concealed a known disability *(see Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v Haas,*137 NJ 190, 644 A2d 1098 [1994]). In view of the record evidence that plaintiff was aware of his preexisting degenerative condition and its effect on his ability to practice orthopedic surgery long before he applied for the disability in*297surance policy, under New Jersey law, his motion for summary judgment declaring that he is totally disabled within the meaning of the policy, that defendant is obligated to pay continuing benefits to him under the policy, and that his obligation to pay premiums is waived during the period of his disability was properly denied.

The documentary evidence establishes conclusively that New Jersey has the most significant relationship with the insurance policy transaction *(see Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v Foster Wheeler Corp.,*36 AD3d 17, 21 [2006], *affd*9 NY3d 928 [2007]). New Jersey was the place of contracting, the place of performance, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and plaintiffs domicile. The insurance application was executed in Emerson, New Jersey. The subject matter of the insurance contract, plaintiffs orthopedic surgery practice, was located in New Jersey, insofar as plaintiff was employed full-time by Orthopedic Sports & Medicine Associates in Emerson, New Jersey, and annual premium notices were sent there. Plaintiffs tax returns, driver’s license and voter registration card all reflect a New Jersey address. Plaintiff used his New Jersey address on his insurance application and in filing a claim and filling out continuation-of-claim forms, and he received disability checks at his New Jersey residence.

Plaintiffs affidavit regarding his alleged “contacts” with New York lacks documentary support. Plaintiff proffered no evidence that he is a New York resident or that the disability policy was delivered in New York or the application completed in New York. Indeed, as indicated, the application was executed in Emerson, New Jersey.

We reject plaintiffs contention that application of New Jersey law in this case contravenes New York public policy concerning the interpretation of incontestability provisions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. William H. Walls

Crim. No. 10-440 (WHW)

V.

CONTINUANCE ORDER

THOMAS HOLLAND

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (by Brian L. Urbano, Assistant U.S.

Attorney), and defendant Thomas Holland (by Chester Keller, Esq.)

for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the

above—captioned matter, and the defendant being aware that she

has the right to have the matter brought to trial within 70 days

of the date of his appearance before a judicial officer of this

court pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section

3161 Cc) (1), and as the defendant has consented to such a

continuance, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendants desire additional time

to finalize a plea agreement, which would render trial of this

matter unnecessary;
Section 3161(h) (8), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, on this 

day of October, 2010,

IT IS ORDERED that defense motions shall be filed by

the government’s reply shall by filed by

•

, the argument of the motions is scheduled for

the trial is scheduled for 

and 
United States Code, Section 3161(h) (8), / / UI

i L—(

HONWLLIAt H.LLS

United States istrict Judge

I hereby consent to the form

and entry of this Order

,:

Chester KoLer, Esq.

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

L. URI3ANO, AUSA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE LAWRENCE ROBINSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 209 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE LAWRENCE ROBINSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 210 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
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 Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/    Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Bernard J. Tanenbaum III       
|Chief Executive Officer        

August 14, 2009
BLS Technical Advisory Committee 

June 17, 2016 - Agenda 

 

8:30 Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments 

9:00 Designing a Survey to Collect Data on Occupational Injuries and Illnesses from Households 

 Presenters: Elizabeth Rogers & Nicole Nestoriak, BLS – Compensation and Working Conditions 

 Discussants: Bruce Meyer, University of Chicago 

 Brady West, University of Michigan 

 

10:30 Break 

10:45 How Often do the Requirements of Jobs Change? 

 Presenter: Kristen Monaco, BLS – Compensation and Working Conditions 

 Discussants: Susan Houseman, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 

 Pia Orrenius, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 

12:15 Lunch 

1:30 Discussion of Future Priorities

2:00 Education and Training Requirements for Occupations 

 Presenters: Mike Horrigan & Michael Wolf, BLS – Employment and Unemployment Statistics 

2:45 Break 

3:00 Education and Training Requirements for Occupations, continued

Discussants: Michael Handel, Northeastern University 

 Steve Hine, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development 

4:00 Conclusion 

Janet Norwood Conference Center · 2 Massachusetts Avenue Northeast · Washington, D.C. 20212
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 3096
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206 Filed 08/22/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 3097
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206 Filed 08/22/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 3098
2. The Detainee is charged in this District by Indictment with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 & 1963.

