alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(May 5, 1969)

#### David Ehrlich, by His Parent and Natural Guardian Arnold B. Ehrlich, et al., Respondents, v. Alfred Marra, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages, *inter*alia, for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 1968, which set aside a jury verdict for defendant and granted a new trial. Order affirmed, with costs. We deem it pertinent to note that, if this verdict had not been set aside and plaintiffs had appealed from a judgment entered thereon, we would have reversed and granted a new trial because of several prejudicial errors committed by the trial court. The first error was the receipt in evidence of the history part of a hospital record, which contained a description of the accident furnished either by the infant plaintiff’s mother (not a party to this action) or by his father (who did not see the accident) . The second error was the submission of the question of the infant plaintiff’s contributory negligence to the jury. The proof in this case was to the effect that the infant plaintiff, 4 years and 10 months old at the time of the accident, was struck by defendant’s car while he was crossing the street at the direction and under the supervision of his mother. On such proof we believe that, as a matter of law, the infant plaintiff was not eontributorily negligent and that question consequently should not have been submitted to the jury for its determination. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Martuseello, J., concurs in result.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1882 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit the Department 

of Agriculture from entering into partnerships with foreign governments 

to promote enrollment in the supplemental nutrition assistance program 

and to terminate the current Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative between the United States and Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2013 

Mrs. BLACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit 

the Department of Agriculture from entering into partnerships with foreign governments to promote enrollment 

in the supplemental nutrition assistance program and 

to terminate the current Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative between the United States and Mexico. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1882 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safety Net Abuse Pre3 vention (SNAP) Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS AU5 THORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED UNDER 

6 FOOD AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2008. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION AGREEMENTS

8 WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.—Section 18 of the Food 

9 and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(g) Funds appropriated pursuant to any authoriza12 tion of appropriations in this Act may not be used by the 

13 Secretary for any agreement with a foreign government 

14 intended to promote enrollment in the program and the 

15 availability of program benefits.’’. 

16 (b) TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT.—Ef17 fective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the memo18 randum of understanding entered into on July 22, 2004, 

19 by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States De20 partment of Agriculture and the Secretary of Foreign Af21 fairs of the Republic of Mexico and known as the ‘‘Part22 nership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative’’ is null and 

23 void. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 8

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                             JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION         PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP
----                                             -----------------------------         --------------------
<S>                                              <C>                                   <C>
Sunwide Capital Limited                          British Virgin Islands                100% (held by Registrant)

Silver Moon Technologies Limited                 British Virgin Islands                80% (held by Registrant)

Zhongwei Medi-China.com Limited                  Hong Kong Special Administrative      80% (100% held by Silver
                                                 Region                                Moon)

Feishang Mining Holdings Limited*                British Virgin Islands                100% (held by Registrant)

Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co. Ltd.*       People's Republic of China            100% (held by FMH)
</TABLE>

----------
*    Subsidiaries acquired on February 3, 2006.
#### § 28.16 Request for return of samples.

Any applicant desiring return of the samples after classification or comparison is completed, at the applicant's expense, shall indicate this service on the form used for requesting such classification or comparison.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2011 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

two-year extension of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee 

on Education. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2011 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Advisory 

3 Committee on Education Improvement Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF VETERANS’ ADVISORY 

5 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 

6 Section 3692 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘31,’’ after ‘‘30,’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘and the Persian Gulf 

11 War’’ and inserting ‘‘the Persian Gulf War, and 

12 the post-9/11 operations in Iraq and Afghani13 stan’’; and 

14 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

15 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2011 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 

sory Committee on Education. for a two-year extension of the Veterans’ Advi-
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-310-CV

FELICIA LINDA FITZGERALD APPELLANT

V.

ERNEST JOHN SPIDELL APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On September 15, 2009 and September 29, 2009, we notified appellant,

in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss

this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
2... See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007)

(listing fees in courts of appeals).

2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 22, 2009
#### Richardson *vs.*Flournoy.

Debt. Case 39.

Error to ihe Scott Circuit; T. M. Hickey Judge.

