alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arnold E. McMILLION, Appellant, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. L-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1970.

Hall, Hartwell & Hall, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Horne, Rhodes, Brown & Stephens, Tallahassee, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an adverse final judgment based upon a directed verdict entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County (Walker, J.) at the close of plaintiff’s case.

The only point on appeal was whether or not there was sufficient evidence on the matter of Sinclair’s control of Eli P. Roberts, (a local marketer for Sinclair) to create a issue of fact for the jury, thus precluding entry of a directed verdict for the defendant Sinclair.

From the facts as shown, it appears that the appellant here, who was plaintiff below, was injured as a result of a collision between a pickup truck in which the plain*152tiff was riding and an oil delivery truck, alleged to be a “Sinclair Oil delivery truck”. The complaint alleges that the truck was owned by Eli P. Roberts d/b/a Eli Roberts Sinclair Marketer, but was being used in a joint venture with Sinclair Refining Company. By later amendment to the complaint, the plaintiff alleged a partnership and joint venture between Eli P. Roberts and Sinclair Refining Co. and in the alternative that Eli P. Roberts d/b/a Eli Roberts Sinclair Marketer, was acting as agent, servant, factor or employee of .Sinclair Refining Company.

The facts developed that Eli P. Roberts, with consent of the court, settled with the plaintiff, without prejudice to plaintiff proceeding against Sinclair. Order to this effect was entered and the cause proceeded to trial against Sinclair only. This appeal involves Sinclair only, also. Also it was shown by the evidence that Eli P. Roberts did market Sinclair products, had Sinclair’s color and name on the trucks, but admittedly, the trucks were owned by Mr. Roberts. The type of truck, the size of truck and the routes and schedules were completely under the control of Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts employed the drivers of said trucks, retained control of their wages, times of work and the right to fire and generally control. Sinclair had no voice in this phase of the operation.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as to its liability, hence this appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the testimony, records and briefs, and given due consideration to the able arguments of respective counsel, and have concluded that the law as laid down in Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664, 114 So. 503 and Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Fla.App., 124 So.2d 517, should control our decision in this case. The facts in said cases are fairly similar to the facts in this case and we agree with the trial court that no liability on the part of Sinclair was shown to exist. We therefore affirm the judgment appealed from.

CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
THE SPI~fT' OF ALASKA 

April30, 2012 

Dockets - Dockets OST 96-1960 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room PL 401 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Peninsula Airways d/b/a PenAir operated in partnership with Alaska Airlines - Family 

Assistance Program 

(.• ·;. I ' 0 

Certain of PenAir's Part 121 operations are conducted in partnership with Alaska Airlines, Inc., 

under code-sharing or capacity purchase arrangements. The Alaska Airlines family assistance 

plan (which we understand is on file with your office) will apply such flights; That plan-conta1ns 

the elements required under the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996, as amended, 

and those specified in Vision 100. In the event of an accident or incident involving an Alaska 

Airlines-coded, PenAir-operated flight, Empathia, Inc. (formerly EAS, Inc.) will provide next of kin 

notification and other support services. Please refer to that plan for aQditional information. 

The Alaska Airlines Emergency Response plan outlines· responsibilities in addressing the airline 

victim support tasks within the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Plan in greater detail. 

Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me at •••••or via email at 

Brian.whilden@penair.com. 

Sincerely, 

~ Vice President, Safety I Compliance 

1 info@penair.com 1 penair.com
Exhibit 21(1)


                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                            PROMUS HOTEL CORPORATION

                                          Jurisdiction  Percentage     Date
                                               of           of          of
Name                                      Incorporation Ownership  Incorporation
----                                      ------------- ---------  -------------

Ziwa Insurance, Inc.*                        Vermont       100%
(Wholly-Owned Insurance Company)

