alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MAX WEISMAN, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES BURNS, DEFENDANT.

Decided March 18, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the rule, *Aaron Simon.*

*Contra, John L. Griggs.*

Pee Cueiam.

The record of this case discloses that on July 1st, 1926, plaintiff was driving a Studebaker automobile in a northerly direction on Lexington avenue, in the city of Passaic. Eiding with the plaintiff, in the same car, was his. son, Samuel. The defendant’s servant was driving a Ford truck in the same direction that the plaintiff was proceeding, and passed plaintiff’s car at some point between Harrison street and President street.

There was testimony, on part of the plaintiff, to 'the effect that as he was driving along the highway, about four feet from the curb, at a rate of speed, estimated between fifteen and twenty miles per hour, when the defendant’s truck came along, at a speed estimated between thirty and thirty-five miles an hour, and while passing the plaintiff’s automobile, pn its left side, at that rate of speed, the truck swung over to the right, and as it did so, the rear of the truck struck the left front of the plaintiff’s automobile, damaging it and also causing the plaintiff to sustain severe injuries.

*269The plaintiff’s story was corroborated by three disinterested witnesses. The only witness who testified, on behalf of the defendant, was his driver, and if his story is to be believed, the plaintiff’s car was standing still, when the former passed with his truck, and there was no collision between defendant’s truck and the plaintiff’s automobile. The truck driver testified he heard no noise, felt no shock and was unaware of the fact he had come in contact with plaintiff’s car.

From a fair reading of the testimony, it seems to us that the verdict of the jury was so clearly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate partiality, prejudice, passion or mistake. The verdict is set aside.

Plaintiff’s rule is made absolute.
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-08559, 333-35237, 333-41137, 333-56340 and
333-72864) of our report dated February 9, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of InVision Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1999, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
San Jose, California
March 27, 2002

---

QuickLinks
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-253 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-9109; 19-283 AC

________________ 

### Markins Junior Anilus , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Raul Cuervo, Judge. Markins Junior Anilus, in proper person. Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Casey Hughes, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Vega v. CSCS Int’l, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164, 166 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Evidence is . . . ‘[a]ny species of proof, or probative matter,2

legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention.’” (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 287 (5th ed. 1983))); see also Southwin, Inc. v. Verde, 806 So. 2d 586, 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Determinations regarding the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses are peculiarly within the province of the finder of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal.” (citations omitted)); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Stokes, 289 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Because a trial court's factual findings come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness to which the appellate court should generally defer, because an appellate court should not weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, and because there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual findings, we affirm.” (citations omitted)).
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****Chart: 25675          Edition: 10          Edition Date: October 2011          Clear Dates: NM - 12/3/2011     LNM - 11/29/2011**Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart Site-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NOAA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
#### § 120.430 Portable lights.

Each vessel must be equipped with at least two operable portable battery lights. One of these lights must be located at the operating station and the other at the access to the propulsion machinery space.
EX-10.4(2)


  Exhibit 10.4.2

 
  

 
 

	 
	 InMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
 Suite #340- 200 Granville St.

Vancouver, BC V6C 1S4
 Canada
  



 
  
  

 
  
  

01 SEPTEMBER 2018
  

 
 Dear Eric Hsu,

 
 In recognition of your agreement to increase your work commitment to InMed to 80% of
full time, I am pleased to make the following changes to your compensation:
  
 Base
Salary - will increase to $224,000 as of the date of this letter; and
  

Options - subject to approval by the Board of Directors, you will be issued an additional 270,000 options to purchase common shares in the Company as per the
Company’s standard options policies, priced on or around the date of this letter.
  

On behalf of the entire Management Team and Board of Directors, thank you for your contributions to the Company’s success and we look forward to achieving more,
together.
  
 /s/ Eric A. Adams

Eric A. Adams President and CEO
 InMed Pharmaceuticals Inc.
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: CurryBrown, Amanda Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:11 PM To: Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov Cc: Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov; Hutson, Nick; Fellner, C hristian; Weatherhead, Darryl; Culligan, Kevin Subject: Updated Version of 111(b) RIA and Response to Inter agency Comments Attachments: EO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_071420 15_CLEAN.docx; EO 12866_ 111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_07142015_RLSO.d ocx; EO 12866_111(b) NewMods 2060-AQ91 RIA Interagency Comments.docx



### Hi Nathan,

Please see attached for an RLSO and clean version o f the 111b RIA. These reflect edits made since the version that was submitted June 20. I’ve also attached the document that includes responses to interagency comments on the RIA.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Amanda

Amanda Curry Brown Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar ds
919.541.3808 CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00757-CV

Appellant, Robert A. Marshall//

Cross-Appellants, Scott Law Ortho Corp. P.C.; and Julio De La Fuente, DDS

v.