*Security, Responsibility. Endorsement. Action. Interest.*

EndorsPmeat by a. b. that he holds fo^’^oinissor^ notc'assecurity, fora liart lh® teiTtobepaki-, is to bo tak»u :ls an original [hctT2 tn°ni" 3Peci~ endorsement, *156& a direct obli gation, to the jn^nrrr,! to p»y that sum when the note becomes due, whether soWcnt'oTio fvciJcnt "

*155April *7.*

Gkief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Flournoy sued Richardson, in debt, for $100, on the following obligation:—

> “ For value received, I promise to pay David Flournoy the-sum of eight hundred and one dollars, to lie paid at the expiration of six years from the date hereof. Witness my hand and seal this 14th of July, 1814.

> *$801.*JOSIAH PITTS, (seal.)

> Teste,

> *Thomas C. Flournoy.*

> Endorsed', “So far as $100 I hold myself bound as the security of Mr. Josiah Pitts.

> SAMUEL Q. RICHARDSON.

> 14th July, 1814.”

' The circuit cburt overruled a demurrer to the declaration, and thereupon gave judgment against Richardson, by default, for $100, and six percent, interest thereon “from the 14th of July, 1820, till paid.”

Two objections only have been made to the dec, laration — 1st. It contains no averment of Pitt’s insolvency. 2d. Covenant, and not debt, was the appropriate form of action.

I. The undertaking by Richardson must be deemed a direct and original agreement by him to pay Flournoy $100. liis obligation and that of Pitts seem to be of the same date. They must, therefore, be considered as simultaneous in their origin, and as parts of the same entire contract; and consequently Richardson’s obligation is precisely that of an ordinary surety, severally bound with his principal in the same obligation — with this difference only, that Richardson is bound only for $100, and Pitts is bound for $801.

Richardson was willing to be surety to the extent of $100; and if the entire obligation of Pitts had *156not exceeded that sum, it may be inferred that both, of them would have signed it together as joint obligors.

tí"' to be*aU«wp(l from thefime the debt becomes due,

*Brown*and *7Jenny,*far plaintiff; *Morchcml*for clefendant.

Wherefore it results that Richardson was liable to sup for ^100, as soon as the Risthe debt became due, and that it was not material whether Fitts was solvent or not, or had been sued or not.

II. It, i - *,. . c*II. It is also a consequence of this view of the case, that debt was an appropriate action — and that ^ was ProPer t0 render judgment for current interest, to commence when the debt first became due— to-wit:Uth July, 1820.

JuJg'ueut firmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M ADMINISTRATIVE

DOCKET

This Document Relates To: 

Admin Docket No. 

Case No. 3:19-mc-87

JUDGE M. CASEY RODGERS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R. JONES

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET

I. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION

MDL Centrality Plaintiff ID:

Name:

First M.I. Last

1. Are there any unresolved representation issues pending before the Court in the

plaintiff’s administrative case?

Yes/No

2. Are there any disputes involving initial census submissions pending before the Court

in the plaintiff’s administrative case?

Yes/No

II. EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

A. If there are no unresolved representation issues or disputes involving initial census submissions

pending before the Court in the plaintiff’s administrative case at the time this Request for Dismissal is

docketed, then the Request for Dismissal will be construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal and the

plaintiff’s administrative case will be automatically dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A)(i), without a court order.

B. If there is an unresolved representation issue, the attorney of record must follow the process for

withdrawal of counsel set forth in Pretrial Order No. 22, ECF No. 898 at 8.

C. If there is a dispute about the sufficiency of the administrative plaintiff’s initial census submissions and

that dispute is not resolved through the deficiency processes already in place, the parties must proceed

with motions practice in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 22, ECF No. 898 at 7. If the Court finds

the administrative plaintiff’s initial census submissions sufficient, that plaintiff’s case must be either

transitioned to the 3M MDL docket, 3:19md2885, or voluntarily dismissed, within 60 days thereafter.

To the extent the Court finds the administrative plaintiff’s submissions deficient, that plaintiff will be

granted a short time period within which to cure the deficiency. Absent a showing of good cause,

No No 7:20-cv-22881-MCR-GRJ Rebecca 97596 Smith

Smith, Rebecca
2 

failure to provide nondeficient initial census materials within the applicable deadlines will be grounds 

for dismissal with prejudice. 

Dated: __________________ Respectfully submitted, 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

2021

Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.

Jan 22
#### The State ex rel. Acoff, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Acoff v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 336.]

