alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
46264.

#### ROE v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY.

(376 SE2d 876)

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Roe was convicted of sexually molesting a neighbor’s minor daughter. State Farm brought a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligation to defend Roe, its insured, in a civil action arising out of the molestation. State Farm contended that it had no obligation to defend or provide coverage because the insurance policy excludes coverage for bodily injury that is “expected or intended by an insured.”1 Roe argued that his deviant sexual behavior was caused by an obsessive compulsion and that he did not consider the effect his actions would have on the child. He asserted that he neither expected nor intended to injure her. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the injuries resulting from the repeated molestations were expected or intended as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed. *Roe v. State Farm Fire &c. Co.,*188 Ga. App. 368 (373 SE2d 23) (1988). We affirm.

This case is distinguished from *State Farm Fire &c. Co. v. Morgan,*258 Ga. 276 (368 SE2d 509) (1988), because here the insured does not deny the intent to commit the act complained of. He relies on a lack of intent to inflict bodily injury. This contention is supported only by the testimony of the insured. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding insufficient credible evidence to create a substantial issue of material fact. Child molestation and the injury caused by it are so closely tied as to be virtually inseparable. Except in the strongest of factual situations, intent to commit this act carries with it the intent to inflict the injury. We hold that intentional child molestation carries with it a presumption of intent to inflict injury. This presumption is not rebutted by the presentation of the insured’s own self-serving testimony.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.*

*43Decided March 2, 1989.

*Lokey & Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, K. Scott Graham, Daniel McGinnis,*for appellant.

*Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Stephen L. Cotter, Kent K. Carter,*for apppellee.

1

 State Farm relies exclusively on the exclusion clause, not on the absence of coverage under any of the coverage sections or on any public policy.
§ 60-741.68 Reinstatement of ineligible contractors. ( a ) *Application for reinstatement.* A contractor debarred from further contracts for an indefinite period under the act may request reinstatement in a letter filed with the Director at any time after the effective date of the debarment; a contractor debarred for a fixed period may make such a request following the expiration of six months from the effective date of the debarment. In connection with the reinstatement proceedings, all debarred contractors shall be required to show that they have established and will carry out employment policies and practices in compliance with the act and this part. Additionally, in determining whether reinstatement is appropriate for a contractor debarred for a fixed period, the Director also shall consider, among other factors, the severity of the violation which resulted in the debarment, the contractor's attitude towards compliance, the contractor's past compliance history, and whether the contractor's reinstatement would impede the effective enforcement of the act or this part. Before reaching a decision, the Director may conduct a compliance evaluation of the contractor and may require the contractor to supply additional information regarding the request for reinstatement. The Director shall issue a written decision on the request.
( b ) *Petition for review.* Within 30 days of its receipt of a decision denying a request for reinstatement, the contractor may file a petition for review of the decision with the Secretary. The petition shall set forth the grounds for the contractor's objections to the Director's decision. The petition shall be served on the Director and the Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and Labor-Management and shall include the decision as an appendix. The Director may file a response within 14 days to the petition. The Secretary shall issue the final agency decision denying or granting the request for reinstatement. Before reaching a final decision, the Secretary may issue such additional orders respecting procedure as he or she finds appropriate in the circumstances, including an order referring the matter to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for an evidentiary hearing where there is a material factual dispute that cannot be resolved on the record before the Secretary.
No. 11-8891.

#### El-Bey et vir *v.*City of Raleigh Police Department et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1733: Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KYFNDxnNd6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1733-auris-health-inc-v-intuitive-surgical-operations-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1733: Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1733-auris-health-inc-v-intuitive-surgical-operations-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=KYFNDxnNd6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1733: Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"KYFNDxnNd6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1733 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                            FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                            FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                            CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 1997
                            SECOND QUARTER 10Q AND IS  
		            QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                          284,048
<SECURITIES>                     21,325
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,110,342
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                     822,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,537,146
<PP&E>                        4,723,152
<DEPRECIATION>                2,733,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,814,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,508,293
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         81,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                    2,770,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,814,467
<SALES>                       2,860,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,860,872
<CGS>                         2,005,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,005,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               17,062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 309,067
<INCOME-TAX>                    100,446
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             208,621
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                        15,450
<NET-INCOME>                    224,071
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.02
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                               BRINCKO ASSOCIATES, INC.
                         INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
                               1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS
                            LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA  90067
                         (310) 553-4523  (310) 553-6782 (FAX)