Promus Hotels, Inc.                          Delaware      100%      05/10/95
    Buckleigh, Inc.                          Delaware      100%      08/24/87
    Compass, Inc.                            Tennessee     100%      11/16/94
    EJP Corporation                          Delaware      100%      10/31/91
        Suite Life, Inc.                     Delaware      100%      07/11/86
    Embassy Development Corporation          Delaware      100%      08/24/87
    Embassy Equity Development Corp.         Delaware      100%      08/24/87
        Embassy Syracuse Development         Delaware      100%      03/06/91
          Corporation
        Southfield Hotel Management,         Florida       100%      09/10/91
          Inc.
    Embassy Memphis Corporation              Tennessee     100%      12/03/92
    Embassy Pacific Equity Corporation       Delaware      100%      01/24/89
    Embassy Suites Club No. 1, Inc.          Kansas        100%      01/19/84
    Embassy Suites Club No. Two, Inc.        Texas          49%      03/13/84
    Embassy Suites Club No. Three, Inc.      Louisiana     100%      11/03/94
    Embassy Suites De Mexico, S.A.DE**       Mexico         96%      08/01/90
    Embassy Suites (Isla Verde), Inc.        Delaware      100%      12/21/93
    Embassy Suites (Puerto Rico), Inc.       Delaware      100%      05/25/89
    Embassy Vacation Resorts, Inc.           Delaware      100%      03/03/94
    EPAM Corporation                         Delaware      100%      01/24/89
    ESI Development, Inc.                    Tennessee     100%      12/06/84
    ESI Mortgage Development                 Delaware      100%      04/10/89
      Corporation
    ESI Mortgage Development                 Delaware      100%      03/24/92
      Corporation II
    Hampton Inns, Inc.                       Delaware      100%      03/23/84
        GOL (Texas), Inc.                    Texas          49%      02/28/89
    Old Town Hotel Corporation               Delaware      100%      08/17/94
    Pacific Hotels, Inc.                     Tennessee     100%      11/03/88
        ATM Hotels Pty Limited***            Australia     100%      05/25/90
    Promus Hotel Services, Inc.              Delaware      100%      05/12/95
    Promus Hotels Florida, Inc.              Delaware      100%      05/12/95
    Promus Hotels Minneapolis, Inc.          Delaware      100%      10/31/95

*    In process of being formed
**   In process of being dissolved
***  50% Pacific Hotels, Inc., 50% Promus Hotels, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 
Initial Review Group:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Name of Committee: Clinical and Treatment Subcommittee.
    Dates of Meeting: October 30-31, 1997.
    Time: October 30, 8:30 a.m. to recess. October 31, 8:30 a.m. to 
adjournment.
    Place of Meeting: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Elsie D. Taylor, 6000 Executive Blvd, Suite 409, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-443-9787.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.271, Alcohol 
Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 
93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research 
Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; and 93.891, Alcohol 
Research Center Grants; National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-24753 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49149-49150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24953]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 7, 10, 148 and 178

[T.D. 97-75]
RIN 1515-AB14


Duty-Free Treatment of Articles Imported From U.S. Insular 
Possessions

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to the document published in 
the Federal Register which set forth final amendments to the Customs 
Regulations to clarify and update the legal requirements and procedures 
that apply for purposes of obtaining duty-free treatment on articles 
imported from insular possessions of the United States other than 
Puerto Rico. The correction involves the control number assigned by the 
Office of Management and Budget in connection with the approval of the 
collection of information provided for in the final regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective October 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monika Rice, Office of Regulations and 
Rulings (202-482-7049).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 3, 1997, Customs published in the Federal Register (62 
FR 46433) as T.D. 97-75 a final rule document setting forth amendments 
to

[[Page 49150]]

the Customs Regulations to clarify and update the legal requirements 
and procedures that apply for purposes of obtaining duty-free treatment 
on articles imported from insular possessions of the United States 
other than Puerto Rico. That final rule document provided for an 
October 3, 1997, effective date for the regulatory amendments contained 
therein.
    The amendments in T.D. 97-75 included an update of the list of 
information collection approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
contained in Sec. 178.2 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 178.2). 
Although the discussion of the Paperwork Reduction Act in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of T.D. 97-75 correctly set forth the 
control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as 
1515-0200, the amendment to Sec. 178.2 incorrectly listed the OMB 
control number as 1515-0055. This document corrects this error.

Correction to the Final Regulations

    On page 46443, in the table under Sec. 178.2, in the column headed 
``OMB control number'', the entry ``1515-0055'' is corrected to read 
``1515-0200''.

    Dated: September 11, 1997.
Harold M. Singer,
Chief, Regulations Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-24953 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
#### Helen FAIRCHILD and Russell Fairchild v. C. Verne BRIAN et al.

No. 61759.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: C. Verne Brian, Stanocola Employees Medical and Hospital Assoc, and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.
Exhibit 21



         The Company owns, either directly or through wholly owned subsidiaries,
100% of the capital stock of each of the following corporations:

         ARS Acquisition II, Inc. (Delaware)
         American Merger Corporation (Delaware)
         American Radio Systems License Corp. (Delaware)
         American Tower Systems Holding Corporation (Delaware)
         American Tower Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
         Radio Systems of Miami, Inc. (Delaware)
         Radio Systems of Philadelphia, Inc. (Pennsylvania)

         The Company owns, either directly or through wholly owned subsidiaries,
25% of the outstanding  capital stock of Radio Data Group,  Inc.  (Virginia),  a
50.1%  interest  in ATS  Needham,  LLC  and a 32.5%  interest  in  Briar  Summit
Wireless, LLC.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2747 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2747

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty three

                                 An Act

 
    To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the 
      Administrative Fine Program for certain reporting violations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINE PROGRAM.
    Section 309(a)(4)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(v)) is amended by striking ``December 
31, 2023'' and inserting ``December 31, 2033''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Vincent CARONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 10, 1978.