(No. 97-1878

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*M.R. Donoff & Associates, Paul W. Mills*and *Marilyn R. Donoff,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William D. Haders,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Exhibit 10.1



Warner Chilcott Limited

Canons Court

22 Victoria Street

Hamilton HM12

Bermuda

January 12, 2007

Re: Voting Agreement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

DLJMB Overseas Partners III, C.V., DLJ Offshore Partners III, C.V., DLJ Offshore Partners III-1, C.V., DLJ Offshore Partners III-2, C.V.,
DLJ MB Partners III GmbH & Co. KG, Millennium Partners II, L.P. and MBP III Plan Investors, L.P. hereby agree with Warner Chilcott Limited (the Company) not to vote any shares of common stock of the Company beneficially owned by them
in excess of 9.99% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.





Sincerely,DLJ MERCHANT BANKING III, INC., as Managing
General Partner on behalf of DLJMB OVERSEAS PARTNERS III, C.V.By:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    PrincipalMBPSLP, Inc., as Special Limited PartnerBy:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Vice President




DLJ MERCHANT BANKING III, INC., as Advisory
General Partner on behalf of DLJ OVERSEAS PARTNERS III, C.V.By:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Principal






---

DLJ MERCHANT BANKING III, INC., as Advisory
General Partner on behalf of DLJ OFFSHORE PARTNERS III-1, C.V. and as attorney-in-fact for DLJMB III (Bermuda), L.P., as Associate General Partner of DLJ OFFSHORE PARTNERS III-1,
C.V.By:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Principal




DLJ MERCHANT BANKING III, INC., as Advisory
General Partner on behalf of DLJ OFFSHORE PARTNERS III-2, C.V. and as attorney-in-fact for DLJMB III (Bermuda), L.P., as Associate General Partner of DLJ OFFSHORE PARTNERS III-2,
C.V.By:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Principal




DLJ MB PARTNERS III GmbH & Co. KGBy:

DLJ Merchant Banking III, Inc., the General Partner of
D:K Merchant Banking III, L.P., its Managing Limited PartnerBy:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    PrincipalBy:

DLJ MB GmbH, as General PartnerBy:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    DirectorMILLENNIUM PARTNERS II, L.P.By:

DLJ Merchant Banking III, L.P., its Managing General
PartnerBy:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Principal




2



---

DBP III PLAN INVESTORS, L.P.By:

DLJ LBO Plans Management CorporationII, its General PartnerBy:

/s/ Michael IsikowName:  Michael IsikowTitle:    Vice President


Accepted as of the date

first above mentioned



|                        |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Warner Chilcott Limited
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Paul Herendeen                                   
|Name:                   |  | Paul Herendeen                                       
|Title:                  |  | Executive Vice President & Chief    Financial Officer



3
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FRED HENRY PERDUE, III,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv103–WS/HTC

W. OBERSCHLAKE, R. OLIVER,

T. TERRY, E. PRIDE, and S.

BEARDEN, 

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 53) docketed August 10, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) be granted. Plaintiff has

filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Having considered the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 53) is

Case 4:20-cv-00103-WS-HTC Document 54 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED

as to Plaintiff’s federal claims. 

3. Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

4. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

5. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are dismissed.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00103-WS-HTC Document 54 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
         Superior Wireless,  Inc. December 31, 1999 financial  statements and is
         qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                            0000793986
<NAME>                                           JustWebit.com, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                                       US


<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.00

<CASH>                                                       172,356
<SECURITIES>                                                 246,875
<RECEIVABLES>                                                130,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             752,599
<PP&E>                                                       48,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                               (5,014)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               801,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        421,129
<BONDS>                                                      251,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     5,383
<OTHER-SE>                                                   123,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 801,424
<SALES>                                                      98,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             98,923
<CGS>                                                        10,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                617,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           142,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (529,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (529,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               117,299
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              71,881
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (340,102)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (.55)



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.500 Principal Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

Pursuant to § 2.28, the following delegation of authority is made by the Chief Financial Officer to the Principal Deputy Chief Financial Officer, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Chief Financial Officer: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Chief Financial Officer.

[79 FR 44117, July 30, 2014, as amended at 85 FR 65524, Oct. 15, 2020]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KapStone Paper andPackaging Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Roger W. Stone,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KapStone Paper and PackagingCorporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation.

 

Dated: August 4, 2010

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Roger W. Stone                   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Roger  W. Stone                       |
|   |   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----