alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
40737.

#### GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. CARTER.

Frankum, Judge.

1. This case was previously before this court on an appeal from the order of the superior court affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation denying compensation. See *Carter v. Ga. Power Co.,*107 Ga. App. 380 (130 SE2d 156). The opinion and judgment of this court in that case adjudicated that the evidence adduced on the hearing was sufficient to authorize, but did not demand, an award finding in favor of the claimant. That ruling constitutes the law of the case, and no question is properly presented here respecting the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the award of compensation.

2. Upon remand of the case the majority of the full board made an award finding that the employee had suffered a compensable accident, in which award the following language was embodied: “We further find as a matter of fact that although the medical and other evidence is somewhat conflicting, there being evidence upon which an award could be written either way, but *this being a liberally [construed] Act for beneficent purpose,*the majority of the full board finds that Frampton C. Carter, the deceased employee, suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the *liberally construed Compensation Act,*when the work he was doing aggravated his pre-existing *234condition and started in motion the thing which produced his death.” (Italics ours). Under the rule announced in *Ocean Accident &c. Corp. v. Bates,*104 Ga. App. 621 (122 SE2d *305),*it is apparent that the majority of the directors in rendering the award applied an erroneous theory of law. Here, as in that case, the wording of the award indicates that the board was confused as to the application of the rule of law respecting the liberal construction of the Compensation Act. No portion of the Act was drawn in question and no construction of its language was required. As was there said (paraphrased), a reading of the award in its context shows that the majority of the directors were not applying the rule of liberal construction to the Act, but were applying that rule in evaluating the evidence. There is no distinction in the langauge used in rendering the award in that case and in the language used in rendering the award in this case.

Decided September 9, 1964.

*Smith, Ringel, Martin, Ansley & Carr, Richard D. Carr, Williston C. White,*for plaintiff in error.

*Martin McFarland,*contra.

3. The judgment must be reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board with instructions to determine whether or not the claimant has shown her right to recover upon proper application of the rules of evidence.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
## U.S. National Advisory Committee (NAC)

2012

- 2014 Membership Roster

B RIAN H OUSEAL

, CHAIR

Executive Director

Adirondack Council

Elizabethtown, New York

Jorge Chapa, Ph.D.

Professor

Institute of Government and Publi c Affairs

University of Illinois at Urbana

- Champaign

Urbana, Illinois

Mary Carter

Executive Director

Women’s Intercultural Center

Anthony, New Mexico

Abbas Ghassemi, Ph.D.

Executive Di rector

Institute for Energy and Environment

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Mary L. Klein

President and CEO

NatureServe

Arlington, Virginia

Carolyn L. Green

Manager Partner

EnerGreen Capital Management, LLC

Radnor, Pennsylvania

Michael J. Robinson

Vice President

Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs

General Motors Company

Detroit, Michigan

Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.

Professor

College of Engineering

University of Texas at El Paso

El Paso, Texas Timothy A. Bent

Director

Environmental Affairs

Bridgestone Amer ica

Nashville, Tennessee

Michael K. Dorsey , Ph.D

. Visiting Professor

College of the Environment

Wesleyan University

Middletown, Connecticut

Raymond Lozano

Director

Racial Justice and Cultural Collaboration

New Detroit

Detroit, Michigan

David L. Markell, J.D.

Steven M. Goldstein Professor

College of Law

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida

Cecilia R. Martinez , Ph.D.

Director

Center for Energy and Environmental Policy

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Anna Romero

- Lizana

Director

International Business Development

World Trade Center

St. Louis, Missouri

Gail Small

Executive Director

Native Action

Lame Deer, Montana
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Willis Joseph RICHARDS v. Douglass J. NEHRBASS, Judge, 15TH Judicial District Court.

No. 67715.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1980.

In re Willis Joseph Richards, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Beauregard. No. 35891.

Writ denied. Moot.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 2, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00174

- CV

IN RE AMX CONSTRUCTION & SPECIALTY SERVICES, LP , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on June 2, 2021

.

