alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Maude V. ROBERTS, Appellee.

No. 69-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1970.

Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and BeBlois Milledge, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Charles J. Bodner, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

SWANN, Judge.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company brings this interlocutory appeal from orders, in a common law action.

It argues that it was “improperly served” by process when the plaintiff attempted to add it as a party defendant to her law suit for personal injuries against another individual defendant.

We find that the insurance company never properly raised this defense under the requirements of Rule 1.140(b), “RCP”, 30 F.S.A., and Nicholas v. Harry P. Leu Machinery Corp., Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 232.

Next, the insurance company contends that Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, *236223 So.2d 713, applies only to motor vehicle liability coverage and that it does not extend to “homeowners” insurance as involved herein.

This contention has been squarely rejected recently in Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. of Tallahassee, Florida v. Gregory, Fla.App.1969, 230 So.2d 495, 1st D.C.A., filed January 20, 1970. See also Barrios v. Dade County, 38 U.S.L.W. 2393 (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 1970).

The orders of the trial judge herein appealed are

Affirmed.
June 22, 1998



John W. Henry & Company
One Glendinning Place
Westport, Ct. 06880
Attn: Ms. Beth Kenton


         Re:      Management Agreement Renewal
                  Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund L.P.

Dear Ms. Kenton:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made above (the "Management Agreement"). We
would like to extend the term of the Management  Agreement through June 30, 1999
and make the  attached  modification  on Rider 1. All  other  provisions  of the
Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

Please indicate your agreement to and acceptance of this modification by signing
one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel Dantuono
at the address above or fax to 212-723-8985.  If you have any questions I can be
reached at 212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY


By:

Print Name:

DAD/sr
#### Carlton L. STATON v. Russell D. HUTCHINSON.

No. 62053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1978.

In re: Russell D. Hutchinson, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Livingston.

Writ denied: Based upon the two assignments of error, neither of which complain of voiding the election instead of requiring a run-off between the two feuding candidates. See La.R.S. 18:1431, 1432, we find no merit in the application.

SUMMERS, J., would grant this writ.
#### Jessie PAUL v. John L. ROBICHEAUX et al.

No. 62037.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 17, 1978.

In re: Jessie Paul applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of St. Mary.

Writ refused.
#### Janie M. Perkins BUSBY v. John Howard BUSBY.

No. 50363.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 31, 1978.

Meek & Meek, W. Buchanan Meek, Jr., Eupora, for appellant.

Thomas A. Coleman, Ackerman, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Choctaw County; John C. Love, Jr., Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., WALKER and COFER, JJ., and GEORGE F. ADAMS, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
#### Cerine, Appellant, *v.*Cerine.

*357Submitted November 22, 1933.

Before Tkexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld and James, JJ.

A. *A. Vosburg,*and with him *A. Floyd Vosburg,*for appellant.

*George W. Ellis,*for appellee.

February 1, 1934:

Opinion by

Teexler, P. J.,

This is an action of divorce by a husband against his wife, the charges being cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person. President Judge Newcomb, who heard the case, refused to grant the divorce on the ground that what was affirmed on one side, was denied on the other to such an extent that there was no preponderance of proof in favor of the libellant.

After a careful reading of the testimony, we have come to the same conclusion. The libellant testified *358to a number of acts on the part of the wife which standing alone would lend credence to the allegations in the libel. As to some of these occurrences he is corroborated as to the more material matters by an employee, who worked with him. On the other hand, the' respondent categorically denied the occurrences upon which the libellant relied and she is mainly corroborated in her testimony by a daughter who was living with the parties.

There was some evidence, which was not contradicted, and which may properly be considered as affecting his credibility that the libellant approached a witness who was subsequently called on behalf of the respondent and told her he would take care of her if! she would keep away and not say anything of what she knew concerning the case. There was also evidence which indicated that the libellant’s affections had been transferred to another woman. While this matter was not gone into as fully as it might have been because the lower court commented upon the fact that, there was no allusion made to it in the respondent’s answer, there was sufficient testimony by disinterested witnesses to show that the libellant was “running around” with another woman, even if there was no positive proof of criminal intimacy. The husband could not expect the respondent to have the same feeling toward him after she had learned of his philandering. But disregarding this feature of the case, the conclusion of the. lower court is well founded upon the fact, as stated, that there was no preponderance of proof in favor of the libellant, and it follows that the libel was properly dismissed.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.
IN 'THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

1 WALTER MAY, II, I 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LOUIS FOLINO, 

I Respondent. 

Civil Action No. 04-143 Erie 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on June 18, 2004, 

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report 

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recorr~mendation [Doc. No. 121, filed on 

November 30, 2005, recommended that Petitioner's Petition [Doc. No. 31 be denied and 

,that a certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days 

from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified 

mail and on Defendant. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the petition 

and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the 

following order is entered: 

AND NOW, this 1 5'h day of December, 2005; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Petition [Doc. No. 31 is DENIED 

and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 121 of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed 

on November 30, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

S/ Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge 

cm: All parties of record 

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:04-cv-00143-SJM-SPB Document 13 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XVII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date: March 25, 2003               /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                   Title:   Chief Executive Officer
#### Roy Charles HULING, Petitioner, v. FICKLING BROTHERS PLASTERING AND DRY WALL, Employers Liability Assurance and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38318.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 7, 1969.

Cleveland & Shaaber, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

George Stelljes, Jr., of Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date January 21, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

Petitioner’s application 'for attorneys’ fees is also denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS J. KALISZEWSKI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 03-216E

) Judge Sean J. McLaughlin

SHEET METAL WORKERS' ) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

NATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al. )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff's complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on July 8, 2003, and was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan P. Baxter for pretrial proceedings in accordance

with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules

for Magistrates. The case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Lenihan on April 8, 2004.

The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. Nos. 42 and 43), filed

on July 19, 2005, recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31) filed by

Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, and its

Board Trustees, Administrators and Appeals Committee, be denied. Service was made on all

counsel of record. No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. After review of

the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the

following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 5th day of August , 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #31)

filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,

and its Board Trustees, Administrators and Appeals Committee, is DENIED.

Case 1:03-cv-00216-SJM-LPL Document 45 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Lenihan, dated July 19, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

 

cc: Lisa Pupo Lenihan

U.S. Magistrate Judge

James E. Spoden

Walter E. Deacon, III

MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton

100 State St.

Suite 700

Erie, PA 16507

Counsel for Plaintiff

Stephen M. Rosenblatt

601 North Fairfax St.

Suite 500

Alexandria, VA 22314

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:03-cv-00216-SJM-LPL Document 45 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1490

In re: HOWARD WHITE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00214-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: June 14, 2018 Decided: June 18, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard White, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard White petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the 

district court to hold an evidentiary hearing in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

proceeding and directing various individuals to present evidence in that proceeding. We 

conclude that White is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus relief is available only 

when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by White is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. Because White fails to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances where action 

by a panel would be impractical due to the requirements of time,” as necessary to warrant 

consideration by a single judge, see 4th Cir. R. 27(e), we deny White’s “motion for 

expedited emergency hearing.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

s0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148505

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148505

COA: 317705

Monroe CC: 12-039858-FH

KEVIN LEE DEESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 Mears, Gilbert

From: benita campbell <b_j_campbell@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:57 PM To: Mears, Gilbert Subject: Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Please close the TRI evasion gimmick that fa vors oil and gas indu stry. It procured that special favor with money and influence that allows them to avoid reasonable responsibilitie s and accountability that woul d make the marketplace much fairer and would certainly boost the h ealth and well-being of humans and other species.
We all deserve to know exactly what foss il fuel extractors are releasing into our air, water, and land. We cannot have true freedom without th e right to know what the favored oligarchs are doing to us.
The ability of my community to thrive depends on this knowledge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 6/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          43,746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,654
<INVENTORY>                                     12,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,224
<PP&E>                                          28,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,841
<OTHER-SE>                                    (47,274)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,610
<SALES>                                        151,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,558
<CGS>                                           63,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,242
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (612)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
### Geology and ground-water features of Point Arguello Naval Missile Facility, Santa Barbara County, California

By: R. E. EvensonG.A. Miller

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1619F

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Ground-water conditions, Naval Missile Facility, Point Arguello, California(1961)                                    

                                        Ground-water conditions, U. S. Naval Missile Facility, Point Arguello, California, June 1961-June 1962(1962)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7438** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES EARL WALTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00017

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : February 23 , 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Earl Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: James Earl Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as unauthorized and successive . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satis fies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2 003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U. S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walton has not made the requisite showing. Additionally, we note that Walton’s career offender sentence would not be affected by Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) , because it was premised on two prior controlled substance convictions. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1(a), 4B1.2(b) (200 7 ).3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Podner *v.*The State of Ohio.

*Supreme court*— Dismissals—No *constitutional question.*

(No. 17814

Decided April 24, 1923.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Stark county.

*Mr: Joseph M. Blake,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. B. McClmtock,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. J. A. White*and *Mr. Charles M. Earhart,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered by the court that this cause be, and the same hereby is, dismissed on the ground that no constitutional question is involved.

*Dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 4:16-CR-0006-2

:

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

ANTOINE PARIS DAVIS, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

July 6, 2016

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Antoine Davis’ Motion to Sever (ECF 

No. 60) and Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 64) are DENIED.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cr-00006-MWB Document 82 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 1