alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Laffin *v.*Nicholas Apalucci et al.

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued April 6

decided June 4, 1943.

*154
      *Andrew D. Dawson,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William B. Hennessy,*with whom, on the brief, was *John F. Tobin,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

In view of the full statement of facts in the previous opinion in this case (128 Conn. 654, 25 Atl. [2d] 60) a brief summary here will suffice. The plaintiff was a customer on the premises of the defendants Apalucci and Lucien, who ran a bar and restaurant in two adjoining rooms. The defendant Sacco was the bartender. The plaintiff claimed that Sacco committed an unprovoked assault on him in the barroom. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff followed Sacco from the bar into the restaurant, that he there assaulted him and that Sacco then struck the plaintiff in self-defense. The plaintiff claims the charge was incorrect in three particulars.

The first assignment of error relates to the charge concerning a statement made by counsel during the argument to the jury. There is no basis in the finding by which the correctness of this portion of the charge can be tested. Since the charge must be tested by the finding, this assignment is without merit. *Hulk*v. *Aishberg,*126 Conn. 360, 362, 11 Atl. (2d) 380.

The error in the former trial was based on the fact that the charge made recovery depend rather on the place where the affray took place than on the cir*155cumstances surrounding it. In this case substantially the same charge on this subject was repeated but it was qualified by the statement: “But, regardless of where the fracas took place, the real question is, was the blow struck by Sacco justifiable, and was it, as the answer states, in self defense. . . .” Earlier in the charge, the trial court stated: “While the place where this all took place has a bearing on the credit you will give the testimony, the really important matter is, however, how it happened, rather than the place where it happened.” The determination of the place where the affray occurred was important on the question of credibility of witnesses and a proper subject of comment. The explanatory and qualifying statements quoted removed the objectionable features necessitating a reversal on the former appeal.

Finally, the plaintiff complains because the question whether the plea of self-defense was established was made to depend on the situation as it reasonably appeared to the defendant Sacco at the time rather than on the circumstances actually existing. The rule laid down was correct and, while it might have been more clearly expressed, was adequate for the guidance of the jury. *Morris*v. *Platt,*32 Conn. 75, 83; *State*v. *Yanz,*74 Conn. 177, 181, 50 Atl. 37; Restatement, 1 Torts, § 63, comments c, h, i; 6 C.J.S. 810; 4 Am. Jur. 147; and see *State*v. *Engle,*115 Conn. 638, 648, 162 Atl. 922.

There is no error.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. George E. HELD v. 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE.

No. 66449.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re George E. Held, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Lafayette. No. 42-402.

Denied. Moot.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT GRANT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3971

[ April 8, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No. 17

- 11797

CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Timothy Wang, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Iceland National Day

# 									Iceland National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 17, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Iceland in celebration of your National Day.

The United States and Iceland share a strong and enduring friendship, based on commitments to democratic principles, freedom, and our collective security as NATO Allies. We are working together to address the shared challenges in the region and globally across a wide range of economic, human rights, security, and climate issues, as well as through cooperation in the Arctic Council. The close coordination between the United States and Iceland is all the more important as we work together to support the people of Ukraine as they defend their country against Russia’s unprovoked war. Together we will hold Russia to account for its brutal actions.

I look forward to jointly creating a bright future for our peoples in the years to come and send best wishes for peace, health, and prosperity to all people in Iceland on this special day.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDemocracyIcelandOffice of the Spokesperson

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeUkraine

# Ukraine

1744 items

        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Ukraine	  Matthew MillerMay 13, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 13, 2024	  Vedant PatelMay 13, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		United States Announces Significant New Military Assistance for Ukraine	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 10, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024	  Matthew MillerMay 9, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 8, 2024	  Matthew MillerMay 8, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 7, 2024	  Matthew MillerMay 7, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024	  Matthew MillerMay 6, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken At McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum Keynote Conversation with Senator Mitt Romney	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 3, 2024Sedona, Arizona  
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024	  Matthew MillerMay 2, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		New Measures in Response to Russia’s Full-Scale War and Use of Chemical Weapons Against Ukraine	  Matthew MillerMay 2, 2024 

previous page1…45678…175next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...First Anniversary of the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

# 									First Anniversary of the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 15, 2022

One year ago, the United States joined like-minded nations in sending an unambiguous message that the arbitrarily detention of foreign nationals is unacceptable and governments who engage in this practice must cease immediately.