3. The Detainee will return to the custody of the detaining facility upon termination of proceedmgs.

4. The Detainee will be required in Newark, New Jersey. before the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler. U.S.D.J.. on Thursday. July 19. 2012, at 2:00 pm. for a Sentencing Hearing. A Writ of Habeas Corpus should he issued for that purpose.

I)ATED: July 11,2012 5: MELiSSA L. JAJvIPOL

Melissa Jampol

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Petitioner (973) 645-2772

OR D ER

Let the Writ Issue.

DATED

iiC anley R”Chesler, U.SD.J.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The United States of America to Warden of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. New Jersey State Prison:

WE COMMAND YOU that you have the body of

Flaleek State, SBI#513142C,

now confined at the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON, brought before the United States District Court, the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J., at Newark, NJ, on Thursday, July 19, 2012, at 2:00 pm. so that the Detainee may attend a Sentencing [-Jearing in the above-captioned matter. Immediately upon completion of the proceedings, the Detainee will be returned to said place of confinement in safe and secure conduct.

WITNESS the honorable Stan!cyR. Chcsler United States .District Judge Newark, New Jersey

DATED: //2.f2/ WILLIAM T. WALSH

Clerk of the LS. District Court

for the District of New Jersey

Al !lIj , I, . L&&1j

Deputy Clerk
----

|   | (1) | the                  quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gulf Western Petroleum Corporation                  for                  the period ended February 28, 2007 (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                  Georgia                  Exploration, Inc. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /                  s                  / Donald L. Sytsma                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                           |
|   | Donald                  L. Sytsma                                              |
|   | Chief                  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary              |
|   | (principal                  financial and accounting                  officer) |

----
<PAGE>
                                  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 Regal Rock, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date:  July 13, 2007


/s/ Wu Chih Chun
---------------------------------------
Wu Chih Chun, Principal Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10673 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. VIRGINIA GRIEGO PULIDO, also known as Maria Barrios , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 132

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Virginia Griego
Pulido has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Griego Pulido h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel ’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 25, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10673 Document: 00514848741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2019No. 18

- 10673

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10673 Document: 00514848741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2019
@misc{1150781,
  author = {Tina G Butcher and Linda D Crown and Richard A Harshman},
  title = {Specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices:},
  year = {2017},
  month = {2017-11-01 04:11:00},
  publisher = {, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.44-2018},
  language = {en},
}
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42487

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTINA LOUISE CREESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 567

Filed: July 27, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of ten years with two

years determinate and ten years with three years determinate for two counts of 

forgery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Christine Louise Creese pled guilty to two counts of forgery. Idaho Code § 18-3601. 

The district court sentenced Creese to consecutive unified sentences of ten years with two years 

determinate and ten years with three years determinate. Creese appeals asserting that the district 

court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Creese’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Williams, Also Known as De Andre Williams, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 715]

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 January 17, 1983 *(People v Williams,*91 AD2d 1028 [1983]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered December 17, 1980.

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]). Florio, J.E, Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.3
 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Amendment Bermudian Intercreditor Agreement Bermudian Borrower Irish Borrower Borrowers Facility Agent Collateral Agent Liquidity Facility Provider AA Delaware DBTCA Operating Bank Irish
Intercreditor Agreement Intercreditor Agreements Security Agreement
 W I T N E S S E T H
    Definitions
 Amendments; Agreements; Etc
 Adjusted Appraised Value
 -1-




---



##### 



Adjusted Appraised Value provided that
 Letter of Credit
 Letter of Credit
  Qualifying LC Provider
 Qualifying Maintenance LC provided that
 Delivery of Qualifying Maintenance LCs
 -2-




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
  Incorporation by Reference
  -3-