Appellees, Scott Law Ortho Corp. P.C.; and Julio De La Fuente, DDS//

Cross-Appellee, Robert A. Marshall

FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 18-1561-C425, THE HONORABLE BETSY F. LAMBETH, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Robert A. Marshall and cross-appellants Scott Law Ortho Corp. P.C. 

and Julio De La Fuente, DDS, have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the joint

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Dismissed on Appellant’s and Cross-Appellants’ Joint Motion

Filed: March 5, 2020
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128390 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128390 COA: 252849 Wayne CC: 03-009825-02 ROBERT MICHAEL MCNALLY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to a ppeal the February 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
§ 111.107-1 Industrial systems. ( a ) For the purpose of this subpart, an industrial system is a system that— ( 1 ) Is not a ship's service load, as defined in § 110.15-1;
( 2 ) Is used only for the industrial function of the vessel;
( 3 ) Is not connected to the emergency power source; and
( 4 ) Does not have specific requirements addressed elsewhere in this subchapter.
( b ) An industrial system that meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter) must meet only the following: ( 1 ) Part 110, subpart 110.25, of this chapter—Plan Submittal.
( 2 ) Subpart 111.01 of this part—General.
( 3 ) Subpart 111.05 of this part—Equipment Ground, Ground Detection, and Grounded Systems.
( 4 ) Sections 111.12-1(b) and 111.12-1(c)—Prime movers.
( 5 ) Sections 111.30-1, 111.30-5(a), and 111.30-19(a)—Switchgear.
( 6 ) Subpart 111.105 of this part—Hazardous Locations.
( c ) Cables that penetrate a watertight or fire boundary deck or bulkhead must— ( 1 ) Be installed in accordance with 46 CFR 111.60-5 and meet the flammability-test requirements of either IEEE 1202, IEC 60332-3-22:2018, or IEC 60332-3-21:2018, Category A or A F/R (all incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); or
( 2 ) Be specialty cable installed in accordance with § 111.60-2.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28286, June 4, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23910, May 1, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65201, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16368, Mar. 16, 2023]
#### § 73.735-1302 Responsibility for reporting allegations of misconduct.

An employee who has information which he or she reasonably believes indicates the existence of an activity constituting (a) a possible violation of a rule or regulation of the Department; or (b) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority; or (c) a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety, shall immediately report such information to his or her supervisor, any management official of the Department, or directly to the Office of the Inspector General. Employees and supervisors should refer to chapter 5-10 of the Department's General Administration Manual for procedures regarding the reporting and handling of such information. This subsection does not cover employee grievances, equal employment opportunity complaints, classification appeals, or other matters for which a formal government-wide review system has been established by the Federal government.
§ 2505.6 What are the procedures for making a public announcement of a meeting? ( a ) For each meeting, the Board shall make a public announcement, at least one week before the meeting, of— ( 1 ) The meeting's time and place;
( 2 ) The matters to be considered;
( 3 ) Whether the meeting is to be open or closed; and
( 4 ) The name and business telephone number of the official designated by the Board to respond to requests for information about the meeting.
( b ) The one week advance notice required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced only if— ( 1 ) The Board determines by recorded vote that Board business requires that the meeting be scheduled in less than seven days; and
( 2 ) The public announcement required by paragraph (a) of this section is made at the earliest practicable time and posted on the Corporation's home page.
( c ) Immediately following a public announcement required by paragraph (a) of this section, the Corporation will submit for publication in the Federal Register a notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether the meeting is open or closed, any change in one of the preceding, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the agency to respond to requests for information about the meeting.
#### John M. Small *v.*John P. Rogers.

Where all the counts in a declaration are for the same cause of action, and a general verdict is rendered for the plaintiff; though some of the counts are defective, the verdict may be applied to one of the good counts, if all the evidence was applicable to that count and the plaintiff during the trial claimed to recover on that count only.

Assumpsit, upon a Warranty of a colt which the plaintiff received from the defendant in exchange for a reed organ.

*177oThe second count was — "And whereas afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at Colebrook aforesaid, in consideration that the said plaintiff at the like special instance and request of the said defendant, had then and there delivered to the said defendant a certain other parlor reed organ of great value in exchange for a certain other two years old mare colt of the said defendant, he the said defendant then and.there undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said plaintiff that the said last mentioned two years old mare colt at the time of said last mentioned exchange, was not sick,” etc.

After a general verdict for the plaintiff the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that in the second count a past consideration for the promise was alleged.

The testimony of the plaintiff, if true, sustained the fifth count, and his counsel in his closing argument claimed only to recover on that count, and, when the motion in arrest was made, moved for judgment on that count. The court overruled the motion in arrest, and granted the plaintiff’s motion if it should be determined at the law term that it was necessary to grant it in order to sustain the verdict, and that it could be done, and the defendant excepted.

*Ladd & Ray,*for defendant.

*Ramsay ó Barlcer,*for plaintiff.

Bartlett, J.

