alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Keith ASHLEY and Hyacinth Ashley, his wife, Paulette Ashley, a minor by and through her parents and next friends, Appellees.

No. 79-2045.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 18, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1980.

Jerrold K. Phillips of Brooks & Callahan, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Stephen G. Fischer, Miami, for appellees.

HERSEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue. We reverse on the authority of *State of Florida Department of Transportation v. Bromante,*365 So.2d 388 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). The common law rule that venue in civil actions brought against the state or one of its agencies properly lies in the county where the state or agency maintains its principal headquarters has consistently been followed in Florida. *Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission,*354 So.2d 362 (Fla.1977). An exception in the case of contract actions was legislatively created. § 377.19 Fla.Stat. (1979). No such exception exists for causes of action sounding in tort. We have previously expressed our views as to the wisdom of this rule and the policy reasons that support it. *Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission v. Carlile,*341 So.2d 1015 (Fla.4th DCA 1977).

*1207Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and remand this cause with directions to transfer the case to Leon County as it pertains to appellant or, at the option of the plaintiffs, to dismiss appellant from the cause without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to bring an independent action against appellant in Leon County.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
401(k) Amendment


 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 
 REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN 
 Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002 (the
“Plan”) 
 As Adopted in November, 2008 
 Regions Financial Corporation further amends the Plan as follows: 
 1. Effective April 1, 2009, Section 4.01 shall be
amended by adding to the end thereof the following Subsection (e): 
 (e) Notwithstanding the above, no Company Matching
Contributions shall be made with respect to After-Tax Contributions or Pre-Tax Deferrals made with respect to pay periods beginning on or after April 1, 2009. 
 2. Effective April 1, 2009, Subsection 4.09(a) shall be amended by adding the following to the end thereof. 
 Notwithstanding the above and Subsections (c) and (d) below, no ADP Test Safe Harbor Contributions or ACP Test Safe Harbor Matching Contributions shall be made with respect to After-Tax Contributions or Pre-Tax Deferrals made with
respect to pay period beginning on or after April 1, 2009. 
 3. Effective immediately upon adoption of this amendment, the last
sentence of Section 4.02(c) and the last sentence of Section 4.02(d) are hereby deleted (the impact of this amendment being that Highly Compensated Participants may change their deferral elections on the same basis as other Participants).

 4. Effective April 1, 2009, Section 6.09(b)(6) is hereby deleted (the impact of this amendment being that Highly Compensated
Participants shall be eligible for hardship distributions on the same basis as other Participants). 
 ****
#### J. A. McDANIEL et al. v. Virgil Frank JACKSON and Concordia Bank & Trust Company.

No. 51587.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 13, 1980.

John T. Green, Frank W. Walden, Natchez, for appellant.

Handy, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Blough & Lewis, Jim C. Blough, Adams, Forman, Truly, Ward, Smith & Bramlette, E. C. Ward, Natchez, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Adams County; Fred C. Berger, Chancellor.

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

Affirmed on direct and cross-appeals; one-half (V2) of costs taxed to appellants and one-half (V2) to cross-appellant.
§ 423.665 Notice and effect of hearing decision. ( a ) As soon as practical after the close of the hearing, the hearing officer issues a written decision that— ( 1 ) Is based upon the evidence of record; and
( 2 ) Contains separately numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) The hearing officer provides a copy of the hearing decision to each party.
( c ) The hearing decision is final and binding unless it is reversed or modified by the Administrator following review under § 423.666, or reopened and revised in accordance with § 423.668.
#### § 417.836 Written description of administrative review procedures.

Each HCPP is responsible for ensuring that all Medicare enrollees are informed in writing of the administrative review procedures that are available to them.

[59 FR 59943, Nov. 21, 1994]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Kingdom of Bahrain Signs the Artemis Accords

# 									Kingdom of Bahrain Signs the Artemis Accords							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 7, 2022

On Wednesday, March 2, the Kingdom of Bahrain became the 17th nation, and the third nation in the Middle East, to sign the Artemis Accords. After approval from the Cabinet, National Space Science Agency (NSSA) CEO Dr. Mohamed Al Aseeri signed the Accords on behalf of Bahrain, demonstrating his nation’s commitment to the peaceful, safe, and responsible exploration and utilization of outer space.

Vice President Kamala Harris welcomed Bahrain’s affirmation of the principles espoused in the Artemis Accords at a joint news conference with Crown Prince and Prime Minister Salman bin Hamad Al Khalif, following the U.S.-Bahrain Strategic Dialogue.

Grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Artemis Accords are a set of nonbinding commitments to important principles for civil space actors, ensuring that activity in outer space remains safe for all space-faring nations and benefits all of humanity. Led by the Department of State and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Accords play an important role in NASA’s Artemis program which seeks to create a sustainable and robust presence on the Moon while preparing to conduct a historic human mission to Mars – all with significant contributions by international partners.

The other signatories of the Artemis Accords are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

For more information, contact OES-PA-DG@state.gov.

Tags

Artemis AccordsBahrainBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSpace

Back to Top
§ 425.102 Eligible providers and suppliers. ( a ) The following ACO participants or combinations of ACO participants are eligible to form an ACO that may apply to participate in the Shared Savings Program: ( 1 ) ACO professionals in group practice arrangements.
( 2 ) Networks of individual practices of ACO professionals.
( 3 ) Partnerships or joint venture arrangements between hospitals and ACO professionals.
( 4 ) Hospitals employing ACO professionals.
( 5 ) CAHs that bill under Method II (as described in § 413.70(b)(3) of this chapter).
( 6 ) RHCs.
( 7 ) FQHCs.
( 8 ) Teaching hospitals that have elected under § 415.160 of this subchapter to receive payment on a reasonable cost basis for the direct medical and surgical services of their physicians.
( b ) Other ACO participants that are not identified in paragraph (a) of this section are eligible to participate through an ACO formed by one or more of the ACO participants identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 71386, Nov. 16, 2015]
§ 455.460 Application fee. ( a ) Beginning on or after March 25, 2011, States must collect the applicable application fee prior to executing a provider agreement from a prospective or re-enrolling provider other than either of the following: ( 1 ) Individual physicians or nonphysician practitioners.
( 2 ) ( i ) Providers who are enrolled in either of the following: ( A ) Title XVIII of the Act.
( B ) Another State's title XIX or XXI plan.
( ii ) Providers that have paid the applicable application fee to— ( A ) A Medicare contractor; or
( B ) Another State.
( b ) If the fees collected by a State agency in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section exceed the cost of the screening program, the State agency must return that portion of the fees to the Federal government.
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of 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 operations of the
Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



/s/ Kenneth D. Gibbons
----------------------
Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2008
40897.

#### GATES v. THE STATE.

Russell, Judge.

1. Generally, where the trial court defines the crime with which the defendant is charged in the language of the statute, this will be sufficient in the absence of a request for fuller instructions. *Paschal v. State,*30 Ga. App. 22 (5) (116 SE 899); *Jordan v. State,*103 Ga. App. 493 (120 SE2d 30); *Kimbrell v. State,*57 Ga. App. 172 (194 SE 879). An instruction that battery is the unlawful imposition of the hands or arms of one person upon another against the will of the person alleged to have been assaulted, is not error because the court failed to instruct the jury without request in that connection that “it is not illegal to touch a person except in anger or with a lustful intent or purpose.”

2. This defendant was indicted for assault and battery. The prosecutrix testified that -the defendant, a stranger to her, *304twice deliberately “touched,” “tapped” or “hit” her on the buttocks in a public store. A police officer testified that after the defendant was arrested he freely and voluntarily made a statement in the course of questioning “that he touched Mrs. Hill down at McClennan’s Ten Cent Store, and did it intentionally. He went down there for that purpose, not to especially touch Mrs. Hill but he went down there for that purpose. He went down to the store for that purpose. To touch someone.” Defendant contends that an instruction on the law of confessions couched in the language of *Code*§ 38-420 was error for the reason that the statement did not amount to more than an incriminatory admission, citing *Johnson v. State,*204 Ga. 528 (50 SE2d 334). The statements in the *Johnson*case contained exculpatory elements lacking here. That the intentional touching of a woman by a man without excuse or justification constitutes a battery was early established in *Goodrum v. State,*60 Ga. 509, and such an intention appears from the defendant’s statement as quoted, together with an admission that he did the act charged. The instructions relating to the law of confession were accordingly without error.

Decided September 22, 1964.

*Wyatt & Wyatt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wright Lifford, Solicitor General, E. W. Fleming,*contra.

3. The defendant in his statement to the jury admitted the act but contended that it was unintentional and accidental. Where the defense of misfortune and accident is unsupported by evidence and appears only from the defendant’s statement, a written request is a prerequisite to the contention that failure to charge this principle of law is error. *Eich v. State,*169 Ga. 425 (150 SE 579); *Darby v. State,*16 Ga. App. 171 (84 SE 724). The theory of accident is not supported by the testimony of the prosecutrix in this case, she stating that the first time the defendant touched her she did not take action because she was not sure that the act was intentional, but that the second time it happened she was sure that it was.

4. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James E. ROSIER, Jr.

No. 81-K(A)-1125.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1981.

In re James E. Rosier, Jr., applying for remedial writs. Parish of LaSalle. No. 22847.

Writ denied.

WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

SWIM ’ N SPORT RETAIL, INC. , a Florida corporation, Appellant,

v.

HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC , a Florida limited liability company, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 756

[ October 17, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; G

. Joseph Curley

, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CA

011934

.
David R. Softness of David R. Softness, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Christopher Kammerer of Kammerer Maria ni PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , G ROSS and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a)OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jon W. Gacek, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this
Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Quantum Corporation; and

2) Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report.

Date: July 27, 2016/s/
      JON W. GACEKJon
      W. GacekPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive
Officer)


---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2969 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 228
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2969

                  [Report No. 104-467, Parts I and II]

To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1996

Mr. Klug (for himself and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
   and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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

                           February 29, 1996

             Reported from the Committee on Ways and Means

                           February 29, 1996

Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended for a period ending not 
                        later than March 7, 1996

                             March 6, 1996

Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended for a period ending not 
                       later than March 11, 1996

                             March 8, 1996

 Additional sponsors: Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gillmor, and Mr. Barrett of 
                               Wisconsin

                             March 8, 1996

Reported from the Committee on Commerce; committed to the Committee of 
  the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TEA IMPORTATION ACT OF 1897.

    The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 228

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2969

                  [Report No. 104-467, Parts I and II]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 8, 1996

Reported from the Committee on Commerce; committed to the Committee of 
  the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3547

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 5, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To provide for the conveyance of a parcel of real property

in the Apache National Forest in the State of Arizona

to the Alpine Elementary School District 7 to be used

for the construction of school facilities and related playing fields.

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

HR 3547 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, APACHE NATIONAL FOR2 EST, ARIZONA.

3 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—(1) The Secretary of

4 Agriculture shall convey, without consideration, to the Al5 pine Elementary School District 7 of the State of Arizona

6 (in this section referred to as the ‘‘School District’’), all

7 right, title, and interest of the United States in and to

8 a parcel of real property, including any improvements

9 thereon, consisting of approximately 30 acres located in

10 the Apache National Forest, Apache County, Arizona, and

further delineated as follows: North 1⁄2 of Northeast 1 11 ⁄4

of Southeast 1 12 ⁄4 of section 14, Township 5 North, Range

30 East, Gila and Salt River meridian, and North 1 13 ⁄2 of

South 1⁄2 of Northeast 1⁄4 of Southeast 1 14 ⁄4 of such section.

15 (2) The exact acreage and legal description of the real

16 property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be de17 termined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The

18 cost of the survey shall be borne by the School District.

19 (b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance

20 made under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition

21 that the School District use the conveyed property for pub22 lic school facilities and related public school recreational

23 purposes.

24 (c) RIGHT OF REENTRY.—The United States shall

25 retain a right of reentry in the property to be conveyed.

26 If the Secretary determines that the conveyed property is
3

HR 3547 RFS

1 not being used in accordance with the condition in sub2 section (b), the United States shall have the right to reen3 ter the conveyed property without consideration.

4 (d) ENCUMBRANCES.—The conveyance made under

5 subsection (a) shall be subject to all encumbrances on the

6 property existing as of the date of the enactment of this

7 Act.

8 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

9 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi10 tions in connection with the conveyance under subsection

11 (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the

12 interests of the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives September 4,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### § 438.525 [Reserved]
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 *





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),
I, the undersigned principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of ABF Capital Corp. (the "Registrant") hereby certify that the Quarterly Report
of on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.











Dated:
      October 2,
      2009
            /s/ Adolph
      WeismanAdolph
      Weisman
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and
              Principal
      Financial Officer)











* The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### Isaac Michael GREEN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Thomas Henry SMITH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 7828.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 9, 1935.

Lloyd Dinkelspiel, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.

Frank J. Wideman, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties that each of above causes has-been compromised and settled, ordered petition to review in each cause dismissed; mandates forthwith.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30561 

Conference Calendar

__________________

MELVIN SMITH,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden; RICHARD P.

IEYOUB, Attorney General,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 86-CA-1180 "H"

- - - - - - - - - -

December 21, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Smith argues that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion to reconsider (FED. R. CIV. P.

60(b) motion). We have reviewed the record and determined that

Smith's contentions are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. 

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150

(5th Cir. 1993). As Smith's appeal is without arguable merit, it

is frivolous. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
No. 95-30561

-2-

We caution Smith that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Smith is further cautioned to review all pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.