alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phyllis Alto et al., Appellants, v Firebaugh Realty Corporation, N.V., Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 610]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated December 20, 2004, as granted the defendant’s motion to stay an inquest, vacate pursuant to CPLR 317 an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment, and dismiss the action as time-barred.

*739Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion is denied.

The plaintiffs effected service upon the defendant, the owner of the building where the injuries allegedly occurred, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b) by delivering two copies of the summons and verified complaint to the Secretary of State. The defendant did not answer, and the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment was granted. The defendant received notice of the inquest ordered upon the grant of that motion after the plaintiffs served the manager of the building. By affidavit of its certified public accountant, the defendant averred that it had not received the summons and complaint.

The court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate pursuant to CPLR 317 the order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment *(cf. Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141-142 [1986]). The motion was supported only by the assertions of the defendant’s certified public accountant, who was without personal knowledge of the facts *(cf. Piltser v Donna Lee Mgt. Corp.,*29 AD3d 973, 974 [2006]; *Metropolitan Steel Indus, v Rosenshein Hub Dev. Corp.,*257 AD2d 422 [1999]; *Balendran v North Shore Med. Group,*251 AD2d 522, 523 [1998]; *Matter of Baer v Lipson,*194 AD2d 787 [1993]). In any event, these assertions, even if they were not hearsay, would have been insufficient to establish when the summons and complaint were received, if at all, or that the defendant “did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend” (CPLR 317; *see Metropolitan Steel Indus, v Rosenshein Hub Dev. Corp., supra).*

The reply affidavit of the defendant’s “sole owner and officer” failed to cure the deficiency. In any event, new matters raised for the first time in a reply affidavit are not properly considered *(see Hoyte v Epstein,*12 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; *Jackson-Cutler v Long,*2 AD3d 590 [2003]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion. Crane, J.P, Ritter, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
----

----

|   | 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/      Daniel L. Baxter                                              |   |   |   |
| Daniel      L. BaxterChief Financial      OfficerMay      8, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICERANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Warren Robb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  of Pioneer Exploration Inc., (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, as amended by Amendment
        No. 1, of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2007 (the “Quarterly
        Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Company.                                                                                                               

| | By:    | /s/ Warren Robb            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  |                            
| |        | Warren Robb                
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | September 25, 2007         

---
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 Annual  Report of In Full Affect,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Daniel L.  Hodges,
President  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, to the
best of 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 751
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 752
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 753
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 754
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 755
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 756
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 757
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 758
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 759
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 760
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 761
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 59 Filed 10/14/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 762
@misc{1216111,
  author = {Dan Mamula and Karri Meldorf and Joseph brule and O’Ryan Lattin and John Wiltberger and Sam Sepassi and Rory Jennings and Chris Thorpe and John Dombrowski and Jim McCarthy},
  title = {Cybersecurity Framework Profile for Hybrid Satellite Networks (HSN)},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-25 04:09:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956545},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8441},
  language = {en},
}
CARLOS ALMONTE : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

application of defendant CARLOS ALMONTE (James Patton, Esq.,appearing) in the presence of the government (Paul J. Fishman,United States Attorney, counsel for the United States, L. Judson

Welle and Andrew Kogan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), for

an order adjourning the sentencing hearing in this matter; and

for good cause shown,

It is on this 2ZIday of November 2011

ORDERED that the sentencing hearing in this matter is hereby

adjourned to March 20, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:1. On or before December 7, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party with notice of any and all experts who may submit

reports or testify in support of the party’s argument during thesentencing hearing. This notice shall include at least: (a) the

name of the expert; (b) the expert’s qualifications; and (c) a

summary of the expert’s anticipated report and/or testimony.

1
least: (a) the name of the expert; (b) the expert’s

qualifications; and (c) a summary of the expert’s report and/or

testimony.

3. On or before February 17, 2011, each party shall

provide the other party a copy of any report it intends to submit

on behalf of an expert noticed pursuant to paragraph one (1) of

this Order.

4. On or before March 15, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party a copy of any report it intends to submit on

behalf of an expert noticed pursuant to paragraph two (2) of this

Order.

5. On or before March 16, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party the names of the experts noticed pursuant to

paragraph one (1) or two (2) of this Order that the party intends

to call to testify during the sentencing hearing.

United States Senior District Judge

2
# table140_q15.2_state
#### BROOKSHIRE et al. v. WHITTEMORE et al.

Civ. A. No. 94.

District Court, W. D. Kentucky.

July 7, 1941.

*550Prince & Cox, of Benton, Ky., and Fisher Neal and Aaron Brown, both of Paris, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Webb & Webb, of Mayfield, Ky., for defendants.

MILLER, District Judge.

