alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilson *v.*Owens Horse & Mule Co.

Assumpsit.

(Decided December 16, 1915.

70 South. 956.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Prejudice; Reversal. — Where the record contains no bill of exceptions and no charges are set out therein, the only-errors assigned being those in sustaining demurrers to certain special pleas, no cause for reversal is shown, since injury is no longer presumed, and it must appear, under rule 45, Supreme Court Practice, that any error was probably injurious to appellant; the rule also being that defendant must show that he could have established his plea in order to have a reversal for error in sustaining demurrer to the plea.

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Assumpsit by the Owens Horse & Mule Company against W. S. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The pleas set up: First, the general issue; second, failure of consideration; and, third, breach of warranty in the condition of the mule. Demurrers were sustained to the pleas, and after trial there was judgment for the plaintiff, and an appeal, without bill of exceptions.

B. F. Reid, for appellant. A. E. Pace, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

The appellant was defendant below and prosecutes this appeal on the record proper — there being no bill of *468exceptions and no charges set out in the record. The only errors assigned are, that the court erred in sustaining demurrers to certain special pleas. Assuming, without deciding, that the court did err in the particulars mentioned, it is not made to appear that the error was probably injurious to the defendant, which is necessary, under the new rule of our Supreme Court (rule 45 as published in 175 Ala. xxi, 61 South, ix), before we would be authorized to reverse the case. ' Under this rule, injury is no longer presumed, but it must affirmatively appear from the record. In order to make it appear that injury resulted from error in sustaining demurrers to special pleas, it should appear, either from charges in the record, or by bill of exceptions, or in some way, that appellant introduced, or offered to introduce, some evidence tending to support said pleas; otherwise it will be presumed on appeal that appellant could not have proved his pleas if the demurrers to them had been overruled, hence that there was no injury, if error, in the action of the lower court in sustaining the demurrers. This we judge to be the rational interpretation of the holdings of our Supreme Court in construing the rule mentioned.—Rule 45, *supra; Henderson v. Tenn. Coal & Iron Co.,*190 Ala. 126, 67 South. 414.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
### V a r i a b ili t y i n B i o s o li d s M e r c u r y C o n ce n t r a t i o n s a t P O T W s

, 2005

- 2009

0 1 2 3 4 5

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

P ubli c l y Own e d T rea t me n t W o rksMercuryConcentration,mg/kg m a x = 14

. 65

m a x = 17

. 25

m a x = 6

. 40

m a x = 6

. 10

### V a r i a b ili t y i n B i o s o li d s L ea d C o n ce n t r a t i o n s a t P O T W s

, 2005

- 2009

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

P ubli c l y Own e d T rea t me n t W o rksLeadConcentration,mg/kg
#### EUFAULA COTTON OIL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 17362

Congressional.

Decided April 16, 1935]

*Benet, Shand <c& McGowan*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. W. W.*Scott, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George C.*Sweeney, for the defendant.

PeR Cueiam :

This case is submitted under a stipulation filed January 20, 1933, in the case of the *Rose City Cotton Oil Mills*v. *United States,*No. 17341 Congressional, by which it is *470agreed that tbe general findings and .conclusions of law made by the court in the case of *Farmers & Ginners Oil Co.*v. *United*States, 76 C. Cls. 204, are accepted by both parties hereto as applicable to and controlling- all other cotton linter cases pending in the Court of Claims. Among other things contained in the findings made by the court in the case last above cited is a statement that the agents of the United States undertook to and did purchase from the plaintiff therein all linters produced during the period ending July 31, 1919, and the opinion recites that the case was in its material features the same as that of *Hazelhurst Oil Mill Co.*v. *United*States, 70 C. Cls. 334, in which the court found and held in effect that the contract “covered the purchase of all linters then in possession of plaintiff and all linters to be produced by it during the season ending July 31, 1919.” Since the execution of the stipulation above referred to and on March 4, 1935, an agreed statement of additional facts has been filed by the parties from which it appears that on December 31, 1918, when the contract made in the case now before the court was canceled, the plaintiff had manufactured and delivered to defendant a quantity of linters in excess of the estimated amount which had been stated in the contract and had been paid therefor,

It is now contended on behalf of defendant that as this estimated amount had been produced and paid for there was no breach of the contract by reason of the cancellation thereof on the part of the defendant and its refusal to pay for the linters produced thereafter up to July 31, 1919.

Without determining whether in any event the estimate of the amount to be produced by plaintiff could be a controlling feature with reference to the matter involved, we conclude that under the stipulations and agreements filed by the parties and the decisions in the cases above cited the liability of defendant is not limited by the estimate above referred to and that under the agreed statement of facts the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $2,301.33.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Kenneth D. Paskar and Friends 

of LaGuardia Airport Inc. 

Complainant 

v. 

