alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
529 P.2d 784

#### Edwin E. FORD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRANSPORT HOLDING CORPORATION, d/b/a Interstate Mack, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11375.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 26, 1974.

David W. Hyde of Martin, Chapman, Martin & Lyons, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Allen R. Derr of Derr, Derr, Walters & Cantrill, Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Edwin E. Ford left his truck with appellant Transport Holding Corporation for repairs. After the repairs were completed, the appellant placed the vehicle •in its lot without checking the antifreeze level in the radiator. On or about October 29, 1971, the temperature fell to 11°, and the engine block froze and burst. The trial court found for the plaintiff owner against appellant in the amount of $5,119.-32, and appellant has appealed.

The trial court, applying the rule announced by this Court in Low v. Park Price Company, 95 Idaho 91, 503 P.2d 291 (1972), held that appellant had not satisfied its burden of showing that it used reasonable care in protecting the bailed property and therefore held that appellant was negligent. We have reviewed the record and find there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding and therefore it will not be disturbed. Benner v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. of Idaho, Inc., 96 Idaho 311, 528 P.2d 193 (1974). We have reviewed the other assignments of error of appellant and find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.
|Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation (the "Registrants") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies with respect to each registrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated as of November 8, 2005
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By /s/ Wm. Michael Warren, Jr.                  | 
|----------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                | 
|Wm. Michael Warren, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer | 



|By /s/ G. C. Ketcham                  | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|                                      | 
|G. C. Ketcham
Chief Financial Officer | 



|A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation and will be retained by Energen Corporation and Alabama Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc.**


**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 Advanced Communications Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne I. Danson, President and
      Chief
      Executive Officer 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 the
                Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      October 29, 2007


/s/
              Wayne I.
              DansonWayne
                I. Danson
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer







**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc.**


**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 Advanced Communications Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Donahue, Vice President
      and
      Chief Financial Officer 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 the
                Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      October 29, 2007


/s/ John E. DonahueJohn
                E. Donahue
              Vice
                President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-61728-CIV-CANNON/Hunt

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALLAR, L.C. and

EPIC RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING CASE AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal

[ECF No. 23], filed on March 16, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Stipulation of 

Dismissal, signed by all parties who have appeared, is self-executing and dismisses the case 

“effective immediately upon filing.” See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 

1277 (11th Cir. 2012). As such, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, effective March 

16, 2023, the date on which the parties filed their Stipulation of Dismissal [ECF No. 23]. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 17th day of March 

2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-61728-AMC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Florida

VOCODIA HOLDINGS CORP, a Wyoming 

corporation

9:22cv81472

OMER KHAN, an individual, and VIVID TECH, INC., 

a Delaware corporation

Omer Khan 

102 Sparrow 

Irvine, CA 92618

Kristin Drecktrah Paz, Esq. 

Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright, P.A. 

283 Catalonia Ave., Suite 600, Coral Gables, FL 33134 

kpaz@pbyalaw.com 

Sep 23, 2022 s/ Esperanza Buchhorst

Case 9:22-cv-81472-DMM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5037 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5037

        To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2000

Mr. Hall of Texas (for himself and Mr. Tauzin) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Safety 
and Accountability Act''.
    (b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
other provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq.).

SEC. 2. EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTABILITY.

    Section 9 (29 U.S.C. 658) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsections:
    ``(d) No citation may be issued under subsection (a) to an employer 
unless the employer knew or with the exercise of reasonable diligence 
would have known of the presence of the alleged violation. No citation 
shall be issued under subsection (a) to an employer for an alleged 
violation of section 5, any standard, rule, or order promulgated 
pursuant to section 6, any other regulation promulgated under this Act, 
or any other occupational safety and health standard, if such employer 
demonstrates that--
            ``(1) employees of such employer have been provided with 
        the proper training and equipment to prevent such a violation;
            ``(2) work rules designed to prevent such a violation have 
        been established and adequately communicated to employees by 
        such employer; and
            ``(3) the failure of employees to observe work rules led to 
        the violation.
    ``(e) A citation issued under subsection (a) to an employer that 
violates the requirements of any standard, rule, or order promulgated 
pursuant to section 6 or any other regulation promulgated under this 
Act shall be vacated if such employer demonstrates that employees of 
such employer where protected by alternative methods equally or more 
protective of the safety and health of the employee than the methods 
required by such standard, rule, order, or regulation in the factual 
circumstances underlying the citation.
    ``(f) Subsections (d) and (e) shall not be construed to eliminate 
or modify other defenses that may exist to any citation.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL ANTONIO GARAYCASTILLO,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 13-73025

Agency No. A029-134-152

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Antonio Garay-Castillo, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-73025 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garay-Castillo 

failed to establish past persecution. See id. at 1185-87. Substantial evidence also 

supports the agency’s determination that Garay-Castillo failed to establish an 

objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 

1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to GarayCastillo’s asylum claim.

