alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2363. Indemnity obligation of Commission; incorporation by reference in deed

For a period of not more than fifteen years after August 4, 1955, or, in the case of Los Alamos, not more than fifteen years after the date it is included within this chapter, the Commission shall indemnify the purchaser (except a purchaser taking advantage of the provisions of section 2326(d) of this title), and any successor in title, of any such single family or duplex house as set forth in this subchapter. This indemnity shall be deemed to be incorporated in the deeds given on the sale of Government-owned houses. One person may not invoke the indemnity in respect of more than one house.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 6, §63, 69 Stat. 479; Pub. L. 87–719, §17, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 666.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Pub. L. 87–719 inserted "or, in the case of Los Alamos, not more than fifteen years after the date it is included within this chapter" after "August 4, 1955,".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                       AMENDMENT 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Amendment 2 dated April 15, 2004 to Employment Agreement made and entered
into as of the 17th day of May 1999, and amended on June 13, 2002, by and
between Kroll Inc. and Michael G. Cherkasky (the "Executive" ) (the "Employment
Agreement").

     Article 5 - Subparagraph 5.2 (b) "Change in Control of the Company" - is
deleted and replaced with the following:

     (b) "Change in Control of the Company" shall be deemed to have occurred if
any "person" (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d)(2) of the
Exchange Act), other than Jules B. Kroll personally (and specifically not his
estate or personal representatives), is or becomes the "beneficial owner" (as
defined in Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act), directly or
indirectly, of securities of the Company representing thirty-five percent (35%)
or more of the combined voting power of the Company's then outstanding
securities, without the Executive's consent.

     Exhibit A - Paragraph (a) Salary - is deleted and replaced with the
following:

     (a) Salary. The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary during the
Term, payable in accordance with the normal payment procedures of the Company,
subject to such  withholdings  and other normal  employee  deductions  as may be
required by law, at the annual rate of not less than $655,000.  The Compensation
Committee  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company  (the   "Compensation
Committee")  shall review such  compensation  not less  frequently than annually
during the Term, but any  adjustment in  Executive's  salary may only be greater
than as previously set forth.

     All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has dully executed this
Amendment effective as of the date first written above.


                                                  Kroll Inc.



                                                  By: /s/ Jules Kroll
                                                     ---------------------------

                                                  Executive:

                                                  /s/ Michael G. Cherkasky
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Michael G. Cherkasky
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEVEN LAPIDUS,

Appellant,

v.

RAMPELL & RAMPELL, P.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-381

[November 24, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Frank Castor, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 2015CC9442 and 

2020AP35.

Christopher Kammerer of Kammerer Mariani, PLLC, West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

Philip Glatzer of Marlow Adler Abrams Newman & Lewis, Coral Gables, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FORM 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: June 30,2005

Check here if Amendment [   ]; Amendment Number:
This Amendment (Check only one.):  [   ] is a restatement.
                                   [   ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:    Continental Casualty Company
Address: CNA Plaza
	 Chicago, IL 60685


13F File Number:  28-387

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the
person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person
signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all
information contained herein is true, correct, and complete, and
that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of
this form.


Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:  Lynne Gugenheim
Title: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Phone: (312) 822 4921
Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:
August 12,2005
Chicago, Illinois,60685
I AM SIGNING THIS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Report Type (Check only one.):

 [    ]              13F HOLDINGS REPORT.

 [  x ]              13F NOTICE.

 [    ]              13F COMBINATION REPORT.

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

The securities on which Continental Casualty Company exercises
shared investment discretion have been reported upon by CNA
Financial Corporation on behalf of Continental Casualty Company.
<Page>
#### § 228.24 Incidental services.

Source and nationality rules do not apply to suppliers of incidental services specified in a purchase contract relating to equipment.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date:  May 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                    |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                    |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |    
|Date:  May 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                    |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                    |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-20434

Summary Calendar

_____________________

RICHARD BUTLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; HARRIS COUNTY JUVENILE

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-2476)

_________________________________________________________________

August 26, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Butler appeals from the judgment as a matter of law in

favor of Harris County and his former employer, the Harris County

Juvenile Probation Department, on his claim that, for filing a

grievance reporting suspected violations of the law, he was

discharged in violation of the Texas Whistleblower’s Act. 
- 2 -

Butler did not satisfy his burden of providing a complete

transcript of the trial. See Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Koch

Gathering Systems, Inc., 45 F.3d 962, 965-66 (5th Cir. 1995).

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the portions provided, along with

the briefs and the remainder of the record, and conclude that no

reasonable juror could have found either that Butler was discharged

because he reported, in good faith, a suspected violation of law,

or that he would not have been terminated had he not filed a

grievance. See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a); Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d

1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, the district court did not err by setting aside

the jury verdict in favor of Butler and granting the defendants’

motion for judgment as a matter of law. Butler v. Harris County,

et al., No. CA-H-94-2476 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 1996) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 2138 LT Case No. 2022

- CA

- 000269

- A

_____________________________
D REES H OMES OF F LORIDA , I NC

. , Appellant,

v.

