alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARIA ROBINSON and WINSTON ROBINSON
, Appellant s ,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 22

- 3347

[ November 16, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE21

- 8493

.

Michael A. Cassel of Cassel & Cassel, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.

Carri S. Leininger and Maureen Martinez of W illiam s , Leininger & Cosby, P A , North Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
###### Editorial Note on Part 218

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 218.01 What is the purpose of the age discrimination regulations?

The purpose of these regulations is to set out the policies and procedures for the three foreign affairs agencies (State, USICA and AID) under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the government-wide age discrimination regulations at 45 CFR part 90 (published at 44 FR 33768, June 12, 1979). The Act and the government-wide regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities in the United States receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act and the government-wide regulations permit federally assisted programs or activities, and recipients of Federal funds, to continue to use age distinctions and factors other than age which meet the requirements of the Act and the government-wide regulations.
§ 192.3 Definitions. When used in this subchapter, unless otherwise specified, the terms— ( a ) *Secretary of State* includes any person to whom the Secretary of State has delegated the responsibilities of carrying out this subpart.
( b ) *Family member* means a dependent of a captive and any individual other than a dependent who is a member of such person's family or household and shall include the following: ( 1 ) A spouse,
( 2 ) an unmarried dependent child including a step-child or adopted child under 21 years of age,
( 3 ) a person designated in official records or determined by the agency head or designee thereof to be dependent, and
( 4 ) other persons such as parents, non-dependent children, parents-in-law, persons who stand in the place of a spouse or parents, or other members of the family or household of a captive or employee, as determined by the Agency head concerned.
( c ) *Agency head* means the head of an Executive Agency of the U.S. Federal Government employing an individual affected by hostile action as covered by these regulations. The Secretary of State is the agency head for actions abroad with respect to any such individual not employed by an agency.
( d ) *Captive* means any individual in a captive status commencing while such individual is in the Civil Service or a citizen, national or resident alien of the United States rendering personal service to the United States similar to the service of an individual in the Civil Service (other than as a member of the uniformed services).
( e ) *Captive status* means a missing status which, as determined under § 192.1, arises because of a hostile action and is a result of the individual's relationship with the Government.
( f ) *Principal* means the person whose captivity, death or disability forms the basis for benefits for that individual or for a family member under this subchapter.
( g ) *Individual rendering personal services to the United States similar to the* service of an individual in the Civil Service includes contract employees and other individuals fitting that description.
( h ) *Pay and allowances* has the meaning set forth in 5 U.S.C. 5561(6): ( 1 ) Basic pay;
( 2 ) Special pay;
( 3 ) Incentive pay;
( 4 ) Basic allowances for quarters;
( 5 ) Basic allowance for subsistence; and
( 6 ) Station per diem allowances for not more than 90 days.
( i ) *Child* means a dependent as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
Case 3:08-cv-02406-SI Document 26 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-02406-SI Document 26 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-02406-SI Document 26 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-02406-SI Document 26 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: THE PMI GROUP, INC., SECURITIES

LITIGATION 

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01405 SI

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: April 30, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

MOTION TO CERTIFY THE CLASS: August 13, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

(File Motion: 5/6/10, File Opposition: 6/17/10, File Reply: 7/29/10)

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is January 28, 2011.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 2/25/11; REBUTTAL: 3/25/11. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is April 8, 2011.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by April 29, 2011; 

Opp. Due June 10, 2011; Reply Due July 15, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than July 29, 2011 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: September 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: October 3, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

The parties have agreed to participate in private mediation in April 2010.

Counsel shall inform the Court of the mediator selected by 3/5/10.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01405-SI Document 71 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT




          This Stock Purchase Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of this 1st day
of February 2006, by and between Lancaster Colony Corporation (the “Company”) and the Estate of
Dorothy B. Fox (the “Estate”).




          WHEREAS, the Estate desires to sell 100,000 shares of Company common stock (the “Shares”); and




          WHEREAS, the Company has previously announced a stock repurchase program; and




          WHEREAS, the Estate has made an offer to sell the Shares to the Company at a price per share
equal to the average of the closing prices of the Company’s common stock over the eight (8) trading
days beginning on February 1, 2006;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	Purchase of Shares. The Company hereby agrees to purchase the Shares for a total
purchase price equal the product of (i) the average of the closing prices of the Company’s common
stock over the eight (8) trading days beginning on February 1, 2006 times (ii) 100,000 (the
“Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price shall be paid by wire transfer on February 13, 2006.
	 
