alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARAMARK/ACE USA AND

SEDGWICK CMS

,

Appellant s

,

v.

JERRY ANDERSON

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 979

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 5, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Edward R. Almeyda , Judge

.

Date of Accident: March 19, 2010.

James H. Wyman of H inshaw & C ulbertson LLP, Coral Gables , for Appellant s

.

Bram J. Gechtman of the Law Offices of Bram J. Gechtman, P.A., Miami , for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS , WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jackaleen Theriault, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered May 21, 1979 upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of conspiracy in the first degree. Defendant was indicted for the crime of conspiracy in the first degree and was found guilty as charged. Specifically, she was charged with conspiring with others to kill her husband. She was sentenced to a term of two to six years in a New York correctional facility. This appeal ensued and defendant raises three issues urging reversal. Initially, it is urged that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to reserve her opening statement until the close of the People’s case. We disagree. It is well established that the order of trial prescribed by statute should be followed unless there is a showing of a compelling reason for a variation *(People v Seiler,*246 NY 262; *People v Pollard,*54 AD2d 1012). We find no such compelling reason from our examination of the record. We also reject defendant’s contention that there was insufficient foundation for the entry of various tape-recorded telephone conversations between defendant and an undercover agent into evidence. The agent was unable to identify the voice on the phone as that of defendant. The agent, however, was given a phone number supplied by a coconspirator who in turn had received it from defendant. The recipient of the call identified herself as "Jackie”. In one of the conversations she referred to her husband by name. In another conversation she used the word "victim” and agreed to produce him at a specified time and location. This ultimately occurred. While a mere self-serving statement of identity by a caller whose voice is unknown to the listener is insufficient authentication *(Murphy v Jack,*142 NY 215), it need not be fatal where indices of reliability are to be found in surrounding facts and circumstances (see *People v McKane,*143 NY 455). Each case, however, must be determined by *972its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Considering the instant record in its entirety, we are of the view that it was proper for the trial court to determine that it was improbable that the voice belonged to anyone other than defendant. Consequently, no error was committed by the court in receiving the recorded conversations into evidence *(People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286). Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court should have charged the lesser included offenses of conspiracy in the third degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. The judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 June 25, 2013

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146212(47)

______________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 146212

COA: 304875

v Saginaw CC: 10-034923-FH

JAMES EARLY HARRIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellant to extend the

time for filing his appeal brief to June 26, 2013, is GRANTED.
§ 1717.1202 General policy. ( a ) It is the policy of the Administrator that, wherever possible, all debt owed to the government, including but not limited to principal and interest, shall be collected in full in accordance with the terms of the borrower's loan documents.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart by itself modifies, reduces, waives, or eliminates any obligation of a borrower under its loan documents. Any such modifications regarding the debt owed by a borrower may be granted under the authority of the Administrator only by means of the explicit written approval of the Administrator in each case.
( c ) The Administrator's authority to settle debts and claims will apply to cases where a borrower is unable to pay its debts and claims in accordance with their terms, as further defined in § 1717.1204(b)(1), and where settlement will maximize, on a present value basis, the recovery of debts and claims owed to the government.
( d ) In structuring settlements and determining the capability of the borrower to repay debt and the amount of debt recovery that is possible, the Administrator will consider, among other factors, the RE Act, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776), the policies and regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state legislative and regulatory actions, and other market and nonmarket forces as to their effects on competition in the electric utility industry and on rural electric systems in particular. Other factors the Administrator will consider are set forth in more detail in § 1717.1204.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th 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 20, 2015

d0513p 

# Order

Clerk May 20, 2015

149691

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149691

COA: 309522

Oakland CC: 2011

- 237051

- FC

FUAD FAROUK SHEENA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for

an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to People v Ginther

, 390 Mich 436 (1973), to determine

whether the defendant was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel

based on counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense. In all other respects, leave to

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F. Cleary, Jr. and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our knowledge:









(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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.







