alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward M. Harlam, Respondent, *v.*Richard G. Green, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment and also from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Leopold Leo, for appellant.

Joseph Rosenzweig, for respondent.

*799Cohxakt, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged conversion of a landau. ■ The plaintiff purchased of one Cammann a landau which Cammann had delivered to the defendant for repairs. When called for, it was claimed there was due to the latter a certain sum for repairs. It is claimed by the plaintiff that a tender of the amount was made at the time of the demand, and that there was a refusal to deliver because of a further claim for storage. The evidence upon the question of the tender is in conflict, but the jury determined that question in the plaintiff’s favor and we are not disposed to disturb their finding. There was some evidence introduced tending to show that the bill for repairs was in favor of one Hamilton, who occupied a portion of the premises of the defendant, and he had worked for him as a carriage painter, but we think that was effectually disposed of by the witness Cammann, who testified that he delivered the landau in question to the defendant. There was no evidence by the defendant on the question of value, and the jury determined that upon the plaintiff’s testimony.

The evidence offered by the defendant, and which was excluded, did not, we think, prejudice his case in the hands of the jury, nor was it properly admissible upon the issues raised by the pleadings. The answer was a general denial and in the opinion of the jury there was nothing in the contention of the defendant that Hamilton had any claim or right in .the controversy which called for any consideration by them.

The whole case is fairly presented in the charge of the learned trial justice, and not being able to find any errors calling for an interference with the determination reached below, it follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimokts, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Alfred U. Giallorenzi, Respondent, *v.*Vincenzo Caggiano, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Kew York, borough, of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a trial had before the court, without a jury.

Thomas W. McKhight, for appellant.

Alfred U. Gfiallorenzi (Charles D. Folsom, of counsel), respondent, in person.

*Per Ouriarn.*

The complaint does not show that the defendant at the time of the commencement of the action was a resident of the city of Kew York, as the same is now constituted, nor was any proof given upon the trial showing that such was the case.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10879

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EUGENE A. LIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00021-AW-GRJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10879 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10879

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Summa, appointed counsel for Eugene Light in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is GRANTED, and Light’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10879 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32
 COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: November 15, 2010
    /s/ William F. Farber, Sr.William F. Farber, Sr.President and Chief Executive Officer   64




---



##### 



COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: November 15, 2010
    /s/ Scott A. SeasockScott A. SeasockExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
  65
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

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

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




STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FOR THE NINE MONTHS
                                                          ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
                                                         1998           1997
                                                     ---------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
NUMERATOR:
  Net Income                                         $10,139,000     $10,281,000

DENOMINATOR:
  Denominator for basic earnings per share -
    weighted average shares outstanding                9,148,562       9,270,260
  Effect of diluted securities:
    Employee stock options                                54,750          23,037
                                                     ---------------------------
  Denominator for diluted earnings per share -
    adjusted weighted average shares outstanding       9,203,312       9,293,297
                                                     ===========================

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE                             $      1.11     $      1.11
                                                     ===========================
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                           $      1.10     $      1.11
                                                     ===========================
</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.350 Provision of certain specialized services and environmental requirements. The State home domiciliary care programs must comply with the requirements of § 51.140, except § 51.140(f)(2) through (4) concerning dietary services; § 51.170 concerning dental services; § 51.180, except § 51.180(c) concerning pharmacy services; § 51.190 concerning infection control; and § 51.200, except § 51.200(a), (b), (d)(1)(ii) through (x), (f), and (h)(3) concerning the physical environment. For purposes of this section, the references to “facility” in the cited sections also refer to a domiciliary. ( a ) *Dietary services.* ( 1 ) There must be no more than 14 hours between a substantial evening meal and the availability of breakfast the following day, except as provided in (a)(3) of this section.
( 2 ) The facility staff must offer snacks at bedtime daily.
( 3 ) Sixteen hours may elapse between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day when a nourishing snack is offered at bedtime.
( b ) *Pharmacy services.* ( 1 ) The drug regimen of each resident must be reviewed at least once every six months by a licensed pharmacist.
( 2 ) The pharmacist must report any irregularities to the primary care physician and the director of nursing, and these reports must be acted upon.
( c ) *Life safety from fire.* The facility must meet the applicable requirements of the National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, as incorporated by reference in § 51.200.
( d ) *Privacy.* The facility must provide the means for visual privacy for each resident.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0160)
41913.