---



##### 



ACS 2008-1 LIMITED,By

/s/
Ron WainshalName:
    Ron WainshalTitle:
    Director -4-




---



##### 



SIGNED AND DELIVEREDOn behalf ofACS AIRCRAFT FINANCE IRELAND 3 LIMITED,by its duly appointed attorneyBy
    
    /s/ Jane  OCallaghanName: Jane OCallaghanTitle: Directorin the presence of:By
    
    /s/  Taryn AlcalaName: Taryn AlcalaTitle: Administrator
 -5-




---



##### 



CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND      INVESTMENT BANK f/k/a
Calyon (New York      Branch), acting through its NEW YORK BRANCH,
     as the Facility Agent, the Collateral Agent and the      Liquidity Facility
ProviderBy
    
    /s/ Ted VandermelName: Ted VandermelTitle: DirectorBy
    
    /s/ Edward ChuName: Edward ChuTitle: Vice President
 -6-




---



##### 



AIRCASTLE ADVISOR LLC,
     as the Administrative AgentBy/s/ Joseph Schreiner
Name: Joseph SchreinerTitle: Executive Vice PresidentBy/s/ Ron Wainshal
Name: Ron WainshalTitle: Chief Executive Officer
 -7-




---



##### 



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,
     as the Operating BankBy
    /s/ Louis BodiName:
    Louis BodiTitle:
    Vice PresidentBy
    /s/ Sue KimName:
    Sue KimTitle:
    Associate -8-




---



##### 



Consented and Agreed:

     [Required Lenders]ByName:Title: -9-
# table185_q17.2_state
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the
Report) 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.



/s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Name:

Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Title:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: May 16, 2011
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 25 , 202 3

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 78 8

- CV

CHRISTOPHER A. WEEMS , Appellant

V.
GROVE AT SEABROOK , Appelle e

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1191017

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal is from a final judgment signed October 20 , 2022

. The clerk’s record was filed December 14, 2022. The reporter’s record was filed January 9,
2023

. No brief was filed.

On March 14 , 2023 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant
filed a brief on or before April 13 , 202 3 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without
further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
#### RADIO RECEPTOR CO., Inc., v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 27, 1939.

Harold R. Zeamans, of New York City (Milton Haas, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Chadbourne, Wallace, Parke & White-side, of New York City (Leonard P. Moore and James K. Crimmins, both of New York City, of counsel), for Bendix Radio Corporation and Bendix Aviation Corporation.

COXE, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff for a protective order under Rule 30(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, with respect to a proposed examination before trial of two officers of the plaintiff. The matters to be covered by the examination are indicated by the subpoena duces tecum served on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff insists (1) that it should not be required to divulge trade secrets of a purely confidential nature with respect to its business, (2) that the examination should be restricted to the period subsequent to 1935, and (3) that the general scope of the examination should be limited.

First, as to trade secrets. The complaint in paragraph 33 alleges that the former employees of the plaintiff revealed to the defendants “certain trade secrets of the plaintiff together with the names and locations of various sources of supply known to the plaintiff.” Paragraph 34 alleges that these employees revealed to the defendants “the plaintiff’s figures and proposed bid upon contracts to be let by the U. S. Signal Corps and the Department of Commerce”.

I think that the defendants may examine the officers of the plaintiff on these allegations, even though the examination may involve disclosing the plaintiff’s trade secrets, etc.

*168Second, as to the limitation in time to the period after 1935. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has been in the business of manufacturing and selling special radio equipment “for the past four years”. The damages asked run into high figures and general evidence regarding the growth, financial condition and relative position of the plaintiff in the field is clearly relevant. I do not think, therefore, that it is practicable now to place any time limitation on the examination as requested by the plaintiff.

Third, as to a limitation on the general scope of the examination. The subpoena as served is clearly too broad, and I think the criticisms- made of it by the plaintiff are in the main well taken. There is no real necessity in such a case as this to require the production of such a huge mass of material as called for by the subpoena. Moreover, it is an imposition on the court to be asked to pass on the propriety of so many different items. Counsel should make an effort to agree on the disputed matters in line with this memorandum. If they are unable to do so, I will pass on any remaining questions at a further oral argument.