May 5, 2011









/s/ James F. Cleary, Jr.James F. Cleary, Jr.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Mary Patricia B. ThompsonMary Patricia B. ThompsonChief Financial Officer
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:27 PM To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_S_Whiteman@om b.eop.gov Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew Subject: FW: HD FE GHG Phase 2 - Preamble CLEAN and REDLINE Attachments: Preamble w REGS for Fed Reg - REDLINE to 052815.doc x; Preamble w REGS for Fed Reg - CLEAN 061815.docx

Importance: High

Chad and Chandana, A ttached please find the final NPRM Preamble, both c lean and redlines from the May 28, 2015 version tha t was sent to you previously. Because of the large file size, pl ease confirm that you have received all of the file s.
Note that the page count will vary depending on the version of MS Word the document is opened with, an d therefore the documents the page number references on the las t 2 pages may not align with the document page numb ers. We have observed a difference of 5 pages when using Wo rd 2010 and Word 2013. The printed version that go es to the Federal Register may have a different page count th an what you observe when reviewing the document now , although there will be no differences in the content.
Please let us know when ROCIS is open for amendment

. Thanks, Tim
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NO T FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

YEVGEN IYA MIKAILOVNA TRIFONOVA
, App ellant
,

v. Case No

. 5D 22 -1 830 LT Cas e No s

. 2022 -C F -0 00150 -A

2021- CF -0 01577 -A STAT E OF FLORIDA
,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed January 17, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County
, Raul A. Zambrano, J udge.

Michael C. Nappi
, of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civi l Regional Counsel, Casselberry, f

or Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C .J., MAKAR and SOUD
, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2039 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to furnish headstones and markers for certain deceased veterans 

buried in veterans’ cemeteries of Indian tribes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2013 

Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Mr. COLE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones and 

markers for certain deceased veterans buried in veterans’ 

cemeteries of Indian tribes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR PLACEMENT 

4 IN TRIBAL VETERANS’ CEMETERIES. 

5 Section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2039 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ‘‘or in a 

2 veterans’ cemetery on land owned by or held in trust 

3 for a tribal organization (as defined in section 

4 3765(4) of this title)’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ‘‘a vet6 erans’ cemetery on land owned by or held in trust 

7 for a tribal organization,’’ after ‘‘a veterans’ ceme8 tery owned by a State,’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00529-CV

IN RE MICAH MCKINNEY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 27, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 2, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, the response, the reply, and the record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15606, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Leslie McKinney and Micah 

McKinney and the Interest of D.O.M. and F.J.M., Children, pending in the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie

County, Texas, the Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III presiding.
#### §§ 1781.25-1781.100 [Reserved]
#### §§ 1700.59-1700.99 [Reserved]
§ 1786.57 Prepayment agreement. Upon approving an application for prepayment under this subpart, the Administrator shall notify the borrower and deliver to the borrower for its execution a prepayment agreement which shall set forth and provide: ( a ) The RUS Notes to be prepaid and when the Discounted Present Value will be calculated.
( b ) The place and conditions for closing.
( c ) Agreement that the unadvanced balance of RUS Notes shall be rescinded.
( d ) Agreement that the borrower, or its successors or assigns, shall pay to the Government, as a condition of receiving additional loans or loan guarantees pursuant to Titles I, II and III of the Act, an amount equal to the aggregate of the difference with respect to each of the RUS Notes between the amount outstanding on the RUS Note and the Discounted Present Value of the RUS Note upon prepayment with interest accruing quarterly; the interest rates shall be the rates provided in the respective RUS Notes.
( e ) Assurances that the borrower will meet its obligations to any power supplier financed pursuant to the Act.
( f ) Such other terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1941

_____________________________

BERNARD JONES,

Appellant,

v.

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

June 17, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Bernard Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Welch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN COOPERAGE CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 26, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against the Brooklyn Cooperage Company, impleaded with others, etc.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and question to be reviewed certified to that court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1956.51 Purpose.

