alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Wilson LEJEUNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 3538.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1971.

*80Andrew Vidrine, Church Point and Daniel J. McGee, Mamou, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hall, Raggio, Farrar & Barnett, by Fred L. Cappel, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is a suit by a roughneck for workmen’s compensation benefits arising from an accident allegedly occurring during the month of December, 1968, resulting in total and permanent disability. Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment denying him compensation. We affirm.

The only issue raised in this case is whether or not plaintiff actually experienced an accident.

The burden of proof in a compensation case is upon the plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence, and speculation, conjecture, and mere possibilities are not sufficient to support a judgment. King v. Employers Mutual of Wausau, 220 So.2d 201 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1969).

Plaintiff attempted to prove that he slipped on some ice while in the course of his employment and injured his wrist. The accident was alleged to have occurred during December, 1968. The driller, Calvin Treadway, who was working with the plaintiff at the time of the alleged accident, was not aware that an accident had occurred to the plaintiff, nor was he aware of any report of injury occurring to plaintiff’s right wrist. If such was the case, he would have had an accident report. He only worked one day with the plaintiff during that month and that was the 29th. Plaintiff continued to work until March, when he contends he became disabled. Mr. Ballay, who was the shift foreman at the time of the accident, said that on April 28, 1969, he had a discussion with plaintiff about his right wrist, and at that time he specifically asked plaintiff whether he had an accident to that wrist and plaintiff said no.

Both doctors who testified indicated that at no time had plaintiff told either that he had injured his wrist while on the job. One, in fact, said that plaintiff had given him a history of pain in the wrist for a year prior to the alleged accident. Plaintiff’s wife, testifying for him, said that his wrist had been hurting him before the alleged accident occurred.

Plaintiff alternatively contended that he was rendered disabled because of repeated trauma. However, the evidence fails to establish even one significant injury, much less a series of injuries. The nature of the disease of the wrist itself refutes this.

Plaintiff was suffering from Kienbock’s disease, a vascular necrosis of the carpal lunate, in his wrist. This disease is characterized as a progressive post-traumatic deterioration. The condition occurs from a decreased blood supply resulting from interference with circulation by a fracture to the bone.

The evidence falls short of establishing that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury to his wrist.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The appellant to pay the costs.

Affirmed.
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2013 - Present

FL Traffic Crash Report 2013,

FL Instructions for Completing The Uniform 

Traffic Crash Report Forms 2015

4. Incapacitating Injury A Incapacitating injuries are disabling injuries, such as broken bones, severed limbs, etc. These 

injuries usually require hospitalization and transport to medical facility Injury Severity (INJ)

codes & definitions found on 

Manual pg29 (PDF pg30) & pg92 

(PDF pg93).

Suspected Serious Injury 1998 - 2013

4. Incapacitating Injury A Incapacitating Injury: Any visible signs of injury from the crash and person(s) had to be carried 

from the scene.

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2010 - Present

FL Traffic Crash Report 2010,

FL Instructions For Traffic Crash Report 

Forms 2015

Pedestrian 1 Any person afoot. Any person on foot on a roadway. Non-Motorist Description/Other Useful 

Terms

code found on Manual pg33 (PDF 

pg34), definition found on pg78,97 

(PDF pg79,98).

Other Pedestrian (wheelchair, 

person in a building, skater, 

pedestrian conveyance, etc.)

2 Personal conveyances – such as skateboards, motorized toy cars, and wheelchairs are not 

considered motor vehicles. Non-Motorist Description code and note found on Manual 

pg33 (PDF pg34) . 

Pedalcyclist 2010 - Present

Bicyclist 3 No definition found. Non-Motorist Description code found on Manual pg33 (PDF 

pg34) . 

Other Cyclist 4 No definition found. Non-Motorist Description code found on Manual pg33 (PDF 

pg34) . 

Florida
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27460]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Cell Biology; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Panel for Cell Biology (1136)--(Panel B).
    Date and Time: Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday November 5, 6, 
and 7, 1997 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
390, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Drs. Eve Barak and Richard D. Rodewald, Program 
Directors, for the Cell Biology Program, National Science 
Foundation, Room 655 South, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/306-
1442.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda. To review and evaluate research proposals submitted to 
the Cell Biology Program as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Rebecca M. Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-27460 Filed 10-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Chester Dave WARNOCK, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Henry H. Wells, Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer & Sulik, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Olsen v. State (Fla.1954), 75 So.2d 281; Pruitt v. State (Fla.App.1967), 194 So.2d 656; Branam v. State (Fla.App.1972), 265 So.2d 555.

RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and DREW, Associate Judge, concur.
EX-10.40: AMENDMENT TO 1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



 



EXHIBIT 10.40


                         On November 20, 2002, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. approved the following resolution amending The
Goldman Sachs 1999 Stock Incentive Plan. The Goldman Sachs 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan is filed as Exhibit 10.6 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                         RESOLVED, that, effective as of the date hereof, Section 1.6.1 of the SIP
shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:




		
	 	                         “1.6.1 Total shares available. Subject to adjustment
pursuant to Section 1.6.2, the total number of shares of Common
Stock which may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the
Plan shall not exceed three hundred million (300,000,000) shares.
If, after the effective date of the Plan, any Award is forfeited
or otherwise terminates or is canceled without the delivery of
shares of Common Stock, shares of Common Stock are surrendered or
withheld from any Award to satisfy a grantee’s income tax or other
withholding obligations, or shares of Common Stock owned by a
grantee are tendered to pay the exercise price of any Award
granted under the Plan, then the shares covered by such forfeited,
terminated or canceled Award or which are equal to the number of
shares surrendered, withheld or tendered shall again become
available for transfer pursuant to Awards granted or to be granted
under this Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, but subject to
adjustment as provided in Section 1.6.2, no more than two hundred
million shares of Common Stock shall be delivered pursuant to the
exercise of Incentive Stock Options. The maximum number of shares
of Common Stock with respect to which Options or stock
appreciation rights may be granted to an individual grantee in any
fiscal year shall equal three million five hundred thousand
(3,500,000) shares of Common Stock. Any shares of Common Stock
(a) delivered by GS Inc., (b) with respect to which Awards are
made by GS Inc. and (c) with respect to which GS Inc. becomes
obligated to make Awards, in each case through the assumption of,
or in substitution for, outstanding awards previously granted by
an acquired entity, shall not be counted against the shares of
Common Stock available for Awards under this Plan. Shares of
Common Stock which may be delivered pursuant to Awards may be
authorized but unissued Common Stock or authorized and issued
Common Stock held in GS Inc.’s treasury or otherwise acquired for
the purposes of the Plan.”
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1498

___________________________

Alvaro Lozano-Vega

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: April 1, 2016

Filed: April 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Alvaro Lozano-Vega petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his untimely request to reopen his case

based on changed country conditions–an order that we review under a highly

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262,

1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015); Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2010). 
The BIA carefully considered Lozano-Vega’s supporting evidence, but was not

persuaded that the evidence, some of which was previously available, showed

changed country conditions that would affect Lozano-Vega’s previously expressed

fear of returning to Mexico. See Averianova, 592 F.3d at 936-37. We cannot

conclude that the BIA’s decision was an abuse of discretion, see Zhong Qin Zheng

v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893, 895-96 (8th Cir. 2008); and having considered the other

arguments in the supporting brief, we conclude that none of them provides a basis to

grant the petition before us.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation  
of our report dated February 24, 1997, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements Files No. 33-66624, No. 33-
69990, No. 33-70150, No. 33-85420, No. 33-96508, No. 333-00404, and No. 333-
03795.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
-----------------------
Arthur Andersen LLP


Washington, D.C.
February 28, 1997
Exhibit 10.2




 




Amended schedule of Executives

of the Company who are a party to a Change of Control Agreement:




 




1.     C. M. Jones




2.     B. M. Abzug




3.     G. R. Chadick




4.     R. M. Chiusano




5.     G. S. Churchill




6.     L.A. Erickson




7.     J. J. Gaspar




8.     H. M. Reininga




9.     K. L. Statler
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26805]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-942-5700-00]


Filing of Plats of Survey; CA

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and 
interested state and local government officials of the latest filing of 
Plats of Survey in California.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Unless otherwise noted, filing was effective at 10:00 
a.m. on the next federal work day following the plat acceptance date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance J. Bishop, Chief, Branch of 
Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California State 
Office, 2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825-0451, (916) 978-4310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The plats of Survey of lands described below 
have been officially filed at the California State Office of the Bureau 
of Land Management in Sacramento, CA.

