alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Aaron W. Tullis, Appellant, *vs.*Charles Bergfeld, Respondent.

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY.

The Despondent and Plaintiff below, brought this suit against Aaron *W.*Tullís, to recover the possession of a quantity of personal property alleged to have been wrongfully and unlawfully taken from the Plaintiff, and unjustly withheld -by the Defendant.

The answer admits the taking, but set up that on the Tth day of December, 1855, a judgment was obtained against Joseph Bergfeld, and execution issued thereon and placed in the hands of the Defendant, as Sheriff of Damsey County.

That he had levied upon the property mentioned in the Plaintiff’s complaint, as the property of Josph Bergfeld, by virtue of said execution.

*425The Plaintiff, in his reply, denied that the same was the property of J oseph Bergfeld.

A jury trial was had, and a verdict given in favor of the Plaintiff.

A motion for a new trial was made, founded upon objections to the jury, taken at the trial of the cause, and upon the admission of certain evidence upon the trial. The motion was denied, and judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff according to the verdict.

The Defendant appealed from this judgment to the Supreme Court.

The record sent up, presents the full bill of exceptions as settled, with the evidence offered and objections taken at the tidal, but no points or authorises are on file.

. The judgment of the Court below was reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Holhnsiiead *&*Becker, Counsel for Appellant.

Wilkinson, Babcock & Cotton, and M. E. Ames, Counsel for Despondent.

(No opinion on file in the Supreme Court.]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

August 25, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 06-11201 & 06-11455

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00146-CR-ORL-19-KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CHARLES FLOYD GANNON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 25, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Stephen Langs, appointed counsel for Charles Gannon in these appeals from

the revocation of Gannon’s supervised release term, has moved to withdraw from

further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

these appeals is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record

reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED,

and the revocation of Gannon’s supervised release term and the resulting sentence

are AFFIRMED.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 55 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 4, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the centennial anniversary of the sailing 

of the Navy’s ‘‘Great White Fleet,’’ launched by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 16, 1907, from 

Hampton Roads, Virginia, and returning there on February 22, 1909. 

Whereas the launching of the Great White Fleet marked the 

emergence of the United States as a true global 

seapower, able to dispatch 16 new battleships on a worldwide deployment for 14 months; 

Whereas these battleships were painted entirely white, with 

gilded scrollwork on their bows, and subsequently came 

to be known as the ‘‘Great White Fleet’’; 

Whereas the 4 squadrons of 4 battleships each, manned by 

14,000 sailors, sailed 43,000 miles and made 20 port 

calls on 6 continents; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SCON 55 RFH 

Whereas the Fleet, in conducting visits to important nations 

such as Australia, served to reinforce a friendship and 

partnership that continues to this day; 

Whereas the Fleet, in providing a tangible demonstration of 

the forward naval presence of the United States in the 

Pacific, also reinforced the message of how important 

maritime stability and security are to the United States; 

Whereas the Fleet, in response to one of the worst natural 

disasters in European history, was able to immediately 

divert to Messina, Sicily, to offer humanitarian aid to the 

Italian people; and 

Whereas the Fleet, in executing a range of missions and returning to the United States after 14 months at sea, displayed to the world a number of core American values, 

including compassion, showed its flexibility by responding 

to unforeseen events, and demonstrated the ability of the 

United States to project maritime power as a stabilizing 

force: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 

3 (1) commemorates the wisdom of President 

4 Theodore Roosevelt in developing and launching the 

5 Great White Fleet; 

6 (2) supports a one-time designation of a day to 

7 celebrate the 100th centennial of the Great White 

8 Fleet and the special role the Fleet played in build9 ing enduring friendships with important allies and 

10 partner nations; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

SCON 55 RFH 

1 (3) commends efforts by the Department of the 

2 Navy to maintain and strengthen our cooperative 

3 partnerships with foreign nations and to safeguard 

4 our Nation’s interests in the maritime domain; 

5 (4) commends efforts by the Department of the 

6 Navy in leading the development of a Cooperative 

7 Strategy for 21st Century Seapower; and 

8 (5) honors the sacrifices made and services ren9 dered by the servicemembers of the Navy, Marine 

10 Corps, and the Coast Guard and the civilians who 

11 constitute our maritime services. 

