alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HERSHELL JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4491

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

J. Bradford Stetson, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Eagle Materials Inc. Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.2 
 EAGLE MATERIALS INC. 
 Non-Employee Directors –
Compensation Summary 
 Effective August 2009 to July 2010 
 On an annual basis, each non-employee director of Eagle Materials Inc. (the “Company”) may select one of the following
compensation packages for his or her performance of director services during the next 12 months: 
  

	 	(1)	total annual compensation valued at $150,000, of which $75,000 is paid in cash and the remainder is provided in the form of an equity grant valued at $75,000; or


  

	 	(2)	an equity grant valued at $170,000. 

 The equity grant under either alternative is comprised of options to purchase common stock of the Company, par value $0.01 (“Common Stock”). In accordance with the terms of the Eagle Materials Inc. Incentive Plan, the exercise
price of the stock options is set at the average of the high and low price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant. The number of option shares granted is determined as of the date of the grant by using the
Black-Scholes method. All options are fully exercisable when granted and have a seven-year term. 
 Non-employee directors who
chair committees of the Board of Directors receive additional annual compensation. The Governance Committee Chair receives a fee of $10,000 per year. The chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee each receive a fee of $15,000 per
year. The Chairman of the Board of Directors receives a fee of $50,000 per year. Chairpersons who elect to receive all Board compensation in the form of equity may also elect to receive this additional compensation in the form of options to purchase
Common Stock, in which case a 26.67% premium is added to such fees when valuing the number of options to be received by such chairperson. 
 If directors hold restricted stock units (“RSUs”) granted as part of director compensation in prior fiscal years (which includes all directors other than Richard Stewart), these directors will
receive dividend equivalent units as and when the Company issues a cash dividend on the Common Stock in accordance with the terms of the RSUs. 
 All directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses of attending meetings.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER97-1523-040, ER97-4234-036 and OA97-470-038]

                    Take notice that on April 18, 2000, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a revised Addendum A (Attachment A) to its Market Monitoring Plan, with modifications to conform to the Commission's Order in New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,                     *et al.,*                     90 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2000).                

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 15, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11624 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.415 Hearing.

After the issues have been formulated, whether by the pleadings or otherwise, the administrative law judge shall give the parties reasonable written notice of the time and place of the hearings. Except as may be modified by the provisions of this subpart, the procedures in §§ 302.17 to 302.38 governing the conduct of oral evidentiary hearings will apply.
§ 29.1193 Cowling and engine compartment covering. ( a ) Each cowling and engine compartment covering must be constructed and supported so that it can resist the vibration, inertia, and air loads to which it may be subjected in operation.
( b ) Cowling must meet the drainage and ventilation requirements of § 29.1187.
( c ) On rotorcraft with a diaphragm isolating the engine power section from the engine accessory section, each part of the accessory section cowling subject to flame in case of fire in the engine power section of the powerplant must— ( 1 ) Be fireproof; and
( 2 ) Meet the requirements of § 29.1191.
( d ) Each part of the cowling or engine compartment covering subject to high temperatures due to its nearness to exhaust system parts or exhaust gas impingement must be fireproof.
( e ) Each rotorcraft must— ( 1 ) Be designated and constructed so that no fire originating in any fire zone can enter, either through openings or by burning through external skin, any other zone or region where it would create additional hazards;
( 2 ) Meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section with the landing gear retracted (if applicable); and
( 3 ) Have fireproof skin in areas subject to flame if a fire starts in or burns out of any designated fire zone.
( f ) A means of retention for each openable or readily removable panel, cowling, or engine or rotor drive system covering must be provided to preclude hazardous damage to rotors or critical control components in the event of— ( 1 ) Structural or mechanical failure of the normal retention means, unless such failure is extremely improbable; or
( 2 ) Fire in a fire zone, if such fire could adversely affect the normal means of retention.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, and 603, 72 Stat. 759, 775, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c), 49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-3, 33 FR 970, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 29-13, 42 FR 15046, Mar. 17, 1977; Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34219, Sept. 2, 1988]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1755

_____________________________ G REGORY G REEN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Du val County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. February 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 o r 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Gregory Green, pro

se , Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### HAMILTON (city) v DILLEY

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21385.

Decided Mar 13, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (36Q G)

(360 P4i) The duty imposed upon municipalities in Ohio by Section 3714, General Code, to keep its streets free from nuisance, is an exception to the rule of common law that no liability attaches to a municipality for negligence in the discharge of a governmental function.

NUISANCE

(390 D) It is the province of the court to define a nuisance and the province of the jury to determine whether the circumstances of the particular case come within the definition of a nuisance •

Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade and Jones, JJ, dissent.
August 31, 2015 

Dear Mr. Newton: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−1645). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
EXHIBIT 32(a)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 accompanying Annual Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leo H. Suggs, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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
Corporation.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Leo H. Suggs                     
|    |  | Leo H. Suggs                         
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



March 14, 2005
#### BARNES MOTOR CO v LEANZA

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9158.