Mount Diablo Meridian, California

T. 16 N., R. 10 E.--Supplemental plat of the SE \1/4\ of section 22, 
accepted September 18, 1997, to meet certain administrative needs of 
the US Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest.
T. 18 N., R. 10 E.--Supplemental plat of section 33 and the W \1/2\ 
of section 34, accepted September 22, 1997, to meet certain 
administrative needs of the BLM, Bakersfield District, Folsom 
Resource Area.

    All of the above listed survey plats are now the basic record for 
describing the lands for all authorized purposes. The survey plats have 
been placed in the open files in the BLM, California State Office, and 
are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the 
survey plats and related field notes will be furnished to the public 
upon payment of the appropriate fee.

    Dated: October 2, 1997.
Lance J. Bishop,
Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey.
[FR Doc. 97-26805 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH

SCIENCES CENTER AT EL PASO,

Appellant,

v.

LYDIA VEGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE ESTATE OF SIRIA BOJORQUEZ,

AND ALL WRONGFUL DEATH

BENEFICIARIES AND AS NEXT

FRIEND OF ISABEL BOJORQUEZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00373

- CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2006

- 809)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the agreed motion to dismiss appeal

, and

concludes the motion should be granted. We therefore set aside the trial court’s order denying

Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of

judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. We further order costs on appeal shall be

taxed in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS S O ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**





I,
      Jonathan LaBarre, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Stamford Industrial Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of Stamford Industrial Group,
      Inc.





Date:
                May 12, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Jonathan LaBarreName:
            Jonathan
                LaBarreTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer, Secretary and
                Treasurer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54113-54114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27510]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


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

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices

[[Page 54114]]

of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than 
October 30, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Jeffery Hirsch, Banking 
Supervisor) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Billy Miller Smith, Hindman, Kentucky; Marcia Lawrence, 
Lexington, Kentucky; Valerie Smith Bartley, Pikeville, Kentucky; Tracey 
Smith Weinberg, Hindman, Kentucky; Carew Smith Barley, Pikeville, 
Kentucky; Benjamin Lee Smith, Archbold, Ohio; Stuart Granby Smith, 
Leburn, Kentucky; Dirk Smith Trust, Hindman, Kentucky; William Dirk 
Smith, Hindman, Kentucky; William Samuel Smith, Archbold, Ohio; 
National City Bank, Trustee for U/W Philip Lawrence, Cleveland, Ohio, 
collectively referred to as the Smith Family; to acquire voting shares 
of Hindman Bancshares, Inc., Hindman, Kentucky, and thereby indirectly 
Hindman Bank, Hindman, Kentucky.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Pat Marshall, Manager of 
Analytical Support, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Wendell A. Jacobson, Fountain Green, Utah; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Bank of Ephraim, Ephraim, Utah.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 10, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-27510 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Curtis Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of RICHFIELD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a Corporation, Debtor, and Pan American Petroleum Company, a Corporation, Subsidiary, for Reorganization. Petitions of SOUTH BASIN OIL COMPANY et al. and of KEELER & COMPANY, for Allowance of Appeals under Section 24(b) of the Bankruptcy Act.

No. 8443.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1937.

Thomas F. Murphy, of New York City, for petitioner Keeler & Co.

Robert M. Pease and Roy P. Dolley, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for all other petitioners.

Bauer, Macdonald, Schultheis & Pettit, of Los Angeles, Cal., Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine & Wood, of New York City, and Chandler, Wright & Ward and Call & Murphey, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for Reorganization Committee.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Norman S. Sterry, all of Los Angeles, Cal.,, for McDuffie, trustee of Richfield.

B. P. Calhoun, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Select Committee, to Investigate Bondholders’ Reorganizations, of the House of Representatives.

Patrick J. Hurley, of Washington, D. G, for Rio Grande Oil Co.

Before GARRECHT and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of oral presentations, and documents filed on petitions for allowance of appeals, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that said petitions, and each of them, be, and hereby is, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,609
<SECURITIES>                                    92,530
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                       944
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,068
<PP&E>                                          17,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,082
<SALES>                                          7,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,725
<CGS>                                            3,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,769)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)


</TABLE>
No. 00-780.

#### Boersig *v.*Union Electric Co. et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.