alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PHEILS v TOLEDO (city)

Ohio Appéals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2334.

Also Cases Nos 2335, 2336 and 2337

Decided March 3, 1930

G. F. Branigan, Toledo, and G. E. Taylor, Toledo, for Pheils.

March Winchester, Assistant Law Director, Toledo, for City.

*329WILLIAMS, J.

We hold that the verdict is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence in the cases brought by Smith and Colburn. The evidencei of the defendants' tends to show that the speed of the car as it approached the cinder portion of Parker Avenue was 35 to 40 miles per hour, and that the young lady in the wrecked car had been drinking intoxicating liquor. This evidence, coupled with that as to the condition of the street, would warrant the jury in drawing the inference that the occupants of the car were on something of a lark and therefore riot ordinarily careful. Helen Croker herself did not testify and perhaps she would have contradicted the statements as to her use of alcoholic beverages, had she done so. In weighing the evidence, however, we take the record as we find it. The jury may well have based its verdict for the defendant and against the plaintiffs Smith and Colburn upon the theory that Smith and Colburn were each guilty of contributory negligence in the way they conducted themselves as they approached this point of great danger. The same thing might be said as to Textor, but counsel are making no claim against the weight of the evidence..

The case of Dr. Pheils has a different aspect. He was not present, and as the driver, who had possession of the car, was merely a bailee, Dr. Pheils can not be barred of recovery for damage to the car by the contributory negligence of the driver. Gfell vs. Jefferson Hardware Co., 10 Ohio App. 427. All the- evidence adduced tended to show negligence on the part of the city in failing to protect or guard the street at the point of the precipice so as to make it reasonably safe for public travel, and as to Dr. Pheils we are of the opinion that the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

The judgment in favor of the city and against Dr. E. H. Pheils is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, and as to other plaintiffs in error, the judgments are .affirmed.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.
#### The Fleming Cut Sole Company, App’lt, *v.*John H. Garretson, Resp’t. George F. Mills, App’lt, *v.*The Same, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 13, 1889.)*

Findings—When unnecessary.

Where, assuming that all the testimony produced on a trial.is true, it is-insufficient to sustain the causes of action set up in the complaint, findings of law and fact are unnecessary.

. Appeal from a judgment of the special term dismissing the complaint.

*Cooke & Salmon (William C. Cooke,*of counsel), for app’lts; *Howitz & Hirschfield (Wales F. Severance,*of counsel), for resp’t.

Dykman, J.

These two actions are similar in their facts, and in their objects, and they are brought to obtain injunctions restraining perpetually the collection of a judgment recovered in favor of the defendant against the Fleming Cut Sole Company, the 'plaintiff, in the first action, the rights of the plaintiff, Mills, in the second action being substantially the same, and depending upon the same facts as-the action of the Fleming Cut Sole Company, the plaintiff in the first action.

The claim of the corporation to have the judgment-stayed, is based upon a want of consideration for the not& upon which the judgment was entered.

Mills, the plaintiff in the second action, is a large stockholder in the company, and he sought to obtain an injunction restraining the collection of the judgment, upon the ground that the defendant, subsequently to the entry of the judgment, falsely represented to him that he had no claim against the company, and that he bought the stock of the company, and invested $5,000 in such purchase upon the faith of such representations.

*453The causes were tried together before a justice of this court without a jury, and upon the trial but two witnesses were examined; one was James Fleming, the president of the company, and the other was George F. Mills, the plaintiff in the second action.

There was no attempt to contradict or impeach the testimony of either of these witnesses, and when the plaintiffs, rested their case, the complaint was dismissed, and, upon, findings which were afterwards made, the judgment was entered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff in both actions.

The difficulty of the plaintiffs in these actions is, that they furnish no testimony to support the allegations in their’ complaints.