Decided Jan 21, 1929

Mooney, Hahn, Loeser & Keogh,' Cleveland, for Motor Co.

*153Sacharow & Sacharow, Cleveland, for Leanza.

Judges MIDDLETON and MAUCK of the Fourth Dist and FARR, of the Seventh Dist, sitting.

FARR, J.

It is first alleged that the trial court erred in the admission in evidence of the birth certificate of Fortuna Leanza, an affidavit of Victor Leanza dated November 4, 1927, following the date of the first trial of the cause, and ,hn alleged corrected birth certificate issued in the name of Charles Leanza.

This testimony was incompetent in the form in which it was offered for the reason that the record of the birth in question had not been corrected according to law, there being a prescribed statutory method. However, the father of the minor testified upon the trial to all matters set out in the corrected birth certificate and this court could not now say that the finding below was upon the incompetent rather than upon the competent testimony of the father. For the reasons given the ádmission of the corrected certificate, etc., did not constitute reversible error.

The only remaining question is that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, such claim being predicated upon the testimony disclosed exclusive of the corrected birth certificate. However, in view of the conclusion reached concerning that claim of error, it is sufficient to say that this court could not now well find that the judgment is so clearly or manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to warrant a reversal.

No prejudicial error being disclosed by the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.
#### §§ 431.86-431.90 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11290]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than May 22, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Ellingson Corporation, Kenyon, Minnesota; has applied to engage 
in selling general insurance, in a town of less than 5,000, pursuant to 
Sec. 225.28(b)(11) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11290 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 73.17 Controlling agency.

For the purposes of this part, the controlling agency is the FAA facility that may authorize transit through or flight within a restricted area in accordance with a joint-use letter issued under § 73.15.
#### § 413.13 Complete application.

The FAA's acceptance of an application does not mean it has determined that the application is complete. If, in addition to the information required by this chapter, the FAA requires other information necessary for a determination that public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States are protected during the conduct of a licensed or permitted activity, an applicant must submit the additional information.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17018, Apr. 6, 2007]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4602 

To prohibit the obstruction of emergency vehicles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. 

ROUNDS, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obstruction of emergency vehicles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Blocking Hos5 pitals Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United 

8 States Code is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4602 IS

1 ‘‘§ 40C. Obstruction of an emergency vehicle 

2 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful for any person, 

3 using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate 

4 or foreign commerce or otherwise affecting interstate or 

5 foreign commerce, to knowingly obstruct, delay, or pre6 vent— 

7 ‘‘(1) any ambulance or emergency vehicle from 

8 responding to a call or transporting an individual to 

9 a hospital; 

10 ‘‘(2) any vehicle used by a fire department, or 

11 any officer or member of a fire department, from re12 sponding to a call or transporting an individual to 

13 a hospital; or 

14 ‘‘(3) any vehicle used by a State or local law en15 forcement agency, or any officer of the State or local 

16 law enforcement agency, from responding to a call or 

17 transporting an individual to a hospital. 

18 ‘‘(b) PENALTY.—Any person who violates subsection 

19 (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not less than 

20 1 year nor more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

21 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

22 The table of sections for chapter 2 of title 18, United 

23 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat24 ing to section 40B the following: 

‘‘40C. Obstruction of an emergency vehicle.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DANIEL BERNARD CRAWFORD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4173 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 2, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobson, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### §§ 91.228-91.299 [Reserved]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement, J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

April 3, 2018

d0326 

# Order

Clerk April 3, 2018

155837 & (26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155 837 COA: 335752 Macomb CC: 1994-000214-FC WILLIE GEORGE TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applic ation for leave to appeal the March 29, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becaus e the defendant has failed to meet the burden of est ablishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to default appellee is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three month period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas P. Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the
General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:

(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 Registrant.

|    |                                                             |  |  | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ | DOUGLASP.WILLIAMS                                           |  |  | 
|    |                                                             |  |  | 
|    | Douglas P. WilliamsChief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2002 |  |  |
#### FRIED v COHN-GOODMAN CO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9160.

Decided October 29, 1928

Messrs. Lieghley, Halle, Haber & Berick, Cleveland, for Fried.

Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Loeser & Keough, for Cohn-Goodmian Co et.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where the owner of premises leased the same for a period of years and the lease contained a clause permitting the lessee to sublet any or all of the premises, and thereafter the lessee sublet the entire premises to the defendant for the balance of the term, the lease being, in due form and signed by the lessee who became the lessor and the lessee of the new lease, but the same was not acknowledged nor recorded, it was held that the lessor of the new lease, upon notice of the defendant lessee of vacation and abandonment before the end of the term, could not maintain suit in equity to reform the lease, enforce the same and compel acknowledgement by defendant, and for an injunction restraining defendant from disturbing its assets, as acknowledgment by defendant was not necessary, it having, been in the power of plaintiff to acknowledge and record the lease. The court held further that plaintiff had his remedy at law for breach of the contract, being obliged to minimize damages, only so far as possible. .

Opinion by

VICKERY, J.

SULLIVAN, P. J. & LEVINE, J., concur.