MARCH 4, 1998


MR MOSSIMO GIANNULLI
MOSSIMO, INC.
9 PASTEUR
IRVINE, CA  92618


DEAR MR. GIANNULLI:

THIS LETTER WILL CONFIRM THAT THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY AND
BETWEEN MOSSIMO, INC. (THE "COMPANY") AND BRINCKO ASSOCIATES, INC. ("BAI"),
DATED AS OF JANUARY 13, 1998 (THE "CONSULTING AGREEMENT") SHALL BE AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS:

1.   BAI'S ENGAGEMENT UNDER THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXTENDED TO AND
     INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 1998, SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXTENSION AS SET FORTH
     HEREIN.

2.   THE COMPENSATION UNDER THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT SHALL CONTINUE AT THE RATE
     OF $65,000 FOR THE TERM OF THIS ENGAGEMENT, AS SET FORTH IN THIS LETTER.

3.   AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO BAI, THE COMPANY SHALL CAUSE TO BE ISSUED TO
     BAI OPTIONS TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL 50,000 SHARES OF COMPANY STOCK
     PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE COMPANY'S EXISTING EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN.

4.   THE COMPANY SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTINUE THE TERM OF THE CONSULTING
     AGREEMENT TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1999, PROVIDED THAT THE COMPANY GIVES
     BAI WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS EXERCISE OF THIS OPTION ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 1,
     1998.

5.   EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE HEREOF, JOHN P. BRINCKO SHALL SERVE AS PRESIDENT
     AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE COMPANY.

EXCEPT AS AMENDED IN THIS LETTER, THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN
FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREGOING BY SIGNING AND RETURNING TO US
THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THIS LETTER.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

BRINCKO ASSOCIATES, INC.


BY:  /s/ John P. Brincko
     ------------------------------------
     JOHN P. BRINCKO


ACCEPTED AND AGREED

MOSSIMO, INC.


BY:  /s/ Mossimo Giannulli
     ------------------------------------

     MOSSIMO GIANNULLI
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00577

- CV

Lewis S. CHRISTIAN , Jr. M.D.P. A. and Lewis S. Christian, Jr., I ndividually,

Appellant s

v.

Chris SCHUCHART , Independent Executor f or the Estate of Tom A. Russell, Deceased,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12170A

Honorable N. Keith Williams , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 28, 2012

DIS MISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that they have

compromised and settled the issues in dispute. The motion is granted, and this appeal is

dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC , 70 S.W.3d 180,

181 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant s

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
#### § 128-1.5002-4 Bureau.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Prisons; the Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated; and the Operations Support Staff (OSS) of the Office of Management and Finance. The OSS has authority and is responsible for all personal property management functions for the Offices, Boards, and Divisions of the Department, the United States Marshals Service, and the United States Parole Commission.
#### § 302-9.1 What is a “privately owned vehicle (POV)”?

A “privately owned vehicle (POV)” is a motor vehicle not owned by the Government and used by the employee or the employee's immediate family for the primary purpose of providing personal transportation.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12255, Feb. 16, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1906 Informal action.

Nothing contained in these regulations is intended to preclude utilization of informal administrative actions or remedies which may be available (including, e.g., Alternative Dispute Resolution), and/or for the Commission to exercise rights as agreed to among the parties in written agreements, including notes and security agreements.
Exhibit
32.2





Section
1350


CERTIFICATION








The
undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended June 29, 2008
as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.








Signed
August 7, 2008.








/s/
      Harry V. MaccarroneHarry
      V. MaccarroneExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: In re Lockwood Vehicle Storage LLC and Christopher Hernandez
Appellate case number: 01

- 2 2

- 00 053

- CV

Trial court case number: 2018

- 24943

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

On January 27, 2022

, relators

, Lockwood Vehicle Storage LLC and Christopher Hernandez , filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s January 24, 2022 order denying relators’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motions to Strike Counter

Affidavits, as well as the three trial court orders denying the counter

- affidavits made subject of the motion for reconsideration, including the trial court’s: (1) January 7, 2019 order striking the counter

- affidavit of Susan K . Smith, DNP, RN, CEN, CCRN, CNLCP, (2) July 9, 2019 order striking the counter

- affidavit of Timothy J. Pileggi, and (3) June 8, 2020 order striking the counter

- affidavit of Paul Marcus Murphy. In their petition for writ of mandamus, relators state that t hey “also seek emergency stay of the underlying proceeding which is assigned for trial on February 8, 2022.” Relators state that “[g]iven the fact that trial is scheduled to begin on February 8, 2022,” a stay of all trial court proceedings is necessary “u ntil such a time as this [p]etition is ruled upon.”

To the extent r elators request a stay of trial court proceedings , such a request is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(a) (discussing requirements for party seeking temporary relief pending action on peti tion). Further, t he Court requests a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus from real part y (ies) in interest. The response if any, is due no later than fifteen days from the date of this order

.2

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __

/s/ Amparo Guerra

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ January 28, 2022

_____
§ 302-11.431 How must we require an employee to request reimbursement for expenses of an unexpired lease settlement? You must require that the employee submit an appropriate travel claim requesting reimbursement for expenses of an unexpired lease settlement with: ( a ) An itemization of all expenses claimed supported by documentation showing that the employee indeed paid all lease settlement fees; and
( b ) A total amount for all expenses claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4349 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4349

 To prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting flight tests of 
 certain missiles that would result in the release of debris outside a 
              designated Department of Defense test range.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1994

 Ms. Shepherd (for herself, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Kopetski, Mr. Hinchey, 
 Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Coppersmith, Ms. Furse, and Ms. English of Arizona) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting flight tests of 
 certain missiles that would result in the release of debris outside a 
              designated Department of Defense test range.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Theater Missile Defense Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FLIGHT TESTS OF CERTAIN MISSILES.

    (a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct a flight 
test program of theater missile defense interceptors and sensors if an 
anticipated result of the launch of a missile under that test program 
would be release of debris in a land area of the United States outside 
a designated Department of Defense test range.
    (b) Definition of Debris.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``debris'' does not include particulate matter that is regulated for 
considerations of air quality.

                                 <all>
```
# Comments on: Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments
#### § 301-75.200 How will we pay for pre-employment interviewee travel expenses?

| For | You will |
| --- | --- |
| Common carrier transportation expenses other than transit systems at the agency's location | Bill the expenses to a centrally billed or other agency established account or provide the traveler with a GTR when no other option is available or feasible. |
| Other expenses | Require payment by the interviewee and reimburse the interviewee for allowable travel expenses upon submission and approval of the interviewee's travel claim. |

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15980, Apr. 1, 1998; 63 FR 35538, June 30, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-02, 75 FR 24436, May 5, 2010; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12253, Feb. 16, 2024]
FORM 12. Informal Opening Brief (District Court, Court of International Trade, Form 12 (p. 1) 

and Court of Federal Claims) July 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

INFORMAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Name of Appellant:

Instructions: Read the Guide for Unrepresented Parties before completing this 

form. Answer the questions as best as you can. Attach additional pages as needed 

to answer the questions. This form and continuation pages may not exceed 30 

pages.

Attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion, order, and/or judgment. You may also 

attach other record material as an appendix. Any attached material should be 

referenced in answer to the below questions. Please redact (erase, cover, or 

otherwise make unreadable) social security numbers or comparable private 

personal identifiers that appear in any attachments you submit.

1. Have you ever had another case before this court? Yes No

If yes, state the name and number of each case.

2. Did the trial court incorrectly decide or fail to take into account any facts?

Yes No

If yes, what facts?
FORM 12. Informal Opening Brief (District Court, Court of International Trade, Form 12 (p. 2) 

and Court of Federal Claims) July 2020

3. Did the trial court apply the wrong law? Yes No

If yes, what law should be applied?

4. Did the trial court fail to consider important grounds for relief?

Yes No

If yes, what grounds?

5. Are there other reasons why the trial court’s decision was wrong?

Yes No

If yes, what reasons?
FORM 12. Informal Opening Brief (District Court, Court of International Trade, Form 12 (p. 3) 

and Court of Federal Claims) July 2020

6. What action do you want this court to take in this case?

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41071-41072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16733]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 17, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, 
Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-1579:
    1. Alan E. Knudson and the Knudson Family Limited Partnership, 
Ltd., Draper, Utah; to retain voting shares of Silver State Bancorp, 
Henderson, Nevada, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
Silver State Bank, Henderson, Nevada.


[[Page 41072]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 27, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16733 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P