alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter LAMONTE v. Robert C. MASON.

No. 11303.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 9, 1977.

*1269Cyrus J. Greco, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.

G. William Jarman, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendant-appellee.

Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

This is a suit for rental of a tractor and for damages for necessary repairs. The trial court granted the rental but rejected the cost of repairs. Plaintiff appealed.

The only issue is whether the trial court committed manifest error in finding that plaintiff had not proved the damages by a preponderance of the evidence.

We affirm.

Plaintiff orally rented a tractor to defendant, who used it for several hours before it developed a problem in the fuel system and stopped. After plaintiff and his mechanic came to defendant’s place and remedies the problem, the mechanic noticed that the clutch could not be adjusted properly. An internal inspection conducted at plaintiff’s place either one of two days later revealed extensive damage to the clutch plate.

The trial judge concluded that the plaintiff had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the clutch was damaged by the negligent and abusive operation of the defendant. In order to secure a reversal, plaintiff must show there is no credible evidence in the record to support the conclusion. *Canter v. Koehring,*La., 283 So.2d 716 (1973).

Plaintiff testified that the tractor had been used for two days prior to its rental to defendant without indication of clutch malfunction; defendant testified that it was used by him and his son for about three hours without problem.

The expert mechanic said the clutch was torn apart, not burned out. This damage could occur only by suddenly engaging the clutch while pulling the tractor, or by attempting to pull the tractor with its own power after it had become stuck. He testified he saw two sets of tire marks at defendant’s place one from a truck and another from a tractor.

Defendant, however, testified that although he and his son pulled the tractor from the field after it stopped, he did not “pop” the clutch or do anything else that could be considered harmful to the clutch.

When the evidence is conflicting, the trial court must make a determination as to credibility. We can not say the determination made here was unreasonable.

Plaintiff claims the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof, citing *U-Drive-It, Inc. v. Ernst,*23 So.2d 665 (Orl.La.App.1945). We find the case inapplicable because defendant there had acknowledged receipt of the car in good condition and agreed to return it in like condition. Plaintiff sued him for breach of contract.

In the present'case, plaintiff has affirmatively alleged negligent and abusive use. The trial court required him to prove the case he alleged.

We cannot say the court was manifestly erroneous in finding that plaintiff had not *1270borne his burden of proof. *Billiot v. Bourg,*La., 338 So.2d 1148 (1976).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed; plaintiff is cast with the costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 21

- 00163

- CV
IN RE INTERVENTIONAL PAIN MANAGEMENT, P.A. on behalf of Tracy Hack , Relator Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 23, 2021
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. We have the power to issue writs of mandamus when “agreeable to the pri nciples of law regulating those writs.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a petition and record showing “the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re H.E.B. Grocery
Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Having reviewed the petition , the record, and the response, we conclude relator has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019

- CI

- 01372 pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
# C_2015056EN.01003002.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/30

---

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

(Case T-547/12) (1)

1

(2015/C 056/42)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-1934

_____________

MD MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC

Trading as MacDade Mall Associates, L.P.,

 Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION , INC.

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 11-cv-4068)

District Judge: Hon. Juan R. Sanchez

_______________

Argued

January 8, 2013
2

Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit 

Judges.

(Filed: April 30, 2013)

_______________

Marc B. Kaplin [ARGUED]

Pamela M. Tobin

Kaplin, Stewart, Meloff, Reiter & Stein

910 Harvest Drive

P.O. Box 3037

Blue Bell, PA 19422

 Counsel for Appellant

Richard P. Caldarone

Andrew Tauber [ARGUED]

Mayer Brown

1999 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Heather M. Gamache

John E. Young, IV

Flynn & Wirkus

1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd. - #312

Philadelphia, PA 19102

 Counsel for Appellee

_______________
3

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the above-captioned 

opinion be amended as follows: 

At the top of page 21, in the sentence beginning “The 

railroad‟s argument”, “in Strozyk” shall be deleted, and, in 

the citation that follows, “Stozyk, 358 F.3d at 273” shall be 

deleted and replaced with “See supra at 18-19”. 

On page 22, following the cite to “Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 

... (E.D. Mo. 2010)” insert: “rev’d on other grounds, 690 

F.3d 884, 893-94 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversing as premature the 

grant of summary judgment because the district court had 

raised FRSA regulations for the first time sua sponte and did 

not give plaintiff an opportunity to „submit[] evidence of 

FRSA violations‟ or to separately evaluate whether railroad 

breached duty imposed by FRSA)”.

 /s/ Kent A. Jordan 

Circuit Judge

DATED: May 30, 2013

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2027]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1152-DR]


Washington; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Washington (FEMA-1152-DR), dated January 7, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997,

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Washington, is hereby amended to include an additional category of 
assistance under the Public Assistance program in those areas 
determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared 
a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 7, 
1997:

    The counties of Klickitat, Pend Oreille, and Spokane for 
Category G under Public Assistance. Federal assistance to replace 
trees is not eligible. (These counties have already been designated 
for Categories A-F under Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-2027 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
EXHIBIT 32



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 amended Quarterly Report of Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, and I, Bernard J. Pitz, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.
|Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.,   
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|February 21, 2006         
|                          
|/s/ Bernard J. Pitz       
|Bernard J. Pitz,          
|Chief Financial Officer   



February 21, 2006



This certification accompanies this Report
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0646

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NELS JERRY PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 21, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 14 2022

11/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0646
EXHIBIT 10.40
                                                                   -------------



29 March 2005




Mr. Harold A. Joannidi
10 Birchwood Drive
Cumberland, RI 02864

Dear Mr. Joannidi:

We are pleased offer you the position of Chief Financial Officer of Nestor, Inc.
You will perform the usual and customary duties of chief financial officers of
public companies and will report to the Chief Executive Officer.

You will be compensated at a rate of $125,000 per year. Upon commencement of
your employment, you will receive a grant of options to purchase 100,000 shares
of the common stock of Nestor at their fair market value on the date of grant,
20,000 of which will vest upon the commencement of your employment and the
remainder of which will vest in increments of 20,000 shares on each of the first
four anniversaries of your employment. In addition, you will be eligible for
Nestor's standard benefits package, which includes hospital, surgical, dental
and major-medical coverage. Also, life insurance is provided equal to one year's
base salary. You will be entitled to three weeks vacation, accrued at a rate of
3.75 days per quarter. Nestor observes all recognized federal holidays and
supports a reasonable flextime work policy.

You will be an employee at will of Nestor. Your employment will begin upon your
acceptance of this offer and continue until termination by either party.

You will be asked to sign Nestor's standard forms of confidential disclosure on
the first day of your employment. Fingerprinting and a criminal background check
will also be required.

To indicate your acceptance of this offer, please sign one copy at the bottom
and return it to Nestor. This offer is valid until April 7, 2005.


Very truly yours,

/s/ William B. Danzell
------------------------------
William B. Danzell
Chief Executive Officer



Accepted:


/s/Harold A. Joannidi
------------------------------
Harold A. Joannidi

Date:  March 29, 2005
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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.

Dated:  May 15, 2006                     By:    /s/ Minqing Lu
                                             -------------------
                                                Minqing Lu
                                                Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Walt
      Tatum, Chief Executive Officer of Cyberads, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby
      certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.





Date:
      December 13, 2006




/s/
      WALT TATUM


Walt
      Tatum


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
#### Johnnie Mae Stovall CRAIG v. Jake Edward LAMBERT et al.

No. 49184.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 2, 1977.

Dale & Hathorn, William E. Hathorn, Prentiss, for appellant.

James S. George, Monticello, James M. Abram, Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lawrence County; J. W. Walker, Chancellor.

Before INZER, P. J., and SUGG and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
No. 00-807.

#### Tucker et vir *v.*MTS, Inc., t/a Tower Records, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 21-10216

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00035-MHH-SGC-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CORYE DANIELS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(June 14, 2021)

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 21-10216 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2

W. Scott Brower, appointed counsel for Corye Daniels in his appeal of the 

revocation of his supervised release, has moved to withdraw from further 

representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Daniels’s revocation of supervised release

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-10216 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 2 of 2
#### Sammy BECKLEY, alias v. STATE.

6 Div. 931.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 31, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1976.

*1331Sam A. Beatty and Donald M. Phillips, Northport, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Jack Curtis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOOKOUT, Judge.

Burglary; sentence: thirty years. Rape; sentence: fifteen years and one day.

This Court, on this date, rendered an opinion authored by Cates, P. J., which governs the instant appeal: *Williams v. State,*(1976), Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1325.

The testimony in both cases concerning the selection of jurors is identical. In both instances, there is a random selection from the voters’ list in Tuscaloosa County, excluding persons over the age of sixty-five years. As Judge Cates pointed out in that opinion:

> “Alabama law, Code 1940, T. 30, § 21, as amended, does not exclude persons over 65 from being put on the jury roll. Rather it leaves serving after summons to the individual.

> “The defendant was entitled to a cross section of the community without purposeful exclusion, *Taylor v. Louisiana,*419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690. Since trial was after January 21, 1975, *Taylor*controls. See *Daniel v. Louisiana,*420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790.”

As to the illegality of selecting jurors only from lists of registered voters see *Gregg v. Maples,*286 Ala. 274, 239 So.2d 198 (1970).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur except DeCARLO, J., dissents.

Certiorari denied, Ala., 342 So.2d 1331.
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41460-41461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 275]

United States--Egypt Science and Technology Joint Board; Grants

AGENCY: U.S. Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 41461]]

SUMMARY: This notice announces a science and technology program for 
competitive grants to support international, collaborative projects in 
science and technology between U.S. and Egyptian cooperators.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: August 1, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATES: George Bevan, Program Administrator, U.S.--Egypt 
Science and Technology Grants Program, U.S. Embassy, Cairo/ECON, Unit 
64900, Box 6, APO AE 09839-4900; phone: 011-(20-2) 355-2925; fax: 011-
(20-2) 357-3150; E-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: This program is established under 
22 U.S.C. 2656d and the Agreement for Scientific and Technological 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
    A solicitation for this program will begin August 1, 1997. This 
program will provide modest grants for successfully competitive 
proposals for binational collaborative projects and other activities 
submitted by U.S. and Egyptian experts. Projects must help the United 
States Egypt utilize science and apply technology by providing 
opportunities to exchange ideas, information, skills, and techniques, 
and to collaborate on scientific and technological endeavors of mutual 
interest and benefit. Proposals which fully meet the submission 
requirements as outlined in the Program Announcement will receive peer 
reviews. Proposals considered for funding in Fiscal Year 1998 must be 
postmarked by December 1, 1997. All proposals will be considered; 
however; special consideration will be given to proposals that address 
priority areas defined/approved by the Joint Board. These include 
priorities in the areas of environmental technologies, biotechnology, 
standards and metrology, and manufacturing technologies. More 
information on these priorities and copies of the Program Announcement/
Application may be obtained by request.
Jonathan A. Margolis,
Acting Director, Office of Regional Policy Initiatives, Bureau of 
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, and, 
Chair, U.S.--Egypt S&T Joint Board.
[FR Doc. 97-20466 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-M
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.15
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN  (Effective as of January 1, 2006)
 W I T N E S S E T H
 WHEREAS Company Plan
 WHEREAS Compensation Committee
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 1.2 of the Plan is revised to completely eliminate and remove the
reference therein to Section 8.3 of the Plan.2.
    
    Section 1.7 of the Plan is revised to change the references therein to Section
1.6 to Section 1.7.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 ATTEST:
    
    
    
    SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.By:
    
    /s/ PAMELA L. KUNKEMOELLER
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ RICHARD E. CHANDLER, JR.Name:
    
    Pamela L. Kunkemoeller
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Richard E. Chandler, Jr.Title:
    
    Senior Corporate Counsel and
Assistant Secretary
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
 105
# C_2015146EN.01000402.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

(Case C-594/13) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(g) - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Concept of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ - Temporary-work agency - Hiring out of qualified care workers - Exemption not allowed))

(2015/C 146/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that neither State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplies such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing come within the scope of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ contained in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

1

---