This subpart delegates authority and prescribes policy and procedures for settlement of debts owed to the United States under the Multi-Family Housing (MFH) program of the Rural Housing Service (RHS). It also applies to Nonprogram (NP) loans secured by MFH property of the RHS. Settlement of claims against recipients of grant funds for reasons such as the use of funds for improper purposes is also covered by this subpart. Settlement of claims against third party converters, and Economic Opportunity (EO) loans is authorized under the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 CFR parts 101-105. This subpart does not apply to RHS direct Single Family Housing (SFH) loans, RHS NP loans secured by SFH property, or to the Rural Rental Housing, Rural Cooperative Housing, and Farm Labor Housing programs. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to any program administered by the Farm Service Agency as of June 17, 2020.

[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 69106, Nov. 26, 2004; 85 FR 36714, June 17, 2020]
119 So.2d 841

#### Wiltz J. LE BLANC v. Mrs. Kathleen Tortorich LE BLANC.

No. 44073.

April 25, 1960.

Leo L. Dubourg, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Herman L. Midió, Midió & Lehmann, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

*729HAMITER, Justice.

Following the submission of this case for our consideration counsel for the respective litigants filed a joint motion “suggesting to the Court that movers desire to dismiss the appeal herein taken by Wiltz J. LeBlanc, plaintiff.”

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

HAMLIN, J., recused.
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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/                Thomas J. Ward  Thomas                J. WardChief                Executive Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*This      certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that      section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing      under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except      to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by      reference.*

----
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Fatherhood      

# Fatherhood

Serving Young Fathers in Home Visiting Programs

A Spotlight on Fathers: Adding New Tools to Your Toolbox to Help Recruit, Retain, and Engage Young Fathers in Programs

Engaging Young Fathers: Strategies for Achieving Success 

Creating Lasting Family Connections Fatherhood Program: Family Reintegration (CLFCFP)

  Subscribe to Fatherhood
#### PAUL C. HUANG ET AL. *v.*KEVIN ZAWOY

(AC 24239)

Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and DiPentima, Js.

Submitted on briefs October 30

officially released December 2, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### *Skinner vs. Skinner, &c.*

Chancery.

Case 161.

Appeal from the Clarke circuit; George Shannon, Judge.

*Administrators. Settlement. County court. Lapse of time.*

June 18.

Bill to question the acts of adm’rs. or ex’rs. after settlement with county court, acqui esoed in for 20 or 30 years, by guardian and oompl’nt. and after complainant of age, 12 or 13 years, not to be tolerated.

*Hanson,*for appellant; *Allan,*for appellees.

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This record, although consisting of more than 300 pages, presents nothing new or difficult. The complainant’s claim to the land, is not supported. It does not appear, that his ancestor was entitled to any ■particular tract. The borid he held on the Beals, shows that he was not. All that the complainant or his ancestor could claim, would be damages from the Beals; and if the defendant, Cornelius, by compromise with them, has taken a lesser, or obtained a greater value, by taking property, he is only responsible for the exact amount of damages which the Beals were liable to pay. Had it been clearly shown, that the Beals procured the land and conveyed it, or caused it to be -conveyed in satisfaction of their covenant, it might have altered the case, but for the purchase made by the defendant, Cornelius, of the complainant’s interest in the covenant.

The attempt to unsettle the accounts and settlements of the defendant, Cornelius, as administrator on the estate of his and the complainant’s father, and to set aside the sales-of negroes, although purchased by the administrator in part, when these settlements and sales were made, under the sanction of the county court, where administration was granted, in Virginia; and when they have been acquiesced in, by the distributees and their guardians, between twenty and thirty years'before the bringing of this suit; and when the complainant was of full age, twelve or thirteen years before the institution of his suit, and lived with, and near the defendant, Cornelius, seven or eight years of that lime, cannot be tolerated, without the most satisfactory evidence of fraud. There is no such evidences Upon the whole case, we think there is no cause for reversing the decree.

The decree is affirmed with costs.
#### Peoria Motor Club, appellee, v. Motorists Association of Illinois, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,028.

Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

H. A. Blair and Roseoe Herget, for appellant. Clarence W. Heyl, for appellee; Heyl & Heyl, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.