alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
161 So.2d 278

#### Loudis PARISH v. STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 47115.

March 11, 1964.

In re: Loudis Parish applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchitoches. 158 So.2d 892.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-11-0488 SAT Date: 7/19/2011 Print Date: 11/10/2011

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 2 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,MM SENS-S,L UNCERT MUTA Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-11-0488 FATE: Estimations for low weight hydrolysis product log Kow = 9.50 (E) log Koc = 6.73 (E) log Fish BCF = 2.30 (E) log Fish BAF = -0.04 (E)PMN Substance: with MP < 25 C (E) S = Reacts Hydrolysis Half-life = min-hr VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption of the low molecular weight fraction is poor all routes, based on physical/chemical properties. There are concerns for irritation to the eye, skin, and mucous membranes, and for dermal and respiratory sensitization, based on There also is uncertain concern for mutagenicity, based on Test Data: Submitted with the PMN:

N egative in the Salmonella assay with and without activation; N egative in the E. coli reverse mutation assay with and without activation; Rat (F) acute (15D) oral (gavage) LD50 > 2000 mg/kg; Rat acute (15D) dermal LD50 > 2000 mg/kg; Moderate eye irritant in male rabbits; effects cleared within 72 hours; ]Moderate skin irritant in male rabbits; Dermal sensiotizer in female mice; strongly positive in local lymph node assay

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Typ

e Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *
daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value *
daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage

_ Chronic

_Sludge Value
Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
#### CITY OF ROCHESTER, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER & L. O. WATER CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by the city of Rochester against the Rochester & Lake Ontario Water Company and another.

PER CIJRIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

NASH and KRTJSE, JJ., dissent.
Case 3:20-cv-05602-MCR-HTC Document 4 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-05602-MCR-HTC Document 4 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2
1

h

From: Peacock, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca.Peacock@Rolls-Royce.com]

Sent: Monday, April 27 1 2015 11:03 AM

To: Cerra, Anthony (FAA); Green, Robert (FAA)

Cc: Fernandes, Carlos (FAA); Swain,Belinda A; Jakeway 1 Ian

Subject: Trent 1000 Enhanced Ratings- petition for exemption from 33.27(f)(6)- Response to clarifying questions

Dear Mr Cerra, Mr Green,

We are in receipt of FAA's March 20

1 2015 letter requesting more information in support of the Rolls-Royce Petition for

Exemption from Title 14,CFR 33.27(f)(6) for the Enhanced Ratings Trent 1000 models.

In response to the questions posed in the letter we would !ike to provide the attached Rolls-Royce technical report, 

DNS200125 issue 5. This report has been shared with FAA previously at an earlier revision, and has now been updated 

to issue 5 specifically to provide more information on the topics highlighted by FAA for the new engine models under 

consideration.

Please contact me if you need any further

information, Yours sincerely,

Rebecca Peacock

Airworthiness Specialist

Rolls-Royce pic

Moor Lane, A2

Ml-52

PO Box 31, Derby DE24 8BJ,UK

+44(0)1332 2 49428

+44(0)7827 257290

rebecca.peacock@rolis-royce.com

The data contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential information. If you have received it 

in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and 

contact +44 (0) 1332 622800(Security Operations Centre) if you need assistance. Please do not copy it for any 

purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.

An e-mail response to this address may be subject to interception or monitoring for operational reasons or for 

lawful business practices.

(c) 2015 Rolls-Royce plc

Registered office: 62 Buckingham Gate, London SWI E 6AT Company number: 1003142. Registered in

England.
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






In
connection with the Annual Report of EMTA Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the
Company.




Date:
      July 14, 2008By:
                /s/ Edmond,
      L. LonerganName: 
      Edmond, L. LonerganTitle: 
      Chief Executive Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to EMTA Holdings, Inc.
and will be retained by EMTA Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lillian Kozak, Respondent-Appellant, v Aaron Kozak, Appellant-Respondent.

— In a matrimonial action, the parties cross-appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 5, 1978, which, *inter alia,*(1) awarded damages to the plaintiff wife, (2) directed the defendant to pay a monthly sum as a carrying charge on the marital residence, and (3) dismissed plaintiffs fourth and fifth causes of action in which she attempted to impose a constructive trust. Action remanded to the Trial Justice for the making of findings of fact with respect to the dismissal of so much of the fourth and fifth causes of action as sought to impose a constructive trust on the assets transferred by the wife to the husband as alleged in paragraphs 46 through 48 and 55 through 57 of plaintiffs verified complaint; appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Mollen, *P.J.,*Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RONNIE JHURILAL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5575-MCR-EMT

ROGER MANNING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on 

December 15, 2020. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05575-MCR-EMT Document 13 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5575-MCR-EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

12, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of January 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05575-MCR-EMT Document 13 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3565.16 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Kelley, 7:20cv153 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

EXHIBITS ORDER NO. 3 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections to exhibits identified on 

Defendants’ first priority exhibit list dated March 2, 2022. The Court’s rulings are 

set forth and highlighted in the attached Exhibit A. Rulings for all remaining 

objections on parties’ priority exhibit lists will follow by separate order. 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2022. 