_____________________________ Luz El ena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of June, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020

- CI

- 08473 , styled Texas First Rentals, LLC v. AMX Construction & Specialty Services , pending in the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou

Alvarez presiding.
# C_2006042EN.01000101.xml

| 18.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 February 2006

(2006/C 42/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1863 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4653 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68390 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3810 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5621 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,42 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0600 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5745 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,365 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,70 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7654 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5076 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,46 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,345 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5751 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6119 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3725 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2067 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7892 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9406 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 154,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,1910 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5489 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2933 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 964,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,413 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,332 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,5100 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,663 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1863

JPY

Japanese yen

140,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4653

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68390

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3810

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5621

ISK

Iceland króna

75,42

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0600

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5745

CZK

Czech koruna

28,365

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,70

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7654

RON

Romanian leu

3,5076

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,46

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,345

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5751

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6119

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3725

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2067

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7892

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9406

KRW

South Korean won

1 154,03

ZAR

South African rand

7,1910

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5489

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2933

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 964,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,413

PHP

Philippine peso

61,332

RUB

Russian rouble

33,5100

THB

Thai baht

46,663

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### FLORIDA AIR PARTS COMPANY, INC., and Rudolph Blakey, Appellants, v. Jerry F. ROGERS, Appellee.

No. 73-1134.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 16, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RAMIREZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10335.

D.C. No. CR-99-00423-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*483Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Miguel Ramirez-Vargas appeals the judgment of conviction and his 57 month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ramirez-Vargas contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of prior convictions for aggravated felonies that were not charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ramirez-Vargas also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

We remand for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) only. *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2000) (sua sponte remanding to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Larry WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-769.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JORGE GARRIDO,

Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA GARRIDO n/k/a PATRICIA MARTINEZ,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-3677

[July 12, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Merrilee Ehrlich, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE07-08800 

(40).

Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Mark A. Seff and Anna-Maria Capizzi of Seff & Capizzi Law Group, LLC, 

Hollywood, for appellee.

GERBER, C.J.

The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment 

denying the former husband’s request for downward modification of his 

child support obligation. The former husband raises several arguments, 

but only one argument has merit – that the trial court incorrectly increased 

the child support arrearage by $15,000, presumably due to a 

mathematical error. The former wife appropriately concedes this error. 

We agree and reverse on this argument only.

In the final judgment, the circuit court indicated the child support 

arrearage was previously established in the sum of $94,780 as of 

November 17, 2014. The court added $15,000 in arrearage for the months 

of December 2014 through May 2015. Then the court added $5,000 in 

arrearage for the months of June 2015 and July 2015. The sum of these 

three amounts ($94,780 + $15,000 + $5,000) equals $114,780. However, 

the final judgment indicates that the sum of these three amounts is 

$129,780. Thus, the final judgment incorrectly determined that the 

arrearage was $15,000 more than the actual arrearage. This $15,000 

error requires correction of the final judgment on this error only.
2

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment only to correct 

the final judgment to show a child support arrearage of $114,780. On the 

former husband’s remaining arguments, we affirm without further 

discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of final 

judgment consistent with this opinion.

GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 3, 2021

No. 04-21-00047-CV

IN RE STEVENS TANKER DIVISION, LLC, and Richard R. Smith, Relators

Original Proceeding1

AMENDED ORDER

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are DENIED. This 

amended order replaces this court’s February 12, 2021 administrative order.

It is so ORDERED on March 3, 2021.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of March, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI15600, styled Cravey v. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC, pending in 

the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Nicole Garza presiding.
#### George D. PULLEN, Jr. v. Eva T. PULLEN.

No. 52371.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 28, 1981.

Richard E. Stratton, III, Brookhaven, for appellant.

Robert O. Allen, Allen & Allen, Brookha-ven, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery County, Lincoln County; Mike Carr, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., took no part.
# C_2006058EN.01001101.xml

| 10.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3787 — Heinemann/HDS Retail/JV)

(2006/C 58/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3787. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3787. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Brodie Franklin GROOMS, Petitioner, v. Honorable Robert W. TYSON, Jr., as Circuit Court Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of Prohibition denied.
# C_2006036EN.01000502.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 13 December 2005

in Case C-446/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (1)

1

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Tax relief - Profits of parent companies - Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary - Allowed - Deduction of losses incurred in another Member State by a non-resident subsidiary - Not included)

(2006/C 36/09)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-446/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 16 July 2003, received at the Court on 22 October 2003, in the proceedings between Marks & Spencer plc and David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resident parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary. However, it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

1

---
#### In re the ESTATE of Frank C. ARNST, Deceased.

