alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Plaintiff, v Millennium Holdings LLC et al., Respondents, and AIU Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Appellant, v Millenium Holdings LLC et al., Defendants, NL Industries Inc., Respondent, and Employers Mutual Casualty Company et al., Appellants.

[861 NYS2d *3]*

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered December 3, 2007, dismissing the cross claims of defendants Travelers and the remaining defendants-appellants (collectively, the AIG defendants) in favor of an Ohio action, based on an order, entered November 8, 2007, which also denied Travelers’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the underlying order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. Order, same court and Justice, entered December 26, 2007, which denied the motion of plaintiff Certain Underwriters and the cross motion of defendants OneBeacon America, Republic, Government Employees and Riunione Adriatica to enjoin NL Industries from maintaining actions in Texas, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the motion and cross motion granted.

Deference to the long-pending comprehensive Ohio action was warranted, as we ruled in this case in October 2007 (44 AD3d 536, 537 [2007]); the first-filed rule does not govern here *(see ACE Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v ITT Indus., Inc.,*44 AD3d 404, 405 [2007]). Travelers was not entitled to summary judgment on its defense of release; the interpretation of the settlement agreement at issue presented an issue for the Ohio court, which ruled in favor of resorting to extrinsic evidence.

In view of NL’s forum-shopping in commencing parallel Texas actions just after the insurers had brought suit in New York, this Court’s clear indication in our October 2007 ruling that the dispute has a greater nexus to New York, and the possibility of conflicting rulings, NL should have been enjoined from maintaining its Texas action *(see Jay Franco & Sons Inc. v G Studios, LLC,*34 AD3d 297 [2006]; *Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s v H.D.I. III Assoc.,*213 AD2d 246 [1995]). Under the *296circumstances, our deference to the Texas courts as a matter of comity is not warranted. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez and DeGrasse, JJ.
#### Felipe Ortega-Estrada, Respondent, v 215-219 West 145th Street LLC et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 845]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered on or about March 26, 2013, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), and denied de*615fendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability in this action where he alleges that he was injured while using a table saw that was not equipped with a blade guard or spreader *(see 12*NYCRR 23-1.12 [c] [2], [3]). That plaintiff was the sole witness to the accident does not warrant a different determination *(see De Oleo v Charts Christian Ministries, Inc.,*106 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2013]; *see also Noble v 260-261 Madison Ave., LLC,*100 AD3d 543, 544-545 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. Defendants’ challenges to plaintiffs credibility are unpersuasive and although comparative negligence is a viable defense to a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, no evidence of culpable conduct on the part of plaintiff was presented by defendants *(see Once v Service Ctr. of N.Y.,*96 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2012], *lv dismissed*20 NY3d 1075 [2013]).

In view of the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability on the section 241 (6) claim, defendants’ contentions regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims are academic *(see Fanning v Rockefeller Univ.,*106 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development
      Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
      30, 2007 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies,
      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 his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:
                October 29, 2007/s/ Vincent
                De LorenzoVincent
                De LorenzoChief
                Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21742]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, Sec. Sec.  
1.401 to 1.409, revised as of April 1, 2017, on page 235, in Sec.  
1.401(a)(9)-6, at the end of paragraph (d)(3)(i), insert the words ``as 
of the date of purchase''.

[FR Doc. 2017-21742 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1898

___________________________

Lamont Williamson

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Corizon, Inc.; Ian Wallace

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Mina Massey

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

Dana Degen; John Doe, Nurse; Jane Doe, Nurse

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

 ____________

Submitted: January 8, 2020

Filed: January 14, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Missouri inmate Lamont Williamson appeals

the district court’s

1

adverse grant of summary judgment on his deliberate indifference

claim against Dr. Mina Massey. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to

Williamson, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, this court concludes

that the grant of summary judgment was warranted. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d

830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). Specifically, this court agrees with the

district court that even assumingWilliamson’s nasal problems, including nosebleeds,

qualified as objectively serious medical needs, the record did not establish that Dr.

Massey was deliberately indifferent to those needs. See Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d

768, 771-72 (8th Cir. 2015) (to prevail on deliberate indifference claim, inmate must

show mental state similar to criminal negligence: defendant disregarded known risk

to inmate’s health); Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2014)

(showing that another doctor might have ordered different treatment or tests did not

equate to showing deliberate indifference, as physicians are entitled to exercise their

own medical judgment). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4329-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4329-DR), dated August 9 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

The amendment was issued on September 21, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-21642 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
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

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of Preferred Investment
Solutions Corp., the Managing Owner of Diversified Futures Trust I (Registrant), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                       
|David K. Spohr                                           
|Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|(Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)                 
|March 30, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Deon HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6966.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

*262Kenneth L. Singleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.'