Although the trial judge made findings of both law and fact, yet such findings were entirely unnecessary, because it was to be assumed that all the testimony produced upon the trial was true, and upon the assumption that all such testimony was true, the decision was that it was insufficient to sustain the causes of action set up in the complaint, and our decision is the same.

We find no reason for disturbing the judgments appealed from, and in both cases they must "be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB- for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President of the Company, 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) 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.



/s/ Richard R. Walters



DATE:  March 28, 2005

Richard R. Walters, President





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-10.44



 Exhibit 10.44 

First Amendment to 

Amended and Restated Combination Agreement 

This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Combination Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of February 26,
2015 by Fenix Parts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Fenix”), Fenix Parts Canada, Inc., a Canadian Corporation (“Purchaser”), David A. Gold and Kenneth L. Gold (each a “Shareholder” and
together the “Shareholders”), and the following corporations (each a “Standard Company” and together the “Standard Companies”): Goldy Metals Incorporated, an Ontario corporation (“Goldy
Metals”); End of Life Vehicles Inc., an Ontario corporation (“EOL”); Goldy Metals (Ottawa) Incorporated, an Ontario corporation (“Goldy Ottawa”) and 2434861 Ontario Inc., an Ontario corporation
(“Newco”); 
 Whereas, the Parties have entered into an Amended and Restated Combination Agreement dated as of
November 10, 2014 (the “Combination Agreement”); and 
 Whereas, the Parties desire to amend the Combination Agreement
as set forth herein, 
 It is agreed as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Capitalized terms without definition shall have the same meaning as given in the Combination Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Section 10.1(a)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of Purchaser’s or Fenix’s breach of or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement);


  

	 	3.	Section 10.1(b)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of the Vendors’ breach of or failure to perform their obligations under this Agreement);


  

	 	4.	The definitions of “Interim Balance Sheet” and “Interim Financial Statements” shall be modified to include the Standard Companies’ combined balance sheet and combined financial statements as of
and for the period ended December 31, 2014. 

  

	 	5.	Except as expressly amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Combination Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed. 


Signatures appear on the following page 

  
 1 








 In witness, the Parties have executed this Amendment. 

 

			
	FENIX PARTS, INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ Kent Robertson

	Name:		Kent Robertson
	Title:		Chief Executive Officer
	
	FENIX PARTS CANADA, INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ Kent Robertson

	Name:		Kent Robertson
	Title:		Chief Executive Officer
	
	 /s/ David A. Gold

	DAVID A. GOLD
	
	 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

	KENNETH L. GOLD
	
	GOLDY METALS INCORPORATED, END OF LIFE VEHICLES INC., GOLDY METALS (OTTAWA) INCORPORATED and 2434861 ONTARIO INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

	Name:		Kenneth L. Gold
	Title:		President


 Signature page to Standard (Canada) First Amendment 

to Amended and Restated Combination Agreement 

  
 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 18 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 18

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government 
            and other provisions under the Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2007

