alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ethel Bosted, Respondent, v. Larsen Baking Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Noting that there was medical evidence “ indicating the work activities * * * contributed to the death ”, the board found that such activities, “ superimposed upon a pre-existing arteriosclerosis condition, resulted in the fatal coronary attack ”. The physician who gave the only evidence of causal relation characterized decedent’s work described in the hypothetical question as “ rather heavy” and as excessive for “his” cardiovascular system; and, asked on cross-examination whether he had “ concluded that it was heavy, laborious work ”, the doctor said, “ For him, yes, it was too much for him.” The witness answered affirmatively, although with some minor qualification, the question whether decedent “ had the type of pathology that can result in sudden exitus * * * whether or not he was engaged in any * * * particular activity at the *925time”. (C£. *Matter of Burris*v. *Lewis,*2 N Y 2d 323, 326.) It is possible, perhaps, that the work required overhead exertion and pressure with upstretched arms such as we have in some eases found excessive (see *Matter of Jessup*v. *Jessup & Stevens Garage,*12 A D 2d 699, affd. 10 N Y 2d 854, and cases cited at p. 700; *Matter of Cronberg*v. *Lenmar Molding Corp.,*17 A D 2d 885); but the board’s decision does not squarely meet or resolve the legal questions respecting the causative effort which are implicit in the testimony of claimant’s medical expert. This is not one of the eases in which the issues are “ so limited and so clearly defined as to permit of no doubt as to the basis of the board’s determination ” *(Matter of Cliff*V. *Mover Motors,*11 A D 883, affd. 9 hi Y 2d 891) ; as here the decision is not sufficiently definite to exclude the possibility that the board considered that the work was excessive only in the light of decedent’s diseased condition, i.e., “ for him ”, with the result that in such case the award would be predicated upon the same erroneous basis that compelled remittal in *Matter of Traversone*v. *Lee Bros. Stor.*(17 A D 2d 175) and *Matter of Bloomtv. Cohen S Son*(16 A D 2d 841). Decision reversed and case remitted, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, J. P., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.


This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is filed with respect to
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended
October 4, 2003 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the
Issuer). I, Richard J. Dahl, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify
that to the best of my knowledge:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                                      
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Issuer.       

Dated: November 18, 2003

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ RICHARD J. DAHL                                  
| |                                                      
| | Richard J. Dahl                                      
| | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer

52
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Lawlor, Also Known as John Joseph Lawlor, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 19, 1964, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered October 30, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender; and (2) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 31, 1964, which denied his motion for reargnment. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (17 A D 2d 840). Order of March 19, 1964, affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from order of March 31, 1964, denying reargument, dismissed; no appeal lies from such an order. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Grant Birchmeier, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Saturday, May 23, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The Court has

reviewed the document entitled "CLASS COUNSEL'S NOTICE OF CLAIMANT DAISY

EXUM'S DECISION TO PROCEED PRO SE." The status hearing set for 6/11/2020 is

vacated and advanced to 6/1/2020 at 9:15 AM Chicago time and will be conducted by

telephone. The following call−in number should be used: 888−684−8852, access code

746−1053. Ms. Exum must participate in the telephone status hearing. Class counsel are

directed to immediately provide Ms. Exum a copy of this order and instructions for calling

in, and they are to have available a phone number to reach Ms. Exum should she fail to

call in for the telephone status hearing. The purpose of the status hearing will be to set a

prompt date for the hearing on Ms. Exum's claim and to discuss the manner in which the

hearing will be conducted (video; in person; by telephone). (mk)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 827 Filed: 05/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:51085
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.3


                             AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY


     The Guaranty Agreement (the "Agreement") entered into as of the 20th day of
May, 1994, by and between DWAIN A. NEWMAN ("Guarantor") and NATIONAL HOME
CENTERS, INC., an Arkansas corporation (the "Company"), is hereby amended as
follows:

1.   As of September 24, 1999, the two Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreements
     are superseded by a single Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreement, and the
     Plans involving Metropolitan Life Insurance Policy No. 940450248A and John
     Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Policy No. 80081383 are both
     superseded by a single Plan involving Conseco Life Insurance Company Policy
     No. 1090545711.

2.   All other provisions of the original Guaranty Agreement remain in full
     force and effect.

     EXECUTED as of the 24th day of September, 1999, but signed the ____ day of
September, 1999.




                                   -----------------------------------
                                   DWAIN A. NEWMAN, Guarantor

                                       1
SERVED JANUARY 13, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

^FPiOF~;-^,:€pRtAtiON 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09SW0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-1042 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order be and is hereby amended as follows: 

...On or before March 12, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery 

dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on March 24 and 25,2010, inclusive, in the National Transportation Safety Board 

Hearing, Room, 624 Six Flags Drive, Suite 150, Arlington, Texas, 76011. Hearings 

will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should 

vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service. 