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Deon Hawkins appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct his presentence report. For the reasons that follow we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Hawkins’ motion to correct his presen-tence report (“PSR”). As noted by the district court, the motion was filed far outside the time period allowed for such motions. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(f)(1) (noting that any challenges to a PSR should be filed within fourteen days of receiving the document).

To the extent Hawkins seeks to contest his 114-month sentence, imposed in December 2007, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as being untimely filed. Hawkins’ notice of appeal, whether filed in June or July of 2010, falls far outside the appeal period allowed for a criminal judgment, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), and the time period allowed for excusable neglect or good cause. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985). Thus, we dismiss the appeal of Hawkins’ sentence as untimely.

We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2878 

To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy projects in 

developing countries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2009 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy 

projects in developing countries. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may cited as the ‘‘Solar Villages Initiative 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE FOR RENEWABLE 

7 ENERGY PROJECTS IN DEVELOPING COUN8 TRIES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting through the 

10 Administrator of the United States Agency for InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:59 Jun 16, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2878.IH H2878

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2878 IH

1 national Development and in consultation with the Sec2 retary of State and the Secretary of Energy, is authorized 

3 to provide assistance for renewable energy projects de4 scribed in subsection (b) in developing countries to in5 crease the availability of credit, savings, and other services 

6 to microfinance and microenterprise clients lacking full ac7 cess to capital, training, technical assistance, and business 

8 development services. 

9 (b) TYPES OF PROJECTS.—The renewable energy 

10 projects described in this subsection include projects to as11 sist small and micro businesses that loan or sell solar lan12 terns or lamps and other solar energy technologies. 

13 (c) PRIORITY.—In providing assistance under sub14 section (a), the President shall give priority to empowering 

15 female-owned businesses in developing countries. 

16 (d) RELATION TO EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—Assist17 ance provided under subsection (a) shall be made available 

18 under the authorities of section 252 of the Foreign Assist19 ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2211a). 

20 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

21 authorized to be appropriated to the President to carry 

22 out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, 

23 $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, $15,000,000 for fiscal 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2878 IH

1 year 2012, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, $20,000,000 

2 for fiscal year 2014, and $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Michael F. Ronan et al., Respondents, v Martin O. Northrup et al., Defendants, and Robert E. Stevens, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 181]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting a cause of action against all defendants for fraud and causes of action for breach of contract and malpractice against defendant Robert E. Stevens. The fraud cause of action is based upon the allegations of plaintiffs that they entered into a lease with defendants Martin O. Northrup and Lucille A. Northrup and improved the leasehold property in reliance upon the false representation of Stevens that it would be “no problem” to obtain a zoning variance and special use permit from the Town of Greece to enable them to use the property for automobile repair and the sale of used cars. Stevens was the Northrups’ attorney but he also undertook to represent plaintiffs in the zoning application. There is a dispute whether he also represented plaintiffs with respect to the lease. Defendants moved to preclude the introduction of certain evidence because plaintiffs failed to respond fully to defendants’ interrogatories despite a court order to do so and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court denied the motion for preclusion and for summary judgment and ordered that depositions of the parties be held and that plaintiffs fully respond to defendants’ interrogatories within 30 days. Stevens alone has appealed.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for preclusion *(see,*CPLR 3126; *see generally, Zletz v Wetanson,*67 NY2d 711, 713). The record does not support the conclusion that the failure of plaintiffs to comply with the court’s order requiring them to respond fully to defendants’ interrogatories was the kind of “[e]xtreme conduct” necessary to grant the drastic remedy of preclusion *(Dauria v City of New York,*127 AD2d 459, 460; *see, Cooper v Drobenko Bros. Realty,*200 AD2d 415).

Stevens failed to establish his entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the breach of contract and malpractice causes of action *(see generally, Zuekerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). Although Stevens moved for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint, he failed to address either of those causes of action in support of his motion and has not even done so on appeal.

*1120The court erred, however, in failing to grant that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the fraud cause of action. Plaintiffs did not submit opposing affidavits and their verified complaint and answers to interrogatories fail to “set forth any factual assertions from which it may be inferred that the alleged representations were known to be false and that there was justifiable reliance upon those representations” *(Levy v Country Lake Homes,*133 AD2d 70, 71; *see, Cora v Spanish Naturopath Socy.,*168 AD2d 535, 538, *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*78 NY2d 940). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1



I, Nicholas J. Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunterra Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;



b. evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and



c. disclosed in this report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control of financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a. all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control of financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    NICHOLAS J. BENSON
|                         



Dated: November 14, 2003