#### HICKS v. OXFORD et al.

Argued April 6, 1966

Decided May 5, 1966.

*Smith, Bingel, Martin & Lowe, Sam F. Lowe, Jr., Scott Charlton,*for appellant.

*Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, Taylor W. Jones,*for appellees.

Fbankum, Judge.

1. The effect of a nonsuit is to abruptly terminate the whole case, putting the plaintiff out of court and leaving him at liberty to bring it again. There is no such thing as a partial nonsuit. *Talbotton R. Co. v. Gibson,*106 Ga. 229, 237 (32 SE 151); *Southern States Exploring &c. Syndicate v. McManus,*113 Ga. 982 (4) (39 SE 480); *White v. Boyd,*58 Ga. App. 219, 227 (198 SE 81); *Jones v. Britt,*75 Ga. App. 142, 146 (42 SE2d 648). Accordingly, the judgment purporting to grant a nonsuit as to certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s one-count petition will be treated as having granted a nonsuit as to the entire case, since the paragraphs referred to in the order related to virtually all of the substance of the plaintiff’s complaint. The subsequent announcement of the plaintiff to the effect that he would take a non-suit as to the rest of his case was therefore without legal significance.

2. A nonsuit having been granted, the judge did not abuse his discretion in thereafter granting the timely motion of the plaintiff to reinstate the case, which motion was accompanied by a brief of the evidence. This motion was made within the term at which the judgment of nonsuit was entered and was a remedy available to the plaintiff. *Glenn v. Glenn,*152 Ga. 793 (1) (111 SE 378); *Shore v. Brown,*19 Ga. App. 476 (6) (91 SE 909).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
41562.

#### LEE v. SAV-A-STOP, INC.

Jordan, Judge.

Error is enumerated on the order of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit in an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages sustained when his automobile was damaged by a fire which destroyed a warehouse leased by the defendant corporation. The petition alleged that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and had parked his automobile, a 1940' Chevrolet Coupe, next to the defendant’s warehouse which was located on Epps Road in the City of Athens; that this warehouse contained, among other things, several cases of canned heat, a highly inflammable substance; that the storage of this canned heat in the defendant’s warehouse violated Sections 16.32 (a) and 16.35 (a) of the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Athens, and therefore constituted negligence per se; and that the defendant’s negligent acts were the cause of the fire and the damage to the plaintiff’s automobile. *Held:*

The evidence adduced in behalf of the plaintiff did not show that the storage of canned heat, or other items, in the defendant’s warehouse was in violation of Sections 16.32 (a) and 16. 35 (a) of the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Athens. These sections under the provisions of Section 16.31 of the code applied only “to the storage of flammable liquids in drums or other portable closed containers not exceeding 60 gallons individual capacity inside buildings,” and there was no evidence that “canned heat” or any of the other items stored in the warehouse constituted a flammable liquid so as to bring the warehouse within the purview of the fire code.

There was no evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was guilty of any negligent acts which proximately *512caused the fire and consequent damage to the plaintiff’s automobile. The plaintiff did not, therefore, prove his case as laid and the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion for nonsuit. *Robertson v. Johnson,*107 Ga. App. 61 (129 SE2d 358); *King v. Barrett,*107 Ga. App. 122 (129 SE2d 393).

Argued October 4, 1965

Decided October 21, 1965.

*Guy B. Scott, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Eugene A. Epting,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
# Official Journal C 219/1 Se

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 219 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 471 September 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 219

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 471 September 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 219/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 219/2 | Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 219/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 219/2

Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 219/3 | Reopening the continuous submission scheme for the Call for proposals for indirect actions under the Multiannual Community Action Plan on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (2003 to 2004) (Safer Internet Action Plan) | 8 |

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 219/3

Reopening the continuous submission scheme for the Call for proposals for indirect actions under the Multiannual Community Action Plan on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (2003 to 2004) (Safer Internet Action Plan)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### John Hemingway et al., Appellants, *v.*Diedrich C. Oldenberg, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, rendered-in favor of the defendant upon a trial had before the court without a jury.

