alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S. C. JOHNSON *&*SON, Inc., Defendant, Appellant, v. Lucille PALMIERI et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees.

No. 5374.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard Oct. 9, 1958.

Decided Oct. 21, 1958.

Edward F. Hennessey, Boston, Mass., with whom Bernard T. Loughran, Watertown, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.

Joseph A. Furnari, Boston, Mass., with whom Leo P. Doherty, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellees.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant in a personal injury case from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $3,000 upon the basis of findings and conclusions made by the trial judge sitting without a jury.

The main point urged on appeal is that under the local law of Rhode Island, which is controlling here, the ordinary principles of negligence are not applicable to a manufacturer in favor of an ultimate consumer not in privity of contract. See Mason v. American Emery Wheel Works, 1 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 906, certiorari denied 1957, 355 U.S. 815, 78 S.Ct. 17, 2 L.Ed.2d 32. For this proposition, appellant relies on two Rhode Island cases, McCaffrey v. Mossberg & Granville Mfg. Co., 1901, 23 R.I. 381, 50 A. 651, 55 L.R.A. 822, and Slattery v. Colgate, 1903, 25 R.I. 220, 55 A. 639, both over fifty years old and both decided prior to the clarifying decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 1916, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916F, 696, a case which was adopted and approved by the American Law Institute in § 395 of its Restatement of Torts. As a matter of fact, in Collette v. Page, 1921, 44 R.I. 26, 114 A. 136, 18 A.L.R. 74, the Rhode Island court cited with approval, and applied, the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra. We have no doubt that the present Rhode Island law is what the district judge took it to be, in accordance with the more enlightened modern viewpoint.

Also, we agree with the trial judge that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the defendant’s part to make this a proper jury issue.

And while proof of causation is a part of plaintiff’s affirmative case, we think the trier of the facts was entitled to assume that the plaintiff could read, especially in the absence of any attempt by the defendant to show the contrary, and hence was warranted in finding that, if the label on the container had included an appropriate conspicuous warning that soap and water should be used to wash off any liquid accidentally spilled on the user’s person, plaintiff, more like*89ly than not, would have seen and read the warning and governed herself accordingly-

A judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5139

AN ACT

To provide for the conveyance of certain real property at the Carl Vinson Department of Veterans

Affairs Medical Center, Dublin, Georgia.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5139

AN ACT

To provide for the conveyance of certain real property at

the Carl Vinson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical

Center, Dublin, Georgia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5139 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE

2 CARL VINSON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

3 AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, DUBLIN, GEOR4 GIA.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE TO STATE BOARD OF REGENTS.—

6 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall convey, without

7 consideration, to the Board of Regents of the State of

8 Georgia all right, title, and interest of the United States

9 in and to two tracts of real property, including any im10 provements thereon, at the Carl Vinson Department of

11 Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dublin, Georgia, con12 sisting of 39 acres, more or less, in Laurens County, Geor13 gia.

14 (b) CONVEYANCE TO COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARD

15 OF MIDDLE GEORGIA.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

16 shall convey, without consideration, to the Community

17 Service Board of Middle Georgia all right, title, and inter18 est of the United States in and to three tracts of real prop19 erty, including any improvements thereon, at the Carl Vin20 son Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dub21 lin, Georgia, consisting of 58 acres, more or less, in

22 Laurens County, Georgia.

23 (c) CONDITIONS ON CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance

24 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that

25 the real property conveyed under that subsection be used

26 in perpetuity solely for education purposes. The convey-
3

•HR 5139 EH

1 ance under subsection (b) shall be subject to the condition

2 that the real property conveyed under that subsection be

3 used in perpetuity solely for education and health care

4 purposes.

5 (d) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal descrip6 tion of the real property to be conveyed under this section

7 shall be determined by a survey or surveys satisfactory to

8 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The cost of any such

9 survey shall not be borne by the Secretary.

10 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

11 Secretary of Veterans Affairs may require such additional

12 terms and conditions in connection with the conveyances

13 under this section as the Secretary considers appropriate

14 to protect the interests of the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives October 3,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.26 Operation of a tank vessel in violation of regulations.

No person may cause or authorize the operation of a tank vessel in violation of the regulations in this part.

[CGD 77-058b, 45 FR 43708, June 30, 1980]
§ 262.4 Records. Recorded information, regardless of media, format, or physical characteristics, including electronic data, developed or received by the Postal Service in connection with the transaction of its business and retained in its custody; for machine-readable records, a collection of logically related data treated as a unit. ( a ) *Permanent record.* A record determined by the Records Office or the National Archives and Records Administration as having sufficient historical or other value to warrant continued preservation. (All other records are considered temporary and must be scheduled for disposal.)
( b ) *Corporate records.* Those records series that are designated by the Records Office as containing information of legal, audit, obligatory or archival value about events and transactions of interest to the entire corporate body of the Postal Service. Corporate records are distinguished from operational records, which have value only in their day-to-day use, and from precedential files, which have value only as examples.
( c ) *Active record.* A record that contains information used for conducting current business.
( d ) *Inactive record.* A record that contains information which is not used for conducting current business, but for which the retention period has not yet expired.
( e ) *Vital records.* Certain records which must be available in the event of a national emergency in order to ensure the continuity of Postal Service operations and the preservation of the rights and interests of the Postal Service, its employees, contractors and customers. There are two types of vital records: Emergency Operating Records and Rights and Interests Records. ( 1 ) *Emergency operating records.* Certain vital records necessary to support essential functions of the Postal Service during and immediately following a national emergency.
( 2 ) *Rights and interest records.* Certain vital records maintained to ensure the preservation of the rights and interests of the Postal Service, its employees, contractors and customers.
[49 FR 30693, Aug. 1, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 26385, July 23, 1986; 60 FR 57344, Nov. 15, 1995; 63 FR 6481, Feb. 9, 1998; 64 FR 41290, July 30, 1999; 68 FR 56558, Oct. 1, 2003]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC.,

a Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING BRIEF

IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF RULE 11 SANCTIONS

Plaintiff, JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE, by and through the undersigned and 

pursuant to the Court’s instructions on September 12, 2023, files Plaintiff’s Closing Brief in 

Opposition to the Imposition of Rule 11 Sanctions. A copy of Plaintiff’s Brief is attached for this 

Court's consideration.

Dated: September 24, 2023. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra 

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive,

Suite 290, 

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 1 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 24, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service 

List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 2 of 3
SERVICE LIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

P. Brooks, LaRou, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1039018

Email: brooks@peregonza.com

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive,

Suite 290, 

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: (305) 230-4884

Counsel for Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. and 

PereGonza The Attorneys

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 654302

reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com

Chanelle Artiles, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 10006402

chanelle.artiles@qpwblaw.com

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.

9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-670-1101

Attorneys for Defendant

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 3 of 3
§ 266.4 Notification. ( a ) *Notification of systems.* Upon written request, the Postal Service will notify any individual whether a specific system named by the individual contains a record pertaining to that individual, unless exempt from notification under the Privacy Act or other law. See § 266.5 for the suggested form of a request.
( b ) *Notification of disclosure.* The Postal Service will make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual before any personal information on such individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record.
( c ) *Notification of amendment.* See § 266.5(c)(1) relating to amendment of records upon request.
( d ) *Notification of new use.* Any new intended use of personal information maintained by the Postal Service will be published in the Federal Register 30 days before such use becomes operational. Public views may then be submitted to the Privacy and Records Management Office.
( e ) *Notification of exemptions.* The Postal Service will publish in the Federal Register its intent to exempt any system of records and will specify the nature and purpose of that system.
( f ) *Notification of computer matching program.* The Postal Service publishes in the Federal Register and forwards to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) advance notice of its intent to establish, substantially revise, or renew a matching program, unless such notice is published by another participant agency. In those instances in which the Postal Service is the “recipient” agency, as defined in the Act, but another participant agency sponsors and derives the principal benefit from the matching program, the other agency is expected to publish the notice. The notice must be sent to Congress and OMB, and published at least 30 days prior to: ( 1 ) The initiation of any matching activity under a new or substantially revised program; or
( 2 ) The expiration of the existing matching agreement in the case of a renewal of a continuing program.
§ 334.1127 Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters within Port Hueneme Harbor, beginning at the seaward ends of the two Port Hueneme Harbor entrance jetties, with the northwestern entrance jetty end occurring at latitude 34°8′37.0′′ N., longitude 119°12′58.8′′ W. and the southeastern entrance jetty occurring at latitude 34°8′34.8′′ N, longitude 119°12′43.2′′ W., and extending northeasterly to the shoreline.
( b ) *The regulation.* No vessels or persons may enter the restricted area unless permission is obtained in advance from the Commanding Officer of Naval Base Ventura County. Commercial vessels that are required to make Advanced Notifications of Arrival shall continue to do so. All vessels must obtain clearance from “Control 1” over marine radio channel 06 VHF-FM prior to crossing the COLREGS (Collision Regulations) demarcation line. Vessels without marine radio capability must obtain clearance in advance by contacting “Control 1” via telephone at (805) 982-3938 prior to crossing the COLREGS demarcation line. The COLREGS demarcation line is defined as a line approximately 1,500 feet in length connecting the seaward limits or ends of the two Port Hueneme Harbor entrance jetties, with the northwestern jetty end occurring at latitude 34°8′37.0′′ N., longitude 119°12′58.8′′ W., and the southeastern entrance jetty occurring at latitude 34°8′34.8′′ N., longitude 119°12′43.2′′ W. (NAD83).
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulation in this section, promulgated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer of Naval Base Ventura County, and such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.
[69 FR 20545, Apr. 16, 2004]
[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Richard, 2013-Ohio-4667.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : JUDGES: 

WILLIAM E. SMITH : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : Hon., Patricia A. Delaney P.J. 

 : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J. 

-vs- : Hon., John W. Wise J. 

 : 

RHONDA RICHARD, Warden : CASE NO. 13CA46 

 : 

 Respondent : 

 : OPINION 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 18, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner – Pro se: For Appellee: 

WILLIAM E. SMITH No Appearance 

c/o N.C.I. 

15708 St Rt 78 West 

Caldwell, OH 43724 
Richland County, Case No. 13CA46 1 

Delaney, J., 

{¶1} Petitioner, William E. Smith, has filed a complaint for writ of habeas 

corpus. Respondent, Warden Rhonda Richard is warden of the reception center 

located in Pickaway County, Ohio. Pickaway is not in this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion to transfer this cause to the Seventh District Court of 

Appeals because Petitioner has been moved to Noble County. Noble County is also not 

in this Court’s jurisdiction. 

{¶2} Under R.C. 2725.03 jurisdiction lies only with the court in whose 

jurisdiction the institution is located. Starks v. Johnson 2000 WL 652523, 2 (Ohio App. 

7 Dist.). 

{¶3} Because Petitioner Smith is not located within this Court's territorial 

jurisdiction, the instant cause of action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. R.C. 

2725.03 and Bridges v. McMackin (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 135, 541 N.E.2d 1035. A 

petition for habeas corpus must be filed where the person being detained is physically 

located. Id.

{¶4} For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed. 

By: Delaney, P.J. 

 Farmer, J. and 

 Wise, J. concur 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : 

WILLIAM E. SMITH : 

 : CASE NO. 13CA46 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY

 : 

RHONDA RICHARD, Warden : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, 

Petitioner’s Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed. Costs to 

Petitioner. 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA. DELANEY 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE
§ 95.050 Responsibility for compliance. ( a ) The marine employer shall exercise due diligence to assure compliance with the applicable provisions of this part.
( b ) If the marine employer has reason to believe that an individual is intoxicated, the marine employer shall not allow that individual to stand watch or perform other duties.
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:22-cv-22963-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 11 of 11
Exhibit 3.8




CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF


CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION


OF




ACETO
CORPORATION




Under
Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law


of the
State of New York




We,
the undersigned, Seymour Mann, President, and Arnold Frankel, Secretary of Aceto
Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the Business Corporation
Law of the State of New York do hereby certify as follows:




1:     The
name of the Corporation is ACETO CORPORATION.




2:     The
Certificate of Incorporation of ACETO CORPORATION was filed by the Department of
State on June 13, 1947. At the time of such filing, the name of the Corporation
was ACETO CHEMICAL CO. INC. The name of the Corporation was changed to ACETO
CORPORATION by a certificate of Amendment filed by the Department of State on
November 21, 1985.




3:     The
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended, is amended to
eliminate the personal liability of the directors of the Corporation to the
fullest extent permitted by the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 402 of
the Business Corporation Law.




4:     To
accomplish the foregoing, the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, is
hereby amended by adding a subparagraph (f) to Article SEVEN thereof to read as
follows:


“The
      personal liability of the directors of the Corporation is hereby
      eliminated to the fullest extent permitted by the provisions of paragraph
      (b) of Section 402 of the Business Corporation Law of the State of
      New York, as the same may be amended and supplemented.”




5:     The
said amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation was authorized by the
Corporation’s Board of Directors, and by the vote of the holders of a majority
of all outstanding shares entitled to vote at a meeting of shareholders held on
the 10th day of December, 1987.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed and subscribed this Certificate and do affirm
the foregoing as true under the penalties of perjury this
10th day of December, 1987.




/s/
      Seymour MannSeymour
      MannPresident/s/
      Arnold FrankelArnold
      FrankelSecretary
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAN JAC KSON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. OFFIC E OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOC A TION, a n a dm inistra

tive a ge nc y

of the Unite d State s, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-17247 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-08069-SPL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 17, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , W . FLETC HER , a nd HUNSAKER , C irc uit Judge s. Dan Ja c k s on a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

v or of the Offic e of Nav a

jo a nd Hopi India

n R e loc ation (“ ONHIR ” ) a ffirm ing the de nia l of his a

p plic ation for re loc ation be ne fits. 

# FIL ED
SEP 28 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Brunozzi v . C

able C ommc ’ns, Inc

. , 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th C i r. 2017). W e re vie w ONHIR ’ s de c i sion to de te rm ine if it wa s “ a rbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, not in ac c orda nc e with la

w, or unsupporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide nc e .” Be doni v . N

av a jo-Hopi Indian Re loc ation C omm’n , 878 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th C ir. 1989); s e e also 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A), (E). “ Substa ntia l e vide n c e is m ore tha n a
m e re sc intilla

but le ss tha

n a pre ponde ranc e .” Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005) (c ita tion omi tte d); se e also Ty litzk i v . Shalala , 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th C ir. 1993) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Substa ntia l e vide nc e is suc h re le va nt
e vide nc e a s a re a sona

ble m ind m ight a c c e pt a s a de quate to support a c onc lusion.” ). The pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thee vide ntia

ry re c o rd in this c a s e , a

nd we do not re c ite it he re . Although the re m ay be suffic ie n t e vide nc e in the re c ord to support a n a ward of be ne fits, the de c ision of the ONHIR He aring Offic e r de ny ing be ne fits is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . W e the re fore a ffirm the de c ision of the d istric t c o urt upholding ONHIR ’ s de c ision de ny ing be ne fits. AFFIRM E D.

2