No. 74-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 6, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Commonwealth v. Smith

*H. Lyle Houpt,*assistant district attorney, for Commonwealth.

*W. Edward Bushong, Jr.,*for defendant.

November 12, 1954.

Corson, J.,

Defendant-petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Smith, on September 21,1954, was found guilty before a justice of the peace under the Vagrancy Act of May 8, 1876, P. L. 154, and sentenced to the county prison for a period of six months.

On October 13, 1954, Smith presented a petition for an appeal from such conviction. A rule having *641been granted upon the district attorney, an answer was filed to such rule raising the single issue of whether or not the petition for allowance of appeal was filed too late. The Act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 29, provides that petitions for allowance of appeal from summary conviction must be made within five days in the court of quarter sessions. The Act of June 3, 1953, P. L. 272, extends from 5 to 10 days the time for filing petition for allowance of appeal from summary conviction. This act, under its title, amends the Act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 29, but does not mention the Vagrancy Act of May 8, 1876, P. L. 154, supra. The Vagrancy Act, supra, provides, inter alia, that any person or persons who shall conceive “him, her, or themselves aggrieved by any act, judgment or determination of any Justice of the Peace ... in *and concerning the execution of this act, may appeal*to the present or next general Quarter Sessions of the City or County, giving reasonable notice thereof, whose orders thereon shall be final.” (Italics supplied.)

This act covers only the subject of vagrancy and apparently allows an appeal as a matter or right. The earlier Act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 29, approved less than a month before the Vagrancy Act, certainly was not intended to limit the right of appeal under the Vagrancy Act. The Act of 1953 merely lengthens the time allowed for filing petition for allowance of appeal. We feel that the legislature, having passed the Vagrancy Act and the Summary Convictions Appeal Act at the same session of the legislature, must have intended to allow special appeal privileges in vagrancy cases. We do not feel that the acts amending the earlier Act of 1876 can be construed as affecting defendant’s rights under, the Vagrancy Act.

Since the. September term began on September 13, 1954, and runs until Monday, November 1, 1954, the appeal was filed during the September term and was *642in time under that act. We therefore enter the following order:

And now, November 12,1954, the rule is made absolute and appeal allowed as prayed.
## DOE Designs - 2011/09/09 LF Engineering Data File

Lowest Price Designs in a dEL Range by Core Material - PGE Analysis 11/6/11

DL1 - 50 kVA 1-Phase Pad DL2 - 25 kVA 1-Phase Pole Type (Round)

M3 M2 ZDMH SA1 M3 M2 ZDMH SA1

dEL0 1,961 $ 2,052

$ 1,957

$ 2,284

$ dEL0 1,307 $ 1,260

$ 936

$ 1,277

$

dEL1 2,178 $ 2,322

$ 2,187

$ 2,284

$ dEL1 1,516 $ 1,551

$ 1,091

$ 1,342

$

dEL2 2,744 $ 2,659

$ 2,319

$ 2,284

$ dEL2 1,240 $ 1,381

$

dEL3 2,924 $ 2,886

$ 2,319

$ 2,284

$ dEL3 1,316 $ 1,434

$

dEL4 2,378 $ dEL4 1,504 $

dEL5 2,626 $ dEL5 1,728 $

TRP-11/6/2011 $1,900 $2,100 $2,300 $2,500 $2,700 $2,900

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 M3

M2

ZDMH

SA1

$800

$900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $1,800

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 M3

M2

ZDMH

SA1

DOE Designs Simplified Plots with Data - 2011-09-09 Engineering Data File - PGE Analysis 2011-11-06 - R1.xls - DL1 and 2
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George G. ESTER.

No. 80-K-2865.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re George G. Ester, applying for writs of certiorari and review. Parish of Caddo. Nos. W-2901 and W-2901VÍ

Denied in part; not considered in part. Relator’s application is denied relative to his aggravated assault conviction. It is not considered relative to his conviction for resisting an officer as the appeal of that conviction is presently pending before the district court.