The United States continues to call on the international community to collectively respond and press for the release of all those who are arbitrarily detained around the world.  We commend Canada for its leadership in the fight against the practice of imprisoning individuals for diplomatic leverage.  The Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations now has 68 endorsements from nations around the world, and we urge others to support this initiative grounded in the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCanadaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs

Back to Top
§ 436.530 Definition of blindness. ( a ) *Definition.* The agency must use the definition of blindness that is used in the State plan for AB or AABD.
( b ) *State plan requirement.* The State plan must contain the definition of blindness, expressed in ophthalmic measurements.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3523 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3523

  To require the relocation of a National Weather Service radar tower 
          which is on Sulphur Mountain near Ojai, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1996

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                          Committee on Science

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the relocation of a National Weather Service radar tower 
          which is on Sulphur Mountain near Ojai, California.

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

SECTION 1. RELOCATION OF RADAR TOWER.

    (a) Requirement to Relocate Radar Tower.--Not later than 18 months 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
relocate the National Weather Service radar tower which is located on 
Sulphur Mountain near Ojai, California, to a site which complies with 
the criteria listed in subsection (b).
    (b) Criteria For New Site.--The new site for the radar tower 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be selected so that the 
relocation--
            (1) will not result in degradation of service; and
            (2) will minimize the negative impacts of the radar tower 
        and its emissions on residential areas.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a report to 
Congress that includes--
            (1) an identification of the new site selected for the 
        radar tower; and
            (2) evidence which was considered in reaching the 
        conclusion that relocation of the radar tower to the site 
        selected meets the criteria listed in subsection (b).

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act--
            (1) the term ``degradation of service'' means any decrease 
        in or failure to maintain the quality and type of weather 
        services provided by the National Weather Service to the 
        public; and
            (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1217

JARA UZENDA GOBBI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ARTHUR SCOTT GOBBI,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-01-4728-4-22)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jara Uzenda Gobbi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jara Uzenda Gobbi appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

Gobbi’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Gobbi that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Gobbi failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gobbi has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        I, Scott G. McNealy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.




                                          By:  /s/ Scott G. McNealy
                                             -----------------------------------
                                          Name:  Scott G. McNealy
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
HomeFederal Grand Jury Issues New Indictment Against Leaders of Philippines-Based Church that Alleges Sex Trafficking Scheme

# 									Federal Grand Jury Issues New Indictment Against Leaders of Philippines-Based Church that Alleges Sex Trafficking Scheme							

DSS Releases

November 18, 2021

 

Click here to read more about this

Tags

CaliforniaDSS ReleasesHuman TraffickingPhilippines

Back to Top
§ 423.2044 Consolidated proceedings. ( a ) *Consolidated hearing.* ( 1 ) A consolidated hearing may be held if one or more of the issues to be considered at the hearing are the same issues that are involved in one or more other appeals pending before the same ALJ.
( 2 ) It is within the discretion of the ALJ to grant or deny an enrollee's request for consolidation. In considering an enrollee's request, the ALJ may consider factors such as whether the issue(s) may be more efficiently decided if the appeals are consolidated for hearing. In considering the enrollee's request for consolidation, the ALJ must take into account any adjudication deadlines for each appeal and may require an enrollee to waive the adjudication deadline associated with one or more appeals if consolidation otherwise prevents the ALJ from deciding all of the appeals at issue within their respective deadlines.
( 3 ) The ALJ may also propose on his or her own motion to consolidate two or more appeals in one hearing for administrative efficiency, but may not require an enrollee to waive the adjudication deadline for any of the consolidated cases.
( 4 ) Notice of a consolidated hearing must be included in the notice of hearing issued in accordance with §§ 423.2020 and 423.2022.
( b ) *Consolidated decision and record.* ( 1 ) If the ALJ decides to hold a consolidated hearing, he or she may make either— ( i ) A consolidated decision and record; or
( ii ) A separate decision and record on each appeal.
( 2 ) If a separate decision and record on each appeal is made, the ALJ is responsible for making sure that any evidence that is common to all appeals and material to the common issue to be decided, and audio recordings of any conferences that were conducted and the consolidated hearing are included in each individual administrative record, as applicable.
( 3 ) If a hearing will not be conducted for multiple appeals that are before the same ALJ or attorney adjudicator, and the appeals involve one or more of the same issues, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator may make a consolidated decision and record at the request of the enrollee or on the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's own motion.
( c ) *Limitation on consolidated proceedings.* Consolidated proceedings may only be conducted for appeals filed by the same enrollee, unless multiple enrollees aggregated appeals to meet the amount in controversy requirement in accordance with § 423.2006 and the enrollees have all authorized disclosure of information to the other enrollees.
[82 FR 5134, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 19873, May 7, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.240 Conducting the hearing. ( a ) All hearings must be conducted— ( 1 ) At a reasonable time, date, and place;
( 2 ) Only after adequate written notice of the hearing; and
( 3 ) By one or more impartial officials or other individuals who have not been directly involved in the initial determination of the action in question.
( b ) If the hearing involves medical issues such as those concerning a diagnosis, an examining physician's report, or a medical review team's decision, and if the hearing officer considers it necessary to have a medical assessment other than that of the individual involved in making the original decision, such a medical assessment must be obtained at agency expense and made part of the record.
( c ) A hearing officer must have access to agency information necessary to issue a proper hearing decision, including information concerning State policies and regulations.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 78 FR 42302, July 15, 2013]
No. 00-5123.