The allegations of the petition, considered apart from the affidavits filed in support of the motion to dismiss, state a cause of action. The affidavits filed by the defendants are devoted in part to controverting the allegations of the petition, and in that respect can not be considered in connection with a preliminary motion to dismiss, which, for the purposes of the motion, concedes the facts as stated by the petition. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., D.C.W.D. Ky., 37 F.Supp. 728. With respect to matters not stated in the petition, and to which it is the purpose of the affidavits to direct the attention of the Court, the counter affidavits filed by the plaintiffs raise many issues of fact. If the facts are as stated by plaintiffs’ counter affidavits, a cause of action exists against the defendants. It is not necessary that all of the goods produced actually enter interstate commerce, or that their entry into inter-state commerce be immediate and direct from the producer. United States v. F. W. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 25 S. Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 42 S.Ct. 397, 66 L.Ed. 735, 23 A.L.R. 229; Fleming, Adm’r v. Enterprise Box Co., D.C.S.D.Florida, 37 F.Supp. 331, decided Feb. 26, 1941; Fleming, Adm’r v. Hitchcock, D.C.S.D.Florida, 38 F.Supp. 358, decided April 7, 1941. The fact that only a small part of the business is interstate commerce does not prevent the Act from being applicable. N.L.R.B. v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 606, 607, 307 U.S. 609, 59 S.Ct. 668, 83 L.Ed. 1014; N.L.R.B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass’n, 310 U.S. 318, 60 S. Ct. 918, 84 L.Ed. 1226; Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38. Whether or not the activities engaged in by the defendants are to be considered as one unit or as segregated businesses, and the actual percentage of business constituting retail trade in each branch of the business and in the business as a whole, and the exact nature of the sales in question are very important matters in the final .decision of this case. These facts are not fully or properly presented by the conflicting affidavits. A motion to dismiss can not be used as a substitute for a trial on the merits. If a genuine issue of fact exists, as appears from the opposing affidavits, the case is not one for decision either on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, but should be passed to a trial on its merits. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., supra; Fleming v. Wood-Fruitticher Grocery Co., Inc., D.C., 37 .F.Supp. 947.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,899]


John Maneely Company, Wheatland Tube Co. Division, A.K.A. Sharon 
Tube Co., Sharon, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on May 7, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by United Steelworkers union officials on behalf of 
workers of John Maneely Company, Wheatland Tube Co. Division, a.k.a. 
Sharon Tube Co., Sharon, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15745 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
---

---

Exhibit 8

# SUBSIDIARIES OF
RADVISION LTD.

RADVISION Ltd. has the following
wholly owned subsidiaries:

|1. | RADVISION
Inc. (incorporated in New Jersey)
|-- | -------------------------------------------

|2. | RADVISION
B.V. (incorporated in the Netherlands)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------

|3. | RADVISION
(HK) Ltd. (incorporated in Hong Kong)
|-- | -----------------------------------------------

|4. | RADVISION
(UK) Ltd. (incorporated in the United Kingdom)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------

|5. | RADVISION
Communication Development (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (incorporated in China)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|6. | RADVISION
Japan KK (incorporated in Japan)
|-- | ------------------------------------------

|7. | RADVISION
France S.A.R.L (incorporated in France)
|-- | -------------------------------------------------

|8. | RADVISION
GmbH (incorporated in Germany)
|-- | ----------------------------------------



---

---
EXHIBIT
32.2


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Financial Officer







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






(i)
            the
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and






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







Dated:
      November 6, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      WILLIAM KAMERWilliam
      KamerChief
      Financial Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2


                      STATEMENT BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND RULE 13a-14(b) and RULE 15d-14(b)


I, Phillip W. Arneson, certify that:

         The annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31,
2004 of Sorrento Networks Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2004 of Sorrento Networks Corporation fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sorrento
Networks Corporation.

                                              Subscribed and sworn to
                                              before me this 18 day of May, 2004


/s/ Joe R. Armstrong                          /s/  Claudia Warner
-----------------------------                 ----------------------------
Name:  Joe R. Armstrong                       Notary Public Seal
Date:  May 18, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 28, 2015

d0518

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

149854(85)

VIRGINIA DIANE HASKELL,

Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant-Appellee,

v SC: 149854

COA: 314043

Newaygo CC: 11-019670-CZ

PAUL P. TUROWSKI and SHARON L.

TUROWSKI,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs/Third-Party

Plaintiffs/Cross Defendants- Appellants, 

and

NEWAYGO COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,

Defendant,

v

JOSEPH SELLA,

Third-Party Defendant/

Cross Plaintiff-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28, 

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### DELLEFIELD v. BLOCKDEL REALTY CO., Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 28, 1939.

Isidor Lazarus, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Theodore B. Richter, of New York City, for defendants.

CONGER, District Judge.

I have carefully read the complaint herein. I am satisfied that the moving defendants should have relief. The complaint contains many things that are not necessary. It does not comply with Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, rule 8 (e) (1), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The pleading is not simple, concise, and direct, and while I am very chary in revising pleadings, it seems to me that this complaint herein should be revised.

Under the circumstances,. the simplest ruling that I can make is to order the plaintiff to renumber and set forth each cause of action.

In the first place, I think the cause of action of Sadie Dellefield, individually, should be set out separate from her cause of action as administratrix of the goods, chattels, rights and credits which were of Albert S. Dellefield, deceased. Each is a separate cause of action. There is no question but that these causes of action can be set forth in the same complaint, but they should be set out in different counts.

There is also some indication that this may be a derivative or stockholder’s action, but if that is so, it should be so set out and pleaded. I am unable to gather from the brief of the plaintiff’s attorney whether or not this, or a part of it, is a derivative action, but it appears from the complaint, in Count IV, that it may be a derivative or shareholder’s action. Pie does state in his brief: “As was pointed out upon the argument our fourth cause of action, or Count IV, is not primarily a derivative or secondary action, although Par. 17 of the complaint might be consistent therewith. * * * If at the trial it should be found that our evidence fully supports also a derivative or secondary action by a stockholder, then under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 15(b), it will be quite proper at the trial to amend Count IV to conform to such evidence.”

The proper and more orderly way would be to allege it now in the complaint.

In as much as my decision contemplates an amended complaint, I would suggest that the complaint be simplified to comply with the Rules. The complaint *43contains much evidentiary and unnecessary matter. I do not desire to point out the particular matter that does not belong in the complaint, but I might suggest as an example, Paragraph 8B, which contains much that is unnecessary.

The defendants’ motion is granted as indicated. Settle order on notice.