The Port Authority ofNew York and 

New Jersey, an Interstate Compact 

Agency Pursuant to Article I, Section 6 

of the US Constitution 

Respondent 

FAA Docket No. 16-11-04 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended 

to on or about February 27, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Eduardo A. Angeles 

Associate Administrator 

for Airports 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on (1 b£<!- , I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Steven M. Taber 

Taber Law Group 

P.O. Box 60036 

Irvine, CA 92602-0036 

Counsel for Respondent 

Carlene V. Mcintyre, Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff, Attorney 

Law Department 

The Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey 

225 Park A venue South, 14th Floor 

New York, NY 10003 

Hand Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-600 

Claudia Roberts 

Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v KUSIAK

Case No. 91-30AC10 (Lower Court Case No. 90-27208MM10)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

August 26, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Dan Bass, Office of the State Attorney, for appellant.

Anthony R. Kusiak, pro se.

Before WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The State of Florida appeals the granting of a Motion in Limine preventing the introduction into evidence of the results of blood tests *25taken from the Appellee after an accident. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B). The order granting the Motion in Limine in effect was a suppression of evidence. Even if a right to appeal does not exist, the Court would treat this appeal as a petition for common-law certiorari. *See, State v Sawyer,*561 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and *State v Weir,*569 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The ruling of a trial court on an evidentiary hearing is clothed with the presumption of correctness. The evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions to be derived therefrom must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s ruling. *See, McNamara v State,*357 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1978). The record does not support an abuse of discretion, therefore; granting of the Motion in Limine is Affirmed.

The Appellee was involved in a car accident on June 25, 1990. Paramedics were called to the scene, and the Appellee, because his lower extremities were pinned in the vehicle, had to be cut out of the car. The Appellee complained of pain in his leg, but that pain ended upon his being freed. The paramedic reported that the Appellee’s skin condition, skin color, and skin temperature were normal. The paramedic indicated that one’s breathing rapidly may not indicate serious injury, and that he was unable to observe any serious bodily injury, outwardly.

Initially, the paramedic indicated that he had smelled alcohol on the Appellee’s breath. However, on cross-examination the paramedic was impeached from a deposition where he admitted that the odor of alcohol was in the vehicle and not necessarily on the Appellee’s breath.

Florida Statute § 316.1933(1) authorizes blood to be taken from an individual when he is involved in an accident where serious bodily injury exists and where probable cause exists to believe that a motor vehicle was driven by the defendant while he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Sufficient evidence existed upon which the lower court could have concluded that the blood was properly drawn. However, the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be given the testimony is a determination for the lower court. This court must defer to the factual findings of the trial court who observed the witnesses first hand. *See, Bums v State,*No. 90-1870 So.2d (Fla. 4th DCA August 7, 1991) [16 FLW D 2054]. There is no showing of an abuse of discretion.

The order granting the Motion in Limine is Affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 26th day of August, 1991.
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 17, 2010                                  |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   |
| /s/      Alton L. Boynton                                   |   |
| Alton      L. Boynton                                       |   |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                  |   |
| (Principal      Executive Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
#### TONEY v. CITY OF ANNISTON.

(Decided June 1, 1915.)

Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill.

T. C. Sensebaugh, for appellant. S. W. Tate, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15

- 14397

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14

- cv

- 60003

- JIC

EDWARD BUTLER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, SCOTT HAGEMANN,

Defendants

- Appelle es.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( September 19, 2016 ) Case: 15-14397 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL, MARTIN, and BALDOCK, * Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Edward Butler appeals from the di strict court ’s order granting

Defendant Scott Hagemann’s motion for summary judgment. Butler brought an

action alleging malicious prosecution under federal and state law, 1 relying in part

on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court determined that Butler’s m alicious

prosecution claims failed because Hagemann had probable cause to arrest Butler

on suspicion of armed robbery. The district court entered final judgment in favor

of Hagemann.

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we af firm.

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for th e Tenth Circuit , sitting by designation.

1 Butler brought other claims that were dismissed before Defendant Hagemann’s motion for summary judgment, b ut those claims are not at issue in this appeal.

Case: 15-14397 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2
#### COLLIER v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(Decided April 20, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. E. C. Crow.

R. D. Coeeman, for appellant. Romaine Boyd, and J. P. Mudd, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Time and Date: 

12:00 noon, Monday, May 15, 2000.

# Place:

 Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.

# Supplementary Information: 

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-11746 Filed 5-5-00; 4:54 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 2.7

              AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT



     This Amendment No.1 (the "Amendment") to the Securities Purchase Agreement,
dated as of February 4, 2002 (the "Agreement"), by and between The Ashton
Technology Group, Inc. ("Ashton") and OptiMark Innovations Inc. ("OptiMark") is
made as of this 6th day of March, 2002 by and between Ashton and OptiMark.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Agreement.