#### Clinton *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*
      *921granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Apprendi*v. *New Jersey,*530 U. S. 466 (2000).
HomeTrade Recent Actions...Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Singapore, January 12, 2024

# 									Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Singapore, January 12, 2024							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [108 KB]

Tags

Indo-PacificSingaporeTrade and Investment

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### William J. WASHUTA, Petitioner, v. Louis M. ANDRIS and Giedre B. Andris, his wife, Respondents.

No. 79-637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 1979.

Robinson & Greenberg and Barry N. Greenberg, Miami, for petitioner.

Goodwin, Ryskamp, Welcher, George Earl Brown, Miami, for respondents.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the petitioner/in-tervenor William J. Washuta leave to intervene in circuit court case no. 78 10491 now presently pending in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. *Miracle House Corp. v. Haige,*96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957).

It is so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3291 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3291

      To require the President to submit a separately identified 
  appropriation request to provide priority funding for the national 
          parks of the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 1996

    Ms. Dunn of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To require the President to submit a separately identified 
  appropriation request to provide priority funding for the national 
          parks of the United States, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Crown Jewel National Parks Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY FUNDING REQUESTS FOR NATIONAL PARKS.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(32) a separate statement of the amount of appropriations 
        requested for priority funding for each national park, the 
        Crown Jewels of the National Park System, and a separate 
        statement setting forth the reasons why priority funding is not 
        requested for a national park (if any).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Norman NELSON v. CONTROL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

No. 55389.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1974.

In re: Norman Nelson, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 299 So.2d 570.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter



# United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 2 1

- 1 820
BERKSHIRE PLACE ASSOCIATES, LP; BERKSHIRE PLACE, LTD.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees ,

v.
M DG REAL ESTATE GLOBAL LIMITED; MDG REAL ESTATE GLOBAL, LLC, Defendants, A ppellants , RIVERSIDE ABSTRACT LLC,
Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Mary S. McElroy, U.S. District Judge ]

Before

Barron , Chief Judge , Lipez and Howard , Circuit Judge s .

Richard L. Yellen , with whom Brendan C. Kombol , Richard L. Yellen & Associates, LLP , Jeffrey S. Brenner , and Nixon Peabody LLP were on brief, for appellant s . Nicholas B. Carter , with whom Todd & Weld LLP were on brief, for appellees
.
August 9, 2022- 2

- Per Curiam

. Appellants MDG Real Estate Global Limited and MDG Real Estate Global, LLC appeal the district court's order affirming an arbitration award in favor of appellees Berkshire Place Associates, LP and Berkshire Place, Ltd. Upon careful, de novo review, we affi rm. See Axia Netmedia Corp. v. Mass. Tech.
Park Corp. , 973 F.3d 133, 140 (1st Cir. 2020) (standard of review).

" Rhode Island has a strong public policy in favor of the finality of arbitration awards, " and " judicial review of arbitration awards
is extremely limited. " Berkshire Wilton Partners, LLC v. Bilray
Demolition Co. , 91 A.3d 830, 834

- 35 (R.I. 2014 ) . A court may

vacate an arbitration award only when the award " fails to 'draw its essence from the agreement, if it was not based upon a passably plausible interpretation thereof, if it manifestly disregarded a contractual provision, or if it reached an irrational result.'" Nappa Const r . Mgmt
. , LLC v. Flynn , 152 A.3d 1128, 1132 (R.I. 2017) (quoting State v. R.I. Emp
. Sec. All., Local 401 , 840 A.2d 1093, 1096 (R.I. 2003)). We see no error in the arbitration award, let
alone error of a magnitude that would warrant vacatur
.

Affirmed

.
No. 99-8979.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.