D ARREL E. G ABBIDON and Y

ASHMIN L. G ABBI D ON , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

Nonfinal A ppeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County

. Howard M. Maltz , Judge

. Barry B. Ansbacher and Michael C. Feinberg, of Ansbacher Law, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Joshua E. Burnett, Carlos M. Alvarez, and Mack enzie F. Rocha, of Burnett Law, P.A., Tampa , for Appellee s

. March 5, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLIS , L AMBERT , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry Winefield, Appellant.

Order entered on October 11, 1961 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
Order entered February 27, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00761

- CR

DAVID LEE MORALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15

- 56719

- I



### O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.
We abated the appeal for a hearing to determine why no brief has been filed. On February 24, 2019, the supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing was filed. We ADOPT the trial court’s February 20, 2019 findings that (1) appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal; (2)
appellant, who is indigent, is represented by appointed counsel William Pigg; and (3) counsel has
not abandoned the appeal an d will have a brief filed by March 4, 2019.

We ORDER appellant’s brief by March 4, 2019

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Nancy Kennedy

, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 2 ; William Pigg ; and to the Dallas County District
Attorney.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Joe Fried, Inc., Respondent, and J. M. Rose *&*Co., Inc., Appellant.

Order entered on May 20, 1960, granting petitioner’s motion permanently restraining certain partial arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 74939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27468]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 74939]]


                Memorandum of December 8, 2004

                
Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority

                Memorandum for the Chairperson of the National 
                Endowment for the Humanities

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I 
                hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the 
                President in the National Foundation on the Arts and 
                Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 959(d)) 
                to provide the specified report relating to the 
                National Endowment for the Humanities to the Congress.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 8, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04-27468
Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,816
<SECURITIES>                                   308,214
<RECEIVABLES>                                  375,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,808
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               784,453
<PP&E>                                       1,398,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                 789,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,868,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          491,375
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,312
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,090,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,868,199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,276,926
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  950,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                248,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                    92,370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            156,192
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   156,192
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1157

CISA Y. RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-00-901)

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cisa Y. Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* To the extent Riley claims the district court’s order of

summary judgment prevented her from completing discovery, because

Riley failed to seek a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), she

cannot raise this claim on appeal. See Evans v. Technologies

Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996). Additionally, in light of the nature of the district court’s dismissal

of Riley’s claim, her assertion that the affirmative defense recognized by Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998),

is inapplicable in her action is moot.

2

PER CURIAM:

Cisa Y. Riley appeals the district court’s order dismissing

her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e

to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court.* See Riley v. Henderson, No. CA-00-901 (E.D. Va.

filed Jan. 4, 2001, entered Jan. 9, 2001). 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
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 436 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on medical devices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2011 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. LANCE, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. KLINE, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mrs. 

BACHMANN, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. 

BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLE, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, Mr. DENT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FLORES, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GUINTA, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. WALSH of Illinois, and Mr. 

YOUNG of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on medical devices. 

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 be cited as the ‘‘Protect Medical Inno5 vation Act of 2011’’. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 436 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4191 of the Internal Rev3 enue Code of 1986 is hereby repealed. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code 

6 is amended by striking the last sentence. 

7 (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such 

8 Code is amended by striking the last sentence. 

9 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub10 chapters for chapter 32 of such Code is amended by strik11 ing the item relating to subchapter E. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Catherine Hoppman et al., Appellants, v. Riverview Equities Corp., Respondent.

Order entered on February 19, 1962 denying plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction *pendente lite*unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted on condition that plaintiffs file a bond with proper sureties in .the sum of $1,500 within 10 days after entry of the order herein, that plaintiffs continue to pay the registered rent during the pendency of the action and that there be an expeditious trial of the action. This court by order dated March 9, 1962, granted a temporary stay, upon conditions with which plaintiffs complied, and the ease was placed on the calendar for trial. As this court pointed out in *Weisner*v. *791 Park Ave. Corp.*( 7 A D 2d 75, 78) the granting of a temporary injunction does not determine the ultimate issues in the action but serves only to preserve the *status quo*until a decision on the merits. (See *Walker Mem. Baptist Church*v. *Saunders,*285 N. Y. 462, 474.) In our opinion, the plaintiffs have raised a serious question as to the scope and meaning of the stipulations entered into in the summary proceedings purporting to settle the controversies between the parties. A resolution of the conflicting issues of fact can be had only at a trial. Since an early trial is directed, the irreparable damage to the plaintiffs should be avoided by maintenance of the *status quo*pending a determination of the issues at a plenary trial. Of course, the defendant may, if it is so advised, consent to vacate the stipulations and the final orders in the summary proceedings and immediately go to trial on the merits in those proceedings. Under the circumstances of this ease, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a temporary injunction. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.