Oscar J. Hochstadter, for appellants.

Edward Herrmann, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The record is barren of an exception, and the questions presented by this appeal relate solely to the facts. The *783main question contested at the trial was whether the safe in suit was included in the sale of the plaintiffs’ business to the defendant. The testimony with respect to this point is conflicting, but the trial justice having found in favor of the defendant, we see no reason for disturbing his conclusion.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Anna Balla, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment rendered in the Municipal Court, second district, in favor of the plaintiff.

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

McElhinney & Martin, for respondent..

Freedman, P. J.

The plaintiff in this action, as she was crossing Twenty-third street, on the way down the easterly side of Ihird avenue of this city, was run against by the horses attached tc one of defendant’s cars and thrown down and injured, for wiich she recovered a judgment in the trial court for the sum of $300 damages.

At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony the defendant made a mdiion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff hat not shown herself free from contributory negligence, which moion was denied. A similar motion was again made at the closi of the case and denied. The plaintiff was going down town with a box on her head. The accident appears to have occurred whei $ie plaintiff was near the middle of the crossing. There is no eidence tp show that she looked in either direction to ascer- ■ tain f a car was approaching, nor is there any testimony as to how fir distant the car was when she attempted to cross the street. Neithr does it appear that the accident occurred through any fault f the defendant. Taking all the facts and circumstances together, the case as made/ both on the question of plaintiff’s cont-ributoy negligence, and on the question of the defendant’s negligence, vas as consistent with the exercise of due care, as with *776negligence on the part of Both parties, and upon such a state, of facts the plaintiff cannot recover.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with cost's to the appellant to abide the event.

MacLean, J., concurs; Leventritt, J., taking no.part.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Funding your education: theguide to Federal Student Aid**
 
2012 | 2013: PDFMobiePUb | 2014
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.45/7:
Item Number:0461-B-19 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000876561
 
January 8, 2020
#### Nicola Capobianco, Respondent, *v.*Frederick Thilemann, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of The Bronx.

O. W. Dayton, for appellant.

F. J. Kuerzi, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

.The plaintiff sued for labor performed at the request of the defendant. According to his evidence, he was directed to do such work as he was instructed to perform by the inspector on the work. A dispute arising as to the extent of the services rendered, the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff justified the conclusion reached by the court below.

Lawrence v. Mayor, 29 App. Div. 298, has no application. That was a case between a contractor and the city, under a contract providing that the estimate of the engineer as to the amount of work performed would be conclusive between the parties. There was a *752similar contract between the defendant in this case and the city of Hew York. The plaintiff, however, was not a party to it, and was not bound by its provisions in the absence of an express agreement on his part. The proofs in this case do not establish such an agreement. As to the defense of non-joinder of necessary parties, there was not 'sufficient evidence to support it.

The judgment was rendered on conflicting testimony, and as there is no merit in the exceptions, it should not be disturbed.

Present: Beekmait, P. J., G-iegebioh and O’Gobmait, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Official Journal C 239/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 239 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 619 July 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 239

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 619 July 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 239/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8928 — Francisco Partners/Verifone Systems)
   (1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 239/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8928 — Francisco Partners/Verifone Systems)
   (1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 239/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2018/C 239/03 | Notice concerning the classification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as Aquatic Acute 1 and Aquatic Chronic 1 according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 239/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2018/C 239/03

Notice concerning the classification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as Aquatic Acute 1 and Aquatic Chronic 1 according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 239/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8905 — AXA Group/Roland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  ) | 4 |
| 2018/C 239/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9001 — Kuehne + Nagel/Temasek/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  ) | 6 |
| 2018/C 239/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8938 — LG Electronics/ZKW Holding/Mommert Gewerbeimmobilien) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 239/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8905 — AXA Group/Roland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  )

1

4

2018/C 239/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9001 — Kuehne + Nagel/Temasek/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  )

1

6

2018/C 239/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8938 — LG Electronics/ZKW Holding/Mommert Gewerbeimmobilien) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
   (1
  )

1

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN