alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROSNER and SIMON v ROSEMAN

Case No. 85-120 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 20, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Samuel Danziger, Goodhart & Rosner, P.A., for appellants.

Mark Roseman, pro se.

Before RIVKIND, SALMON, MASTOS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

THEODORE G. MASTOS, Judge.

Appellants, David N. Rosner and Richard Simon, were the plaintiff/ lessors in the proceeding below against Mark Roseman, the defendant/ *183lessee, on a claim for rent, termination fee and damages to the premises.

The Final Judgment, from which appeal arises, granted the lessors the amount of rent due and claimed but stated that all damages to the premises were “encompassed” within the early termination fee, thereby, effectively denying the lessor’s claim for damages to the premises.

Paragraph 9 of Addendum II of the lease provided:

> 9. At any time more than Three (3) years after commencement date (as hereinafter defined), Lessee may terminate this lease by giving Lessor Ninety (90) days prior written notice and by paying $3,000.00 which will release Lessee of any further liability. Lessor may recover from Lessee for its early termination of the subject lease. Lessee shall be responsible for rent to date of vacation of premises. . .

The record in this case fails to manifest any evidence whatsoever that the termination fee set forth in Paragraph *9*of Addendum II was intended as a cover for damages to the premises. Instead, the plain language of Paragraph 9 of Addendum II coupled with the trial testimony contained in the record overwhelmingly points to only one conclusion — the $3,000.00 was strictly to relieve the lessee of his contractual obligation to pay rent in the event of an early termination of the lease. Damage to the premises does not enter into this paragraph of the lease in any manner whatsoever.

Accordingly, the plain terms of the lease should stand as to the separateness of the termination fee and the damages to the premises. *North Shore Realty Corp. v. Gallaher,*114 So.2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Furthermore, where, as here, there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the damages are “consumed” within the termination fee, the judgment must be set aside. *Whitman v. Pet Inc.,*335 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Holland v. Gross,*89 So.2d 255 (Fla. 1956) and *Dixson v. Kattel,*311 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

On the question of damages, the record suggests that appellants incurred substantially more than the $1,700.00 found by the trial court. This necessitates a remand for a redetermination of the damage issue as the amount of damages found by the trial court is inconsistent with the lease terms and testimony. See *Whitman v. Pet Inc.,*supra and *Dixson v. Kattel,*supra.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and remanded for redetermination of damages exclusive and separate from the termination fee of $3,000.00.
§ 32.13 Reasonable accommodation. ( a ) A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant, employee or participant unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program or activity.
( b ) In determining pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of a recipient's program or activity, factors to be considered include; ( 1 ) The overall size of the recipient's program or activity with respect to number of employees, number of participants, number and type of facilities, and size of budget;
( 2 ) The type of the recipient's operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient's workforce, and duration and type of training; and
( 3 ) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.
( c ) A recipient may not deny any employment or training opportunity to a qualified handicapped employee, applicant or participant if the basis for the denial is the need to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental limitations of the employee, applicant or participant.
( d ) Nothing in this paragraph shall relieve a recipient of its obligation to make its program or activity accessible as required in subpart C of this part, or to provide auxiliary aids, as required by § 32.4(b)(7).
[45 FR 66709, Oct. 7, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51368, Aug. 26, 2003]
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 18, 2007, promotes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 
2

•SCON 51 ES 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Passed the Senate October 18, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national 

celebration of after school programs.
Exhibit 99.2



                            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 Keystone Consolidated  Industries,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Bert E. Downing,  Jr., Vice President,  Chief Financial  Officer,
Corporate  Controller  and  Treasurer  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 result of  operations of the
Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.



/s/  Bert E. Downing, Jr.
------------------------------------
Bert E. Downing, Jr.
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and Treasurer
April 11, 2003
§ 37.100 What information must a Final Determination contain? A Final Determination must contain the following information: ( a ) A statement of the efforts made to achieve voluntary compliance, and a statement that those efforts have been unsuccessful;
( b ) A statement of those matters upon which the grant applicant or recipient and CRC continue to disagree;
( c ) A list of any modifications to the findings of fact or conclusions that were set forth in the Initial Determination, Notice to Show Cause or Letter of Findings;
( d ) A statement of the grant applicant's or recipient's liability, and, if appropriate, the extent of that liability;
( e ) A description of the corrective or remedial actions that the grant applicant or recipient must take to come into compliance;
( f ) A notice that if the grant applicant or recipient fails to come into compliance within 10 days of the date on which it receives the Final Determination, one or more of the following consequences may result: ( 1 ) After the grant applicant or recipient is given the opportunity for a hearing, its WIA Title I funds may be terminated, discontinued, or withheld in whole or in part, or its application for such funds may be denied, as appropriate;
( 2 ) The Secretary of Labor may refer the case to the Department of Justice with a request to file suit against the grant applicant or recipient; or
( 3 ) the Secretary may take any other action against the grant applicant or recipient that is provided by law;
( g ) A notice of the grant applicant's or recipient's right to request a hearing under the procedures described in §§ 37.112 through 37.115; and
( h ) A determination of the Governor's liability, if any, under § 37.52.
TRTM_TYPE PROPPANT_TYPE 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952

FRAC BUXT FRAC CER 1 FRAC GRVL FRAC MRBL FRAC PERF FRAC RCCR FRAC RCSD FRAC SAND 22 51 47 129 572 2,203 FRAC U FRAC WLNT REFRAC BUXT REFRAC CER REFRAC RCCR REFRAC RCSD REFRAC SAND REFRAC U1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961

1 2 4 8 2 2 10 36

6,115 10,189 13,546 14,559 13,777 12,285 13,258 11,945 13,483

1 1 11962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

19 95 167 211 213 206 303 144 119

12,070 10,577 10,776 10,760 9,482 8,857 8,591 9,272 9,112 1 2 1 2 5 11 5 2 11971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

122 55 67 40 56 41 37 32 5

1 9,460 11,576 13,260 15,130 17,523 19,819 23,682 27,033 27,705 1 1

11980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

1 23 40 17 4 16 5 6 5 4

1 37,625 41,846 34,329 30,382 37,767 30,957 16,519 16,883 15,314

1 1 8 11989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199619971998 1 1 1 8 1 5 2 3 7 1 41 8 7

1 1 2 1 5 2 1 7 3 16,344 22,018 14,400 18,325 15,037 17,12416,67621,43625,64122,744

1 1 9 25

2 1 1 3199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 2 11 35 235 262 321 191 254 279 59 21 4 22 38 49 417 7311,258 599 556 640 285 132 1 1 4 6 2 1 2 13 4 3 1 1 1 11 48 28 21 62 58 23 23 32 66 31 9 69 247 441 421 651 556 620 283 326 552 288 163 20,70830,43839,44433,81542,16651,68763,56382,47389,96899,20456,52663,906 5 27 62 114 210 18 10 2 19 3 1 1 1 11 6 24 12 2 1 5 1 1 4 11 4 2 3 1

3 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 49 48 60 74 156 161 157 205 160 118 235 1
#### SISTERS OF CHARITY v DUVELIUS

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22215.

Decided Nov 19, 1930
§ 301.1 General duties. ( a ) It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any disputes between the carrier and the employees thereof.
( b ) All disputes between a carrier or carriers, and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition, in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 17

- 4682

_____________________________ J OSE A NGEL L OPEZ , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

. May 17, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. D ENIED

. L EWIS , R OBERTS , and J AY , JJ., concur
.

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

.

_____________________________
David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville , for Petitioner

.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for R espondent

.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 40 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 40

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 2008

 Mr. Vitter introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article is 
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States within seven years after the date of its submission by 
the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act 
of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
penalties for that act.''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 20581-9-III.

Division Three.

October 17, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Tracy Aldon Lewis, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 00-1-01329-0, Paul A. Bastine, J., entered October 4, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kurtz, JJ.
#### § 37.74 Are there any forms that a complainant may use to file a complaint?

Yes. A complainant may file a complaint by completing and submitting CRC's Complaint Information and Privacy Act Consent Forms, which may be obtained either from the recipient's EO Officer, or from CRC at the address listed in the notice contained in § 37.30.
IIA 

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. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Cen4 ters for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:54 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ18.IS SJ18

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 18 IS 

1 ment of Health and Human Services relating to a cost 

2 limit for providers operated by units of government and 

3 other provisions under the Medicaid program (published 

4 at 72 Fed. Reg. 29748 (May 29, 2007)), and such rule 

5 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1988
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         339,539
<SECURITIES>                                    99,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,613
<PP&E>                                             630
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 458,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       205,995
<OTHER-SE>                                     630,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   458,498
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (42,962)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.010)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 2702.1 Purpose and scope.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”), 30 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* is an independent adjudicative agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review of legal disputes arising between the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and private parties, as well as certain disputes solely between private parties arising under the Mine Act. The purpose of the rules in this part is to establish procedures for implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048, the OPEN Government Act of 2007, Public Law 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524, and the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538; to provide guidance for those seeking to obtain information from the Commission; and to make all information subject to disclosure pursuant to this subchapter and FOIA, and not otherwise protected by law, readily available to the public. Additional guidance on obtaining information from the Commission can be found in the document entitled “FOIA Guide,” which is available for viewing and download on the Commission's website at *https://www.fmshrc.gov/guides/foia-guide.* Hard copies are also available upon written request to the Commission's FOIA Office. The rules in this part apply only to records or information of the Commission or in the Commission's custody. Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA. This part does not affect discovery in adversary proceedings before the Commission. Discovery is governed by the Commission's rules of procedure in 29 CFR part 2700.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust VI and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding VI, L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of
the Partnership, 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 the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING VI, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 11, 2005
______________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.