John M. Edman, of Meros, Coit, Edman, Meros & Smith, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Chief Judge.

The appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess more than 100 pounds of marijuana. He filed several motions to dismiss which were denied. He then pled nolo contendere and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions.1

For purposes of the motions to dismiss, the appellant conspired with others in Florida to obtain a large quantity of marijuana from Colombia which would be brought to the United States. The appellant gave one of his confidantes $150,000 with which to make an initial payment in Colombia. The appellant made an additional payment for the marijuana to an undercover agent in Pinellas County. The marijuana was transported to Michigan where it was seized. The marijuana was never within the State of Florida, nor was there any evidence that the appellant intended to bring any of the marijuana into the State of Florida.

Appellant contends that since he could not be convicted in Florida of the crime of possession of marijuana, he could not be convicted in Florida of conspiracy to possess the marijuana. Appellant’s contention is laid to rest by the provisions of Section 910.005(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), which states:

> 910.005 State criminal jurisdiction.—

> (1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense that he commits, while either within or outside the *438state, by his own conduct or that of another for which he is legally accountable, if:

> 

> (d) The conduct within the state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit in another jurisdiction an offense under the laws of both this state and the other jurisdiction.

The same result has been reached by other states without the benefit of a statute because the gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is deemed to be the combination and agreement. *State v. Pooler,*141 Me. 274, 43 A.2d 353 (1945); *State v. Davis,*203 N.C. 13, 164 S.E. 737 (1932). *See*W. LaFave & A. Scott, *Criminal Law,*Sec. 17, p. 121 (1972).

This is not a case in which one cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit a substantive offense because the substantive offense is not a crime. *See State v. Coleman,*131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357 (1938). Possession of marijuana is a crime both in Florida and in Michigan.

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant was also charged with possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana, but this charge was later dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-95799) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Video
Network Communications, Inc. of our report dated April 4, 2002,
except for Note 16, as to which the date is May 17, 2002, with respect to
the financial statements of Video Network Communications, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



| | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Ernst & Young LLP
| | -----------------------------------------

Manchester, New Hampshire
April 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         324,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,137
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               553,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (551,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (551,596)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (551,596)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2671 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing a rule or promulgating a regulation requiring certain 

vehicles to be equipped with speed limiting devices, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mr. LEE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. 

WICKER, and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration from issuing a rule or promulgating a regulation requiring certain vehicles to be 

equipped with speed limiting devices, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deregulating Restric5 tions on Interstate Vehicles and Eighteen-wheelers Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘DRIVE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2671 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING SPEED LIMITING DE2 VICES. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Ad4 ministrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis5 tration may not issue any rule or promulgate any regula6 tion to require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more 

7 than 26,000 pounds operating in interstate commerce to 

8 be equipped with a speed limiting device set to a maximum 

9 speed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 15

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.:

The Owners of
Bottling Group, LLC:

With respect to the  registration  statements  listed below,  we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated  September 30, 2003,  except as
to Note 11,  which is as of October  7, 2003  related to our review of The Pepsi
Bottling  Group,  Inc.  interim  financial  information  and  our  report  dated
September 30, 2003, except as to Note 10, which is as of October 7, 2003 related
to our review of Bottling Group, LLC interim financial information.

  o    Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999          (File No. 333-79357)
  o    Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999          (File No. 333-79369)
  o    Form S-8 dated May 27, 1999          (File No. 333-79375)
  o    Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999          (File No. 333-79365)
  o    Form S-8 dated June 14, 1999         (File No. 333-80647)
  o    Form S-8 dated May 8, 2001           (File No. 333-60428)
  o    Form S-8 dated September 19, 2001    (File No. 333-69622)
  o    Form S-8 dated November 14, 2001     (File No. 333-73302)
  o    Form S-8 dated October 28, 2002      (File No. 333-100786)

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the  Securities  Act of 1933 (the Act),  such reports
are not considered part of a registration  statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or reports prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                               /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
October 17, 2003
256 La. 253

#### Larry Lee WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50567.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: American Employers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 233 So.2d 630.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final.