 Mr. Bingaman (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Brown, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Byrd, 
 Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
    Bayh, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Sanders, Ms. 
Cantwell, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Rockefeller, and 
Mr. Salazar) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government 
            and other provisions under the Medicaid program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within 
the Department of Health and Human Services relating to a cost limit 
for providers operated by units of government and other provisions 
under the Medicaid program (published at 72 Fed. Reg. 29748 (May 29, 
2007)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1990.146 Issues to be considered in the rulemaking. Except as provided in § 1990.145, after issuance of the advance notice of rulemaking, the proceedings for individual substances under this part shall be limited to consideration of the following issues: ( a ) Whether the substance, group of substances or combination of substances subject to the proposed rulemaking is appropriately considered in a single proceeding;
( b ) Whether the substance or group of substances subject to the rulemaking meets the definition of a potential occupational carcinogen set forth in § 1990.103, including whether the scientific studies are reliable;
( c ) Whether the available data can appropriately be applied to the substance, group of substances or combination of substances covered by the rulemaking;
( d ) Whether information, data, and views that are submitted in accordance with § 1990.144 are sufficient to warrant an exception to this part;
( e ) Whether the data, views and arguments that are submitted in accordance with § 1990.145 are sufficient to warrant amendment of this part;
( f ) Whether the potential occupational carcinogen meets the criteria for a Category I Potential Carcinogen or a Category II Potential Carcinogen.
( g ) The environmental impact arising from regulation of the substance;
( h ) Any issues required by statute or executive order;
( i ) The determination of the level to control exposures to Category I Potential Carcinogens primarily through the use of engineering and work practice controls including technological and economic considerations.
( j ) The determination of the appropriate employee exposure level, consistent with the Act's requirements, for Category II Potential Carcinogens;
( k ) Whether suitable substitutes are available for one or more uses of Category I Potential Carcinogens and; if so, the no occupational exposure level to be achieved solely with engineering and work practice controls and other issues relevant to substitution; and
( l ) Whether the provisions of the proposal and of §§ 1990.151 and 1990.152 (model standards) are appropriate, except as limited by § 1990.142 and whether additional regulatory provisions may be appropriate.
[45 FR 5282, Jan. 22, 1980, as amended at 46 FR 5881, Jan. 21, 1981]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 858 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the transportation 

fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. 

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 ‘‘Bicycle Commuters 

5 Benefits Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT 

7 TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 858 IS

1 rule for qualified transportation fringe) is amended by 

2 adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.’’. 

4 (b) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE DEFINED.— 

5 Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue 

6 Code of 1986 (relating to definitions) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(F) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE.— 

9 The term ‘bicycle commuting allowance’ means 

10 an amount provided to an employee for trans11 portation on a bicycle if such transportation is 

12 in connection with travel between the employ13 ee’s residence and place of employment.’’. 

14 (c) LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION.—Subparagraph (A) 

15 of section 132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

16 (relating to limitation on exclusion) is amended by striking 

17 ‘‘subparagraphs (A) and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara18 graphs (A), (B), and (D)’’. 

19 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### BOZZELLI, Admrx, etc v INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21904.

Decided April 2, 1930
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      John
      Z. Ferguson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      Costanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.


By: 
/s/
              JOHN
              Z. FERGUSONJohn
                  Z. Ferguson
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)




By: 
/s/
              THOMAS COSTANZAThomas
                    Costanza
                  Vice
                    President and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
                    Financial Officer)Dated:
                November 20, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CURTIS ROSS SMITH, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-02-1246; CA-05-862-7)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Ross Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Ross Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 983 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 983

               For the relief of Michael Anthony Hurley.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2007

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               For the relief of Michael Anthony Hurley.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MICHAEL ANTHONY HURLEY.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) and section 
240 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a), Michael Anthony Hurley shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Michael Anthony Hurley enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and, if 
otherwise eligible, shall be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Michael Anthony Hurley, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Michael 
Anthony Hurley shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
§ 4010.12 Alternative method of compliance for certain sponsors of multiple employer plans. ( a ) *In general.* Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, an eligible contributing sponsor (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section) of a multiple employer plan satisfies the requirements of this part for an information year if any contributing sponsor of the multiple employer plan provides a timely filing under this part for an information year that coincides with or overlaps with the eligible contributing sponsor's information year.
( b ) *PBGC request for additional information.* PBGC may request some or all of the information that would otherwise be required under this part from an eligible contributing sponsor that uses the alternative method of compliance in this section. PBGC will make such a request no earlier than the date the information would otherwise have been due. The eligible contributing sponsor must provide the requested information no later than 30 days after PBGC makes the request. The requested information need not be submitted electronically.
( c ) *Eligible contributing sponsor.* For purposes of this section, an eligible contributing sponsor of a multiple employer plan is a contributing sponsor that would not be subject to reporting if the plan were disregarded in applying the gateway tests in § 4010.4(a).
[74 FR 11035, Mar. 16, 2009]