 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 128 Filed 03/19/22 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Hager, 7:20-cv-91459

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

ORDER

This matter was transitioned from the administrative docket to the 3M MDL 

Docket on May 22, 2020. See ECF No. 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff James Allen Hager

is required to pay a filing fee and serve his Short Form Complaint on Defendants, 

and Mr. Hager’s counsel must seek pro hac vice admission. See Case No. 

3:19md2885, Pretrial Order No. 22, ECF No. 898 at ¶ 9. Additionally, Mr. Hager 

was required to file a Notice of Designated Forum on his individual docket on or 

before June 1, 2020, within 10 days of the matter’s transition to the 3M MDL 

Docket. To date, a filing fee has not yet been paid, and a Certificate of Service 

evidencing service of Mr. Hager’s Short Form Complaint, a motion for admission 

pro hac vice, and a Notice of Designated Forum have not yet been filed on Mr. 

Hager’s individual docket. On consideration, the Court directs Mr. Hager to pay his 

filing fee, serve his Short Form Complaint on Defendants, and file a Notice of 

Designated Forum. Additionally, Mr. Hager’s counsel is directed to file a motion 

Case 7:20-cv-91459-MCR-GRJ Document 5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

for pro hac vice admission by June 28, 2020. Failure to comply with this directive 

will result in dismissal of this case.

SO ORDERED, on this 18th day of June, 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-91459-MCR-GRJ Document 5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

FABIAN F. THOMAS,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 191 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Edward Trudel, Appellant, v Eric D. Donnenfeld et al., Respondents.

[813 NYS2d 310]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered October 18, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; *Sullivan v Katz,*7 AD3d 513 [2004]; *McKnight v LaGuardia Hosp.,*263 AD2d 500, 501 [1999]). We reject the plaintiffs contention that trial errors and misconduct by the defendants’ attorney require reversal and a new trial. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2299 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2299

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act to restore Federal aid for the repair, restoration, and 
   replacement of private nonprofit educational facilities that are 
               damaged or destroyed by a major disaster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2006

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act to restore Federal aid for the repair, restoration, and 
   replacement of private nonprofit educational facilities that are 
               damaged or destroyed by a major disaster.

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

SECTION 1. REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED PRIVATE 
              NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 406(a)(3)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(3)(B)) 
is amended by inserting ``education,'' after ``communications,''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to any major disaster declaration made on or after 
August 28, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 23, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14770

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00112-CR-ORL-18-KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

PATRICK B. DANIELS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(June 23, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government, appellant pled guilty to
 The indictment listed 12 felonies appellant had committed between July1987 and 1

November 2002. All the felonies but one involved cocaine.

 Appellant was subject to an enhanced prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to-wit: 2

a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum sentence of life. Under U.S.S.G. §

4B1.4(a), a defendant who is subject to an enhanced sentence under § 924(e) is an armed career

criminal. Based on appellant’s total offense level of 31 and his criminal history category of VI,

the Guidelines prescribed a range of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. According to the

judgment it entered after imposing sentence, the district court sentenced appellant to a term of

168 months “with credit for time served in Florida State custody on related offenses.” 

2

possession of two firearms after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and the district court sentenced him to a prison term of 168 1

months. In this appeal, appellant challenges his sentence on the following 2

grounds:

1) Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), effectively overturned

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219 (1998), and

thereby rendered his sentence unconstitutional;

2) The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is facially invalid;

and 

3) The district court erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G. §

2K2.1(b)(5).

Appellant’s first challenge is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.

Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 2006).
3

Appellant’s second challenge is foreclosed by several of our decisions,

including United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1272 (11th Cir. 2001).

We do not consider appellant’s third challenge because, under the plea

agreement he executed and as the district court found, appellant knowingly and

voluntarily waived his right to appeal the district court’s application of the

Guidelines. 