Passed the Senate November 16, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
§ 2200.34 Employer contests. ( a ) *Complaint.* ( 1 ) The Secretary shall file a complaint with the Commission no later than 21 days after receipt of the notice of contest.
( 2 ) The complaint shall set forth all alleged violations and proposed penalties which are contested, stating with particularity: ( i ) The basis for jurisdiction;
( ii ) The time, location, place, and circumstances of each such alleged violation; and
( iii ) The considerations upon which the period for abatement and the proposed penalty of each such alleged violation are based.
( 3 ) Where the Secretary seeks in the complaint to amend the citation or proposed penalty, the Secretary shall set forth the reasons for amendment and shall state with particularity the change sought.
( b ) *Answer.* ( 1 ) Within 21 days after service of the complaint, the party against whom the complaint was issued shall file an answer with the Commission.
( 2 ) The answer shall contain a short and plain statement denying those allegations in the complaint which the party intends to contest. Any allegation not denied shall be deemed admitted.
( 3 ) The answer shall include all affirmative defenses being asserted. Such affirmative defenses include, but are not limited to, “infeasibility,” “unpreventable employee misconduct,” and “greater hazard.”
( 4 ) The failure to raise an affirmative defense in the answer may result in the party being prohibited from raising the defense at a later stage in the proceeding, unless the Judge finds that the party has asserted the defense as soon as practicable.
( c ) *Motions filed in lieu of an answer.* A motion filed in lieu of an answer pursuant to this subpart shall be filed no later than 21 days after service of the complaint. The form and content of the motion shall comply with § 2200.40.
§ 2700.40 Who may file. ( a ) *The Secretary.* A discrimination complaint under section 105(c)(2) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(2), shall be filed by the Secretary if, after an investigation conducted pursuant to section 105(c)(2), the Secretary determines that a violation of section 105(c)(1), 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(1), has occurred.
( b ) *Miner, representative of miners, or applicant for employment.* A discrimination complaint under section 105(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(3), may be filed by the complaining miner, representative of miners, or applicant for employment if the Secretary, after investigation, has determined that the provisions of section 105(c)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(1), have not been violated.
§ 1979.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part implements procedures under section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 49 U.S.C. 42121 (“AIR21”), which provides for employee protection from discrimination by air carriers or contractors or subcontractors of air carriers because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to a violation or alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety.
( b ) This part establishes procedures pursuant to AIR21 for the expeditious handling of discrimination complaints made by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf. These rules, together with those rules codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures for submission of complaints under AIR21, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges, post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements.
***EXHIBIT 32.1***

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

I, W. Mark Lortz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TheraSense, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TheraSense, Inc.

Date: August 11, 2003

|   | By:    | /s/ W. MARK LORTZ           |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |                             |
|   | Name:  | **W. Mark Lortz**           |
|   | Title: | **Chief Executive Officer** |

I, Charles T. Liamos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TheraSense, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TheraSense, Inc.

Date: August 11, 2003

|   | By:    | /s/ CHARLES T. LIAMOS       |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |                             |
|   | Name:  | **Charles T. Liamos**       |
|   | Title: | **Chief Financial Officer** |
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 21 September 2004

(2004/C 235/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### JONES v HARMON etc

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Logan Co

No. 773.

Decided January 6, 1930

Messrs. West & Campbell, Bellefontaine, and Stickle & Cessna, Kenton, for Jones.

Messrs. Hale & McGee and A. Jay Miller, Bellefontaine, for Harmon etc.

HUGHES, J.

This evidence, admitted over the objection of the defendants, touching the value of the stock of merchandise, was error, but in view of the size of the verdict, we find no prejudice resulting therefrom.

Since our judgment in the first review, above referred to, the Supreme Court, in the case of Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 OS. 375, has pronounced the law upon this same subject, making it clear that our former pronouncement was not correct.

We are confronted therefore, in this , review, with the problem of whether or not the law as laid down by us in our former review, and which was followed by the trial court in the retrial, is to be considered the law of the case, even though the Supreme Court has declared such to be incorrect.

In the case of Gohman v. City of St. Bernard, 111 OS. 726, it is laid down positively that where after a definite determination the Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a cause for further action in the trial court and the unsuccessful party does not prosecute error therefrom to the Supreme Court, and the trial court has proceeded in substantial conformity with the directions of the Court of Appeals, its action will not be questioned on a review even though upon such second review the Court of Appeals should be of opinion that its former determination was erroneous.

It is therefore clear that we are not at liberty to question this law in this review unless perchance this case is an exception to this rule, made so by the fact that from our decision in the first review the losing party filed his motion in the Supreme Court asking that the record be certified for review and that motion was overruled. We cannot see, however, how ) such a fact would change the force of *103the Heidle case above referred to. The fact that the Supreme Court overruled the motion to certify the record for review would indicate to us rather that the law of the case was thus more firmly fixed for future proceedings in this case.

Entertaining these views, the judgment must be affirmed.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.
## • Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. F AA-20 12-0004 Directorate Identifi e r: 20 12-N E -0 l-AD



## If

yo u make c hanges to th e values in th e table below, you must ensure th e totals updat e accordingly. 