SO ORDERED. 

5odwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09SW0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

ATTN: Peter Bowler, President 

1700 W. 20* Street, MD 1200 

P.O. Box 612527 

DFW Airport, TX 75261-2527 

Francis C. Heil, Respondent's Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc., Legal Department 

P.O. Box 619616, Mail Drop 5675 

DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 

TEL: 202-496-5642 

FAX: 202-496-5660 

Rena M. Price, Complainant's Counsel 

Safety Enforcement Branch, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E1, RMP 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5068 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn, Plaintiff, v Leon D. De Matteis Construction Corp. et al., Defendants. Leon D. De Matteis Construction Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v John Grace & Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants, and Climate & Controls Division of The Singer Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. Eggers and Higgins et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Throop & Feiden et al., Third-Party Defendants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 15, 1977, denying third-party defendant Singer’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as to it on the ground of Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondent. The general contractor’s third-party complaint asserts a claim for indemnity against the moving third-party defendant, grounded upon allegations of negligence in the performance of work at the project and breach of warranty of fitness for use as regards movant’s sale of air-conditioning equipment to another subcontractor. Concededly, the Statute of Limitations has run on any cause of action for breach of warranty. Insofar as any liability for indemnity predicated upon movant’s negligence is concerned, the applicable Statute of Limitations is six years, which begins to run from the time of payment of any judgment against the third-party *856plaintiff. *(Emil v Pelt & Co., 45*AD2d 677; CPLR 213, subd 2.) Thus, the third-party complaint against movant is not time barred. Should ultimate fault be based on defective air-conditioning equipment, rather than negligence in performance of work, then movant’s rights are preserved inasmuch as it has asserted an affirmative defense of the bar of the Statute of Limitations. Concur — Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Lynch, JJ.
E Y GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Hon. Sam Lee 

County Attorney 

Brazoria County 

Angleton, Texas 

Opinion No. S-36 

Re: Authority of the commissioners' court to approve 

the expenditure of county 

funds to'send a representative to Mexico City to confer with various interested 

persons respecting removal 

of a ban by the Republic of 

Mexico on the use of migratory labor in Brazoria 

Dear Sir: county. 

You have requested an opinion on the authority 

of the commissioners' court to pay the expenses of a 

representative of Brazoria County attending a conference 

with the Fresident of Mexico and other officials in 

Mexico City, being held for the~purpose of considering 

if a ban by the'Government of Mexico on the use of migratory labor in Brazoria County should be lifted., 

The commissioners' court is a co'urt of limited 

jurisdiction and has only such 'powers as are conferred 

upon it by the C,onstitution or statutes of this State 

either by express terms or by necessary implication. 

Childress Count . 343, 92 S.W.2d 1011 

173 S.W. 508 (Tex.Civ. 

Hall, ,280 S.W. 289 

~"~:,f5~t~~~'~~n76~ps. 

We know of no provision placing a duty on any 

official to attend conferences of the nature outlined 

in your requestand we know of no provision authorizing 

the commissioners' court to pay the expenses of officials 

attending such a conference. We,therefore agree with 

your conclusion 'that the commissioners' court of Brazoria 

County can not expend'tax moneys to pay the expenses of 

a representative to Mexico City to participate in a conference to have the ban lifted on the us'e of migratory 

labor in Brazoria County. 
Hon. Sam Lee, page 2 (S-36) 

The commissioners ' court does not have 

authority~to pay the expenses of a representative to Mexico City to pzrticipate in a conference to consider removal of a ban by the 

Government of Mexico on the use of migratory 

labor in Brazoria Co.unty. 

You73 every truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

Willis E. Gresham 

Reviews 

Robert S. Trotti 

First~~~Assistan-t 

John'Ban Shepperd 

Attorney General 

JR:am 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

Assistant
Exhibit
      23.1








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-30450, 333-65568, 333-73318, 333-104481, 333-121445 and
      333-134907) of Terabeam, Inc. of our report dated March 26, 2007, relating
      to
      the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
      Terabeam, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, which appears in the Company’s
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.





/s/
      Fitzgerald, Snyder & Co., P.C.





McLean,
      Virginia


March
      30,
      2007
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") of
Cambridge Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2005, each
of the undersigned Gregory Pusey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, the Senior Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the best of the undersigned's 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: October 13, 2005
                                 /s/ Gregory Pusey
                                 ---------------------------------
                                 Gregory Pusey, President and
                                 Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  October 13, 2005
                                 /s/ Jeffrey G. McGonegal
                                 ---------------------------------
                                 Jeffrey G. McGonegal, Senior Vice
                                 President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer


                                    * * * * *


A signed original of the 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.






<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS )

TRUSTEE FOR THE POOLING AND )

SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS )

OF APRIL 1, 2005 ASSET-BACKED )

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES )

SERIES 2005-WHQ2 )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4384

)

TREISSA GRIGGS, PEOPLE OF THE )

STATE OF ILLINOIS, EX REL. )

ILLINOIS STUDENT ASSISTANCE )

COMMISSION, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This newly filed lawsuit is one of the spate of mortgage foreclosure actions that have been

and are being brought in this District Court, each invoking diversity of citizenship as the basis for

federal jurisdiction. Because the Complaint on its face demonstrates the lack of such jurisdiction,

this sua sponte memorandum order dismisses the Complaint and this action on that ground.

Such cases as Wernsing v. Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 743 (7 Cir. 2005) (internal citations th

and quotation marks omitted) have confirmed that this Court has the obligation to act sua sponte

in this manner if appropriate:

Jurisdiction is the power to declare law, and without it the federal courts cannot

proceed. Accordingly, not only may the federal courts police subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte, they must. 

In this instance one of the named defendants is “People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Illinois

Student Assistance Commission.” But neither a state nor one of its agencies is a “citizen” for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction (see 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.57[7] (3d Ed. 2012)).
Accordingly, as stated at the outset, both the Complaint and this action must be and are

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Such dismissal is of course without prejudice to

plaintiff’s right to bring this action in a non federal court of competent jurisdiction.

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 8, 2012

2
November 17, 2014

Mr. Moffett B. Roller Counsel for Aerolineas Ejecutivas, S.A. de C.V. c/o Roller & Bauer, PLLC 45005 Aviation Drive, Suite 200 Dulles, VA 20116 Dear Mr. Roller : This is in response to your November 23 , 201 2, letter (public docket No. FAA
- 20 12
- 1256 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Aerolineas Ejecutivas , S.A. de C.V. ( ALE ) for an exemption from § 1 29.5(b ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow ALE to operate its Mexico
- registered aircraft in U.S. airspace under the same flight data recorder ( FDR) requirements that are applied to United States (U.S. ) registered aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 135
. Upon review of ALE ’s petition for exemption and applicable regulations and international standards, the FAA has determined that ALE is not required to have an exemption from § 129.5(b) and should be permitted to operate its aircraft in U.S. airspace if its aircraft meet either the I CAO Annex 6 standards for FDRs or the FDR standards the FAA has applied to its own similarly

situated part 135 operators. Per a memo sent to the Office of Rulemaking from M s . Beverly Sharkey (copy

enclosed) in the Office of Chief Counsel dated September 20, 2013 , it state s that “...whe n FAA rules allow U.S. air carriers to meet different standards, then the FAA can permit foreign air carriers to operate in the U.S. airspace either under the U.S. standards appropriate to the class of air carrier or under I CAO Annex 6 standards
. ” Ina separate policy memo to Mr. Robert Shuter (copy

enclosed) dated May

15, 2008, clarifying specific issues regarding the U.S. application of Annex 6 requirements for Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Sy stems , it states that “ ...when the FAA allows all U.S. car riers or a class of U.S. carriers to meet different safety

standards in U.S. airspace, we believe that our Article II obligations permit us to allow similarly

situated carriers from I CAO member States to operate in U.S. airspace under standards that do not make distinctions among the operators based on nationality .”2

If you have any

questions, please contact the FAA ’ s International L aw Branch at (202) 267
- 8018 or (202) 267
- 3073
. Because the relief you seek has been determined to be unnecessary , we will take no further action on your petition. Sincerely ,
//s// John Barbagallo Acting Deputy

Director, Flight Standards Service Enclosure
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-9: Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Protecting Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Released from Bonneville Hatchery, 1991 
Figure 1. Columbia River Basin showing the study area. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text. 

Table of Contents
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00400-CR

Jeremy Daniel Rodriguez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-DCR-00594

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 7, 2023
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By: 

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge: 

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $400.00 $46.00 $5.00 

IFP No Fee Other 

$505.00 

Number of Service Copies Date: 

(For Use by Fiscal Department Only) 

Amount Paid: Receipt #: 

Date Payment Rec’d: Fiscal Clerk: 

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons 

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens 

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment 

Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons 

Citation to Discover Assets 

Writ 

(Type of Writ) 

(Victim, Against and $ Amount) 

 Original and copies on as to 

(Date) 

G:\GDOCKET\OPERATIONS CLERK\Intake\FORMS 10/01/2014