AFFIRMED.
Description of grants of nonqualified stock options



 Exhibit 10.17 
 On February 27, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Registrant approved discretionary grants of non-qualified stock options, vesting one-third on February 27, 2012, one-third on February 27, 2013, and
one-third on February 27, 2014, to each of Messrs. Agnone, Alter, DeSoto, Hepburn, Hoffman, Miller, Morello, Newkam, Rose, Ulsh, Weaver, Wiest and Zimmerman and Mss. Piersol and Sears, all of whom are non-employee members of the Board. The
grants were in amount of 3,000 per director and were granted with an exercise price of $8.77 per share (the closing price per share of the Registrant’s common stock on grant date). Further, each non-employee member of the Board was granted
1,000 shares of restricted stock, vesting one-third on February 27, 2010, one-third on February 27, 2011, and one-third on February 27, 2012.
§ 400.92 Appeals. ( a ) Except for determinations of good farming practices, nothing in this subpart prohibits a participant from filing an appeal of an adverse decision directly with NAD in accordance with part 11 of this title without first requesting administrative review or mediation under this subpart.
( b ) If the participant has timely requested administrative review or mediation, the participant may not participate in a NAD hearing until such administrative review or mediation is concluded. The time for appeal to NAD is suspended from the date of receipt of a request for administrative review or mediation until the conclusion of the administrative review or mediation. The participant will have only the remaining time to appeal to NAD after the conclusion of the administrative review or mediation.
[67 FR 13251, Mar. 22, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 37720, June 25, 2003]
§ 4280.303 Exception authority. The Administrator may make limited exceptions to the requirements or provisions of this subpart. Such exceptions must be in the best financial interest of the Federal government and may not conflict with applicable law. No exceptions may be made regarding applicant eligibility, project eligibility, or the rural area definition. In addition, exceptions may not be made: ( a ) To accept an applicant into the program that would not normally be accepted under the eligibility criteria; or
( b ) To fund an interested party or applicant that has not successfully competed for funding in accordance with this subpart.
22.305 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.222-4, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards-Overtime Compensation,

in solicitations and contracts (including, for this purpose, basic ordering agreements) when the

contract may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics. However, do not include

the clause in solicitations and contracts-

(a) Valued at or below $150,000;

(b) For commercial products and commercial services;

(c) For transportation or the transmission of intelligence;

(d) To be performed outside the United States, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, Johnston Island, Wake Island, and the outer Continental Shelf as defined in the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.1331) (29 CFR5.15);

(e) ) For work to be done solely in accordance with 41 U.S.C. chapter 65, (see subpart 22.6);

(f) For supplies that include incidental services that do not require substantial employment of

laborers or mechanics; or

(g) Exempt under regulations of the Secretary of Labor (29 CFR5.15).

Parent topic: Subpart 22.3 - Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
162 So.2d 571

#### STATE of Louisiana v. INVESTIGATION BY Jim GARRISON, District Attorney, Orleans Parish.

No. 47222.

April 8, 1964.

In re: Warren C. Holden, J. B. Broussard, O. C. Roberts, M. A. Forman, Jr., and Elbert I. Buckner applying for writs •of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. See per curiam in State w. Open Hearing Investigation, 245 La. 1059, 162 So.2d 565.

FOURNET, C. J., dissents from the ruling of the majority in this matter. (See written reasons in State v. Open Hearing Investigation, 245 La. 1059, 162 So.2d 565.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion that the writs should be granted. (See reasons assigned).
§ 400.94 Mediation. For adverse decisions only: ( a ) Appellants have the right to seek mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution in addition to an administrative review under § 400.93.
( b ) All requests for mediation under this subpart must be made after issuance of the adverse decision by the Agency and before the appellant has a NAD hearing on the adverse decision.
( c ) An appellant who chooses mediation must request mediation not later than 30 calendar days from receipt of the written notice of the adverse decision. A request for mediation will be considered to have been “filed” when personally delivered in writing to the appropriate decision maker or when the properly addressed request, postage paid, is postmarked.
( d ) An appellant will have any balance of the days remaining in the 30-day period to appeal to NAD if mediation is concluded without resolution. If a new adverse decision that raises new matters or relies on different grounds is issued as a result of mediation, the participant will have a new 30-day period for appeals to NAD.
( e ) An appellant is responsible for contacting the Certified State Mediation Program in States where such mediation program exists. The State mediation program will make all arrangements for the mediation process. A list of Certified State Mediation Programs is available at *http://www.act.fcic.usda.gov .*
( f ) An appellant is responsible for making all necessary contacts to arrange for mediation in non-certified States or in certified States that are not currently offering mediation on the subject in dispute. An appellant needing mediation in States without a certified mediation program may request mediation by contacting the RSO, which will provide the participant with a list of acceptable mediators.
( g ) An appellant may only mediate an adverse decision once.
( h ) If the dispute is not completely resolved in mediation, the adverse decision that was the subject of the mediation remains in effect and becomes the adverse decision that is appealable to NAD.
( i ) If the adverse decision is modified as a result of the mediation process, the modified decision becomes the new adverse decision for appeal to NAD.
[67 FR 13251, Mar. 22, 2002, as amended at 74 FR 8704, Feb. 26, 2009]