## If they do not , click (or Tab) into and th en out of th e changed ce ll
. Estimated Costs: Action Cos t s per Product (e
. g. , a ircraft , e n g in e , (e.g., In s p ect ion , prop e ll e r, applian ce) Work-hour s Labor Part s Cost Total Cos t s Number of Total Cost re plac e me nt ) ( includ e**co~ t**  (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

### Do n o t includ e on co ndition cos t s h ere access , tes ting , (@$85 /h part s) Registered a nd close-up) our) Products 

### On-wing inspection 4.5 0 

### Shop inspection 4.0 i 0

'

I



# .. The known numb er of product s in com pi iance: Tota l Costs of compl ia nc e for U.S. fleet: $ 0 Costs covered und e r warranty 

### (if 

### kno wn) $
On-Condition Costs:

# ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Part s Cost Cos t p er Product (e.g. , In s p ec tion , ( includ e access , ( @ $85 /hour)

replacement) testing , and clo se up )



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use th i s fie ld to exp lain anyth ing in th e Es tim ated Cos ts tabl e that was assumed or mi g h t n o t be obv iou s. Thi sfield ca n a l so be us ed to exp lain warranty costs):



### 7
****
 **EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Jose
A. Perez, Principal Financial Officer of a21, certify that;
 
 (1) I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2005 of a21, Inc;
 
 (2) Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 (3) Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4) The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 (a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c)
disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and;
 
 (5) The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer 's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 (a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer 's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer 's internal controls over
financial reporting.
 
 By:
      /s/ JOSE A. PEREZ
      ---------------------------------
      Jose
      A. Perez
      Principal
      Financial Officer
      
      
      May
      13, 2005
#### §§ 2520.104-2-2520.104-3 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.853 Removal of materials through floor openings.

Any openings cut in a floor for the disposal of materials shall be no larger in size than 25 percent of the aggregate of the total floor area, unless the lateral supports of the removed flooring remain in place. Floors weakened or otherwise made unsafe by demolition operations shall be shored to carry safely the intended imposed load from demolition operations.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 39

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas 40,000 people in the United States, and 1,200,000

people globally, die in road crashes each year;

Whereas another 20,000,000 to 50,000,000 people globally

are injured each year as a result of speeding motor vehicles, the increasing use of motor vehicles, and rapid urbanization;

Whereas the World Health Organization has predicted that

by the year 2020 the annual number of deaths from

motor vehicle crashes is likely to surpass the annual

number of deaths from AIDS;

Whereas the current estimated cost of motor vehicle crashes

worldwide is $518,000,000,000 annually, representing between 3 and 5 percent of the gross domestic product of

each nation;

Whereas over 90 percent of motor vehicle-related deaths

occur in low- and middle-income countries;

Whereas according to the World Health Organization, motor

vehicle-related deaths and costs continue to rise in these

countries due to a lack of appropriate road engineering

and injury prevention programs in public health sectors;

and

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating the third Sunday of November as a
 †

2

SCON 39 ES

day of remembrance for road crash victims and their

families, and called on nations globally to improve road

safety: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) supports the goals and ideals of a world day

4 of remembrance for road crash victims; and

5 (2) encourages the people of the United States

6 to commemorate a world day of remembrance for

7 road crash victims with appropriate ceremonies, pro8 grams, and other activities.

Passed the Senate October 4, 2007.

Attest:

Secretary.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 39

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of

remembrance for road crash victims.
#### CURRY et v STILL et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1654.

Decided December 20, 1929

Messrs. Meade & Weygandt, Akron, for Curry et.

Mr. Lee J. Myers, Akron, for Still et.

*74WASHBURN. J.

There was a conflict in the evidence of the parties in respect to said claims, and the court charged the jury as follows:

> “Now, if you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, before the time plaintiffs were notified that they should not go ahead, that the making of the contract had been completed by the parties, not • only the signing of it, but also the submission of. the plans to the defendants and the agreement of the defendants to those plans, and that up to the time the plaintiffs were notified not to proceed with the building, the plaintiffs had done everything which their contract required them to do, and th,at the plaintiffs were, at the time they were notified not to proceed, ready, able and willing to build the house, in the manner required by the contract, and within the time limited by the contract, then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover something in this; case; otherwise not.”

It is urged that in so charging the trial court committed prejudicial error; but we do not so find.

Under the evidence in this case, it is apparent that there was no contract to build a house of any particular size and specified arrangement until after plans had been prepared by the plaintiffs and approved by the defendants: and under the evidence the jurors were amply justified in finding that no such plans had been prepared and submitted to the defendants at the time they notified the plaintiffs not to go ahead, and in the absence of such plans, the record in this case does not show that there was a meeting of the minds of the parties upon the size and arrangement of the very subject-matter of the ^contract.

It is elementary that a contract is incomplete when certain terms are agreed upon but other important terms are to be settled by future negotiations between the parties; and where such incompleteness renders the same uncertain as to subject-matter, it is not enforceable without proof that such uncertainty was removed by the later agreement of the parties. Here the plans for the house were not agreed upon but were left for further negotiations, and therefore the writing was so uncertain as to render it unenforceable as a contract if plaintiffs failed to prove that after the writing was signed defendants approved plans for the house.

It is also urged that the trial court erred in rejecting evidence offered relative to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs; but as to this claim we find no error, for the reasons stated to counsel when this cace was argued.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Funk, .PJ., and Pardge, J„ concur.