It is unnecessary to examine the objection made to the second count, for no exception is taken to the fifth count, to which it appears that all the plaintiff’s evidence was applicable and on which only the plaintiff claimed to *recover;*and it would seem that all the counts were for the same cause of action. The record and verdict may therefore be amended so that the latter may apply only to the fifth count, and as the order of the court at the trial term was equivalent to this, 1 Chit. Pl. 411, Story Pl. 62, *Barnard*v. *Whiting,*7 Mass. 358, *Sullivan*v. *Holker,*15 Mass. 377, *Patten*v. *Gurney,*17 Mass. 187, *Chamberlain*v. *Crane,*4 N. H. 116, *Cornwall*v. *Gould,*4 Pick. 446, *Richards*v. *Farnham,*13 Pick. 455, *Payson*v. *Whitcomb,*15 Pick. 215, *Worster*v. *Bridge,*16 Pick. 550, *Parker*v. *Brown,*15 N. H. 189, there must be judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict upon the fifth count of the declaration.
DOE F 9325.8

(6-89)

EFG (07-90)

United States Government

memorandum

DATE: August 29 , 1995

REPLY TO

ATTN OF : Terry Logee

S UBJECT: Meeting on Measurement Uncertainty at NIST

TO: Interim Final Lamp Docket

Department of Energy

There was a meeting at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on August 28, 1995 to

discuss measurement uncertainty. The following persons attended:

Ron Daubach - OSI Sylvania

Al Rousseau - Philips

Ed Yandek - GE Lighting

Ron Runckles - National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Yoshi hi ro Ohno - NIST

Steve Treado - NIST

Terry Logee - DOE

Steve Treado led the discussion and said that NIST acknowledges that there are uncertainties in lamp

measurements of lumens, watts and color rendering index. However, NIST and DOE need some data from the

manufacturers to verify their claims for 95% confidence limits and 0.95 derating factor. The

manufacturers agreed to provide this data to DOE/NIST via the NEMA statistics section. There may be

data for incandescent and fluorescent lamps if these two lamp types have di fferent uncertainties. Note

that in the NEMA comments, there was only one confidence limit and derating factor for all lamps.

Lamp manufacturers had also requested a derating factor of .98 for the sample mean due to the

measurement uncertainty associated with transferring the standard lumen value from primary NIST

standard lamps to working standard lamps. Yoshi Ohno agreed that the measurement uncertainty

associated with working standards was indeed 2% but it woul d be randomly distributed, i . e. +/- 2%. The

l amp manufacturers decl ared that the derati ng factor was al so needed to compensate for the 1 ab to 1 ab

uncertainty of about 4% noted from the NVLAP proficiency tests. This entire issue was dropped because

i t was too late i n the rul emaki ng process to verify the magnitude of the factor and to adequately defend

it in the rule.

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 19
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50153 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Leomando Ramos**

**- Lopez,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 642

- 6

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

The attorney appointed to represent Leomando Ramos

- Lopez has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramos

- Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50153 Document: 00515934236 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2021No. 20

- 50153

2 counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 20-50153 Document: 00515934236 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
#### § 122.722 Monthly inspections.

Each survival craft, rescue boat, and launching appliance on a vessel must be inspected monthly, using the manufacturer's instructions, to make sure it is complete and in good order.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.
 HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATIONSeptember 28, 2010
    By:
    /s/ C. Thomas McMillenName:
    C. Thomas McMillenTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer
#### § 113.37-1 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all self-propelled vessels.
Exhibit 14

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-0-27648, 333-100120, 333-10648, 333-106400) pertaining
to the 1996 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan, 1997 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, 1998 and 1999 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan and 2003
Master Stock Option Plan of VocalTec Communications Ltd. (the "Company") and in
the Registration Statement of the Company on Form F-3 (File No. 333-114260) of
our report dated February 10, 2005, except as to note 1(b) which is dated June
27, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
the Company included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Tel-Aviv, Israel                           KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
June 28, 2005                             A Member of Ernst & Young Global

<PAGE>

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-0-27648, 333-100120, 333-10648, 333-106400) pertaining
to the 1996 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan, 1997 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, 1998 and 1999 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan and 2003
Master Stock Option Plan of VocalTec Communications Ltd. (the "Company") and in
the Registration Statement of the Company on Form F-3 (File No. 333-114260) of
our report dated January 30, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of the Company included in its Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.






Tel-Aviv, Israel                                    Luboshitz Kasierer
June 28, 2005                                     An affiliate member of
                                               Ernst & Young International
Don Bell Jr , Section 333 Exemption Petition

January 13 2016 1101 Springfield Rd East Peoria Il 61611 Seeking : Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 C.F.R.45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b) To Wh om It May Concern: I, Don Bell Jr, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures in 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Don Bell Jr , may operate my small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in commercially regulated airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Sincerely, Don Bell Jr 1101 Springfield rd East Peori a Il 61611 Gtr86@aol.com