     WHEREAS the Agreement provides that any term of the Agreement may be
amended with the written consent of Ashton and OptiMark;

     WHEREAS in accordance with the foregoing, Ashton and OptiMark desire to
amend the Agreement;

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants
hereinafter set forth, Ashton and OptiMark agree as follows:

1.   SECTION 6.12 OF THE AGREEMENT. Section 6.12(a)(iii) of the Agreement is
     hereby amended and restated as follows:

     (iii)  by either the Company or the Investor, so long as such party has not
            materially breached its obligations hereunder, if the Closing has
            not occurred on or before April 30, 2002;

2.   Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full
     force and effect.

3.   Each of Ashton and OptiMark hereby represent and warrant to the other that
     (i) all corporate action on its part and the part of its directors
     necessary for the due authorization, execution and delivery of this
     Amendment has been taken, and (ii) this Amendment will be a valid and
     binding obligation of it enforceable against it in accordance with its
     terms.

4.   MISCELLANEOUS.

     a)   GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the
          laws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflict
          of laws.

     b)   COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
          counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which
          together shall constitute one instrument.

            [The Remainder Of This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank]


<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 2.7


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first written above.



                                          THE ASHTON TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.

                                          By:  /s/ William W. Uchimoto
                                               -----------------------
                                               Name:  William W. Uchimoto
                                               Title:  General Counsel


                                          OPTIMARK INNOVATIONS INC.

                                          By:  /s/ Neil G. Cohen
                                               -----------------
                                               Name: Neil G. Cohen
                                               Title: Secretary
§ 31.63 Safety belts. ( a ) There must be a safety belt, harness, or other restraining means for each occupant, unless the Administrator finds it unnecessary. If installed, the belt, harness, or other restraining means and its supporting structure must meet the strength requirements of subpart C of this part.
( b ) This section does not apply to balloons that incorporate a basket or gondola.
[Amdt. 31-2, 30 FR 3377, Mar. 13, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 31-3, 41 FR 55474, Dec. 20, 1976]
Consensus

U.S. Department of Energy

Working Group on Manufactured Housing—Reg Neg

August 4-5, 2014

FMCS Facilitators

Commissioners Eileen Hoffman and Javier Ramirez
“con.sen.sus”

 A process for group 

decision making, in 

which:

 Everyone has been 

heard,

 The decision may not 

be every person’s first 

choice, but

 They can live with and 

support the decision

2
 Try to create a solution that can be supported 

by everyone

 Aim for a solution that considers the 

INTERESTS of everyone

3

Consensus Guidelines
 Ask Questions

 Raise Valid Doubts

 Offer Alternatives

 Don't Compete for 

Individual Ideas

4

Consensus Guidelines
 Agree Completely

 Acceptable

 Can Live with the Decision

 Do Not agree - But Won’t 

Block and will support

 Do Not Agree & Will Block

5

Consensus Ladder
 Explain why your thumb is down

 Spaced out

 Not sure of question

 Will Block

 Blocker(s) Responsibility

 Explain what the concern is

 Offer an alternative

6

“Blocker” Responsibility
 Temperature Check

 Consensus Confirmation (Final)

7

How to Gauge for Consensus
 Super-majority*

 Daily numbers

8

Consensus Confirmation
§ 291.23 Record retention. ( a ) The provisions of 14 CFR part 249, *Preservation of air carrier accounts, records and memoranda,* shall apply to all carriers, except that records pertaining to transportation provided on aircraft eligible to be operated under part 298 of this title, and records concerning transportation outside the geographic scope of interstate air transportation, need not be maintained unless required by other Department regulations.
( b ) Each carrier shall retain for 1 year a copy of each rate sheet, airwaybill contract, and other document reflecting changed, new, or other previously unreported general or special prices or rules governing the carriage of freight in interstate air transportation (except mail), unless the transportation was performed in accordance with an effective tariff on file with the Department. Each carrier shall retain for 1 year a copy of any formula based on standard weight, mileage, or other method used to determine an individual airbill or contract.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0022) [ER-1080, 43 FR 53635, Nov. 16, 1978, as amended by ER-1270, 46 FR 63220, Dec. 31, 1981; Doc. No. 47582, 57 FR 38770, Aug. 27, 1992; 60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995]
Exhibit 32.1


                   CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO SECTION 906
                   OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  Meridian  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period  ending  June 30,  2006  as  filed
with   the   Securities   and   Exchange   Commission   on    the   date  hereof
(the "Report"),   we,  Anthony  C.  Dike, the  Chief  Executive Officer, and
Principal financial officer of  the Company,  certify,  pursuant   to   18
U.S.C.   1350,  as   adopted  pursuant to Section   906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:

(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.

A signed  original  of this written  statement  required  by Section 906,
or other  document  authenticating,  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
this  written  statement  required by Section 906, has  been  provided to
Meridian Holdings, Inc., and  will  be retained  by   Meridian  Holdings,
Inc.,  and furnished to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.


DATE:  August 21,   2006        By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        Chairman  and  CEO
                                        Principal Financial Officer
#### § 375.3 [Reserved]