Because Garay-Castillo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he 

necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 

because Garay-Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nicaraguan government. 

See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
H. R. 4942

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

Making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other

activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. (a) The provisions of the following bills of the

106th Congress are hereby enacted into law:

(1) H.R. 5547, as introduced on October 25, 2000.

(2) H.R. 5548, as introduced on October 25, 2000.

(b) In publishing this Act in slip form and in the United

States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1, United

States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include after

the date of approval at the end appendixes setting forth the texts

of the bills referred to in subsection (a) of this section.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 37 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja m es P. Kene fic k ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. Fran ci s Ho well Sch oo l Di st ric t; Eric P av ia ; M ik e Det ers ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 28, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Ju ly 31, 2 01 4 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, SMI TH, andKELLY , Cir cu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ja m es Ken efi ck ap pe al s th e di st r i c t c ou rt’s or de r di sm is si ng hi s ci vi l 1 co m pl ai nt up on a Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n. Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Mi nn . Majo rit y v. Man sky , 70 8 F.3 d 10 51 , 10 55 (8 th Ci r.) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), cert . d en ie d, 1 34 S. Ct. 8 24 (2 01 3) , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co urt th at Ken efi ck fai le d to st at e a faci al ly pl au si bl e cl ai m , se e Ash cro ft v. Iqba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Terry I. Ade l man , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ctof M is so ur i, t o wh om th e cas e was refe rredfor fin al di sp os it io n b y co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c). -2

-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6524

EARL BOYD TRUMP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, Montgomery 

County,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00142-GEC-MFU)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Boyd Trump, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Boyd Trump appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Trump v. Montgomery 

Cnty. Sheriff, No. 7:10-cv-00142-GEC-MFU (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 

2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 334.370 Chesapeake Bay, Lynnhaven Roads; danger zones, U.S. Naval Amphibious Base. ( a ) *Underwater demolitions area (prohibited)* — ( 1 ) *The area.* A portion of the restricted area for Navy amphibious training operations described in Sec. 334.310 along the south shore of the Chesapeake Bay, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point at the mean high water line, latitude 36°55′26.5′′, longitude 76°08′43′′; thence 700 yards to latitude 36°55′48′′, longitude 76°98′38′′; thence 500 yards to latitude 36°55′46′′, longitude 76°08′57′′; thence 500 yards to latitude 36°55′37′′, longitude 76°09′02′′; thence 100 yards to latitude 36°55′36′′, longitude 76°08′57′′; thence 200 yards to the mean high water line at latitude 36°55′39.5′′, longitude 76°08′59′′; thence 400 yards along the mean high water line to the point of beginning. The area will be marked by range poles set on shore of the prolongation of the lines forming the eastern and western boundaries.
( 2 ) *The regulations.* Persons or vessels, other than those vessels owned and operated by the United States, shall not enter the prohibited area at any time unless authorized to do so by the enforcing agency.
( b ) *Small-arms firing range* — ( 1 ) *The Area.* Beginning at a point on the shore line at latitude 36°55′27′′, longitude 76°08′38′′; thence to latitude 36°55′50′′, longitude 76°08′37′′; thence to latitude 36°57′11′′, longitude 76°08′11′′; thence to latitude 36°56′53′′, longitude 76°07′18′′; thence to latitude 36°55′39′′, longitude 76°07′46′′; thence to latitude 36°55′22′′, longitude 76°08′17′′; thence along the shore line to the point of beginning.
( 2 ) *The regulations.* ( i ) Passage of vessels through the area will not be prohibited at any time, nor will commercial fishermen be prohibited from working fish nets within the area. No loitering or anchoring for other purposes will be permitted.
( ii ) A large red warning flag will be flown on shore during periods when firing is in progress. Observers will be on duty and firing will be suspended for the passage of vessels and for the placing and maintenance of fish nets within the area.
( c ) This section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Norfolk, Virginia.
[19 FR 1246, Mar. 5, 1954, as amended at 28 FR 225, Jan. 9, 1963. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, and amended at 57 FR 40613, Sept. 4, 1992; 62 FR 17553, Apr. 10, 1997]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAN JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI

INDIAN RELOCATION, an

administrative agency of the United States,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-17247

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-08069-SPL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 17, 2020

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, W. FLETCHER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Dan Jackson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”) affirming the

denial of his application for relocation benefits. 

FILED

SEP 28 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 

Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). We review

ONHIR’s decision to determine if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, not in accordance with law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.”

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Comm’n, 878 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.

1989); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E). “Substantial evidence is more than a

mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,

1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d

1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“Substantial evidence is such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”).

The parties are familiar with the evidentiary record in this case, and we do

not recite it here. Although there may be sufficient evidence in the record to

support an award of benefits, the decision of the ONHIR Hearing Officer denying

benefits is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the decision of

the district court upholding ONHIR’s decision denying benefits. 

AFFIRMED.

2