	 	2.	 	Representations of the Estate. The Estate represents and warrants to the Company
that Robert L. Fox (the “Executor”) is the legally appointed executor of the Estate and that the
Executor has all required authority to sell the Shares on behalf of the Estate. The Estate
represents and warrants to the Company that the Shares are free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances.
	 
	 	3.	 	Delivery of Shares. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Estate will deliver the
Shares to the Company with a duly executed stock power.
	 
	 	4.	 	Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by Ohio law.





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed as of the date first
written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATION	 	 	 	ESTATE OF DOROTHY B. FOX
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ JOHN B. GERLACH, JR.
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ ROBERT L. FOX
	 

	 	 

John B. Gerlach, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 	 

Robert L. Fox, Executor
	 

	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
#### §§ 1510.104-1510.109 [Reserved]
#### Diane M. Bell, Respondent, v David F. Bell, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 717]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), entered September 27, 1999, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) imputed $65,000 in annual income to him and directed that he make payments to the plaintiff wife for child support based on that figure, (2) awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the amount of $100 per week until September 2000, and (3) awarded the plaintiff a counsel fee in the sum of $5,646.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The amount and duration of maintenance is “a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” *(Brodsky v Brodsky,*214 AD2d 599, 600). In fixing the amount of such an award, a court must take into account the financial circumstances of both parties, including their reasonable needs and means (see, *Liadis v Liadis,*207 AD2d 331). The evidence established that the plaintiff had not worked outside the home during most of the marriage in order to be a homemaker and the primary caretaker of the two children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). She does, however, possess a beautician’s license and has earning potential. The court did not credit the defendant’s testimony and concluded that he has *412the ability to pay for the reasonable needs of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court properly awarded maintenance to the plaintiff for a period of one year.

In determining a child support obligation, a court need not rely on a party’s own account of his or her finances, but may imput income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see, *Zabezhanskaya v Dinhofer,*274 AD2d 476; *Mellen v Mellen,*260 AD2d 609; *Brodsky v Brodsky, supra; Liadis v Liadis, supra).*Thus, the award for child support was reasonable.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26732]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7843-6]


Interagency Project To Clean Up Open Dumps on Tribal Lands: 
Request for Proposals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup (Workgroup) is 
soliciting proposals for its seventh year of the Tribal Open Dump 
Cleanup Project (Cleanup Project). Since FY99, the Workgroup has funded 
approximately $13.4 million in projects. In FY04, the Interagency 
Workgroup made approximately $2.5 million available to fully or 
partially fund 24 selected projects. A similar amount of funding is 
projected for FY05. The Cleanup Project is part of a federal effort to 
help tribes comprehensively address their solid waste needs. The 
purpose of the Cleanup Project is to assist with closing or upgrading 
tribal high-threat waste disposal sites and providing alternative 
disposal and integrated solid waste management.
    The Workgroup was established in April 1998 to coordinate federal 
assistance to tribes in bringing their waste disposal sites into 
compliance with the municipal solid waste landfill criteria (40 CFR 
part 258). Current Workgroup members include representatives from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA); the Indian Health Service (IHS); and the Departments of 
Agriculture and Defense. EPA has issued docket number RCRA-2004-0018 
for this Notice.
    Criteria: Eligible recipients of assistance under the Open Dump 
Cleanup Project include federally recognized tribes and intertribal 
consortiums. A full explanation of the submittal process, the 
qualifying requirements, and the criteria that will be used to evaluate 
proposals for this project may be found in the Request for Proposals 
package.

DATES: For consideration, proposals must be received by close of 
business on January 31, 2005. Proposals postmarked on or before but not 
received by the closing date will not be considered. Please do not rely 
solely on overnight mail to meet the deadlines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Copies of the Request for Proposals package 
may be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/tribalmsw by 
clicking on the ``Grants/Funding'' link. Copies may also be obtained by 
contacting EPA, IHS or BIA regional or area offices or one of the 
following Workgroup representatives:

EPA--Christopher Dege, 703-308-2392 or Charles Bearfighter Reddoor 703-
308-8245.
IHS--Steve Aoyama, 301-443-1046.
BIA--Debbie McBride, 202-208-3606.

    Dated: November 15, 2004.
Matt Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 04-26732 Filed 12-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### § 1305.10 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required.

If a response to a demand is required before the General Counsel can make the determination referred to above, the General Counsel, when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the demand is being reviewed, and respectfully seek a stay of the demand pending a final determination.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ALEXANDER REID, a/k/a Batman, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:97-cr-00577-PMD-1) Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alexander Reid appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for credit of over-served time. Reid contends he is entitled to a credit for time served and that credit should be applied to his current term of imprisonment. Reid pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and served his sentence of 135 months of imprisonment. Reid subsequently violated his conditions of supervised release, and the district court revoked supervised release and ordered an additional thirty-seven months of imprisonment. Reid argues he is entitled to a retroactive reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, under the recent amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, 2D1.1, App’x C, Amend. 706 (2007 & Supp. May 1, 2008). Reid states he should receive a credit for the excess time he served based on the amendments to the guidelines, and the district court should apply this credit against his current sentence for revocation of supervised release. The application notes accompanying the guidelines amendment state, “[i]n no case, however, shall the term of imprisonment be reduced below time served.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 comment. (n.3). Thus, we decline to reduce Reid’s sentence for his cocaine base conviction below the amount of time he has already served for the crime. Furthermore, the Guidelines application3 notes provide that the amendment “does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 comment. (n.4(A)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Reid’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER RE STATUS

OF SETTLEMENT 

At the April 26 hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, the

parties were ordered to meet and confer last week regarding allowing some percentage of class

members to opt out late without sinking the entire settlement. The parties should report on the

result of their negotiations by NOON ON MAY 5, 2010. The submission may be made under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 742 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[115th Congress Public Law 298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4382]]

Public Law 115-298
115th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2019, and for 
       other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 7, 2018 -  [H.J. Res. 143]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That division C of Public Law 
115-245 is amended--
            (1) by striking the date specified in section 
        105(3) <<NOTE: Ante, p. 3124.>>  and inserting ``December 21, 
        2018''; and
            (2) by adding at the end (before the short title) the 
        following:

    ``Sec. 136.  Sections <<NOTE: Applicability.>>  1309(a) and 1319 of 
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a) and 4026) 
shall be applied by substituting the date specified in section 105(3) of 
this Act for `December 7, 2018'.''.

    Approved December 7, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 143:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Dec. 6, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4157 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4157

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from reissuing or issuing a rule 
 substantially similar to a certain proposed rule under the Fair Labor 
             Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving 
America's Family Farms Act''.
    (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) family farms have a long history and tradition of 
        providing youth with valuable work experience;
            (2) Department of Labor regulations should not adversely 
        impact the longstanding tradition of youth working on farms 
        where they can gain valuable skills and lessons on hard work, 
        character, and leadership;
            (3) the Department of Labor's proposed regulations would 
        have curtailed opportunities for youth to gain experiential 
        learning and hands-on skills for enrollment in vocational 
        agricultural training;
            (4) the proposed regulations would have obstructed the 
        opportunity for youth to find rewarding employment and earn 
        money for a college education or other meaningful purposes;
            (5) the proposed regulations would have limited 
        opportunities for young farmers wishing to pursue a career in 
        agriculture at a time when the average age of farmers continues 
        to rise; and
            (6) working on a farm has become a way of life for 
        thousands of youth across the rural United States.

SEC. 2. RULE RELATING TO CHILD LABOR.

    The Secretary of Labor shall not reissue in substantially the same 
form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as, the 
proposed rule entitled ``Child Labor Regulations, Orders and Statements 
of Interpretation; Child Labor Violations--Civil Money Penalties'' 
(published at 76 Fed. Reg. 54836 (September 2, 2011)).

            Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4157

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from reissuing or issuing a rule 
 substantially similar to a certain proposed rule under the Fair Labor 
             Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor.
```
### §299b–26. Severability

If any provision of this part is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this part shall not be affected.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IX, §927, formerly §926, as added Pub. L. 109–41, §2(a)(5), July 29, 2005, 119 Stat. 434; renumbered §927, Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3509(e)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 534.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 927 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 947, and is classified to section 299c–6 of this title.

Another prior section 927 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 299c–6 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–129.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131747 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131747 COA: 259722 Isabella CC: 03-001556-FC BRANDEN RAYMOND MURDOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk