alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BREAKERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Bernard Coniglio and Helen Coniglio, his wife, Ernest Deutsch and Marion Deutsch, his wife, and William Stuart and Beulah M. Stuart, his wife, individaily and collectively, as representatives of a class constituting Individual owners of units in the Breakers Condominium, Appellants, v. VAL ZIMMERMAN CORP., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, August Urbanek and Irene Urbanek, his wife, Kathleen Schmitt as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph L. Schmitt, Deceased, and Kathleen Schmitt, his wife, Co-Op Construction Corporation, a Florida corporation, Collins Construction Corp., a Florida corporation, Charles Micheli, Val Zimmerman and American National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Lauderdale, Appellees.

No. 69-713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 19, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**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**

|                                           |                                           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |                                           |
|                                      |                                      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| *Date:              May 15,              2006* | By:                                  | * /s/              Susan              Luckfield                                 * |
|                                           | *Name: Susan Luckfield*                        |
|                                           | *Title:              Controller*               |
|                                           | *(Principal                Financial Officer)* |

----
Exhibit (4)(b)(ix)



 
Exhibit (4)(b)(ix)

 
GE LIFE AND ANNUITY ASSURANCE COMPANY

FUNDING ANNUITY ENDORSEMENT 
 

 
The Contract, to which this endorsement
is added, is amended as follows: 
 

	 1.	 Add the following Definition: 

 

	     	 FUNDING ANNUITY — The deferred annuity Contract issued and agreed upon by GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company as indicated on the Contract data pages.


 

	 2.	 The Purchase Payments section is amended by adding the following provision: 

 

	     	 Subject to our agreement, you may take withdrawals from the Funding Annuity and allocate amounts: 


	  	 •	 to the Subaccount to fund your Scheduled Installments; or 


	  	 •	 to the Immediate Installment Account. 

 

	     	 We reserve the right to limit the amount that may be allocated to the Subaccount or to the Immediate Installment Account from the Funding Annuity. 

 

	     	 Withdrawals from the Funding Annuity may not be allocated to the Guarantee Account without prior Home Office approval. 

 
This endorsement is effective on the Contract Date unless another date is specified on
the Contract data pages. 
 
For GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company,

 
/s/    PAMELA S. SCHUTZ 
Pamela S. Schutz 
        President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26646]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of November 
1997.

    Name: Maternal and Child Health Research Grants Review Committee
    Date and Time: November 12-14, 1997, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Conference Room ``O'', Parklawn Building, 3rd Floor, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    Open on Wednesday, November 12, 1997, 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. 
Closed for remainder of meeting.
    Agenda: The open portion of the meeting will cover opening 
remarks by the Director, Division of Science, Education and 
Analysis, who will report on program issues, congressional 
activities and other topics of interest to the field of maternal and 
child health. The meeting will be closed to the public on November 
12 at 10:00 a.m. for the remainder of the meeting for the review of 
grant applications. The closing is in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the 
Determination by the Acting Associate Administrator for Management 
and Program Support, Health Resources and Services Administration, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Anyone requiring information regarding the subject Council 
should contact Gontran Lamberty, Dr.P.H., Executive Secretary, 
Maternal and Child Health Research Grants Review Committee, Room 
18A-55, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 
20857, Telephone (301) 443-2190.

    Agenda Items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Dated: September 30, 1997.
Jane M. Harrison,
Acting Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination, HRSA.
[FR Doc. 97-26646 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. A. LEWIS & CO. et al.*

No. 5970.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1936.

Ellis N. Slack, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Franz W. Castle, of Chicago, 111., for respondent.

Before EVANS, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY and BRIGGLE, District Judges.

*

Writ of certiorari granted 57 S. Ct. 669, 81 *It,*Ed. —.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and this cause now comes on to be heard on the printed record and briefs of counsel and on oral arguments.

On consideration whereof • it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the decision entered in this cause on July 18, 1935, by the United States Board of Tax Appeals be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said United States Board of Tax Appeals.
#### STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHITE ADVERTISING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6277.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1978.

Sanders, Downing, Kean & Cazdessus by R. Gordon Kean, Jr., Baton Rouge, Plauche, Smith, Hebert & Nieset by Reid K. Hebert, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

Jonathan C. Harris, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and JOHNSON, JJ.

FORET, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the companion case of *State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. National Advertising Company,*356 So.2d 557 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1978), in which a separate decision has been rendered by us on this date, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants in these consolidated cases, each appellant to bear costs equal to the proportion which the number of signs in issue owned by it bears to the total number of signs in issue owned by all the appellants.

AFFIRMED.
#### ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Johnnie M. TURPAK, as Executrix of the Estate of Harold Turpak, deceased, Appellee.

Nos. 70-162, 70-163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 19, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Robert Joseph ZUBATY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TONY PUNCH, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 12-154E

)

v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon

) Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Having carefully reviewed the transcript of the Motions Hearing on June 17, 2015 

(see Doc. 118), the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s ruling regarding the 

subpoenas directed to Plaintiffs’ former counsel was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to 

law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (reciting standards of review governing magistrate judges’ nondispositive rulings). Accordingly, Dollar Connection’s Objections (Doc. 119) are 

OVERRULED, and Judge Baxter’s ruling is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 2, 2015 s\Cathy Bissoon

Cathy Bissoon

United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:12-cv-00154-CB-SPB Document 124 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 1
110 STAT. 1320 PUBLIC LAW 104–133—APR. 25, 1996

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3034:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

Apr. 16, considered and passed House.

Apr. 18, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–133

104th Congress

An Act

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to extend

for two months the authority for promulgating regulations under the Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘18 months’’ and inserting ‘‘20 months’’.

Approved April 25, 1996.

Apr. 25, 1996

[H.R. 3034]
#### Lloyd H. HURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2938.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 18, 1969.

*358Gold, Hall & Skye, Alexandria (William E. Skye, Alexandria, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble, by David Hughes, Stafford & Pitts, by John L. Pitts and James M. Small, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY and HOOD, JJ-

SAVOY, Judge.

This matter involves property damages to plaintiff’s car incurred when it was struck by a vehicle driven by Mrs. John Caraway, owned by her husband, and insured by defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff sued State Farm for the property damage to his vehicle. State Farm filed a general denial, and by supplemental petition, made a third party demand against Alexandria Volkswagen, Inc., alleging negligence in certain particulars against it; specifically, that it failed to properly repair the brakes on the Caraway vehicle, thereby causing the accident sued on. Alexandria Volkswagen filed a general denial.

After a trial on the merits the district judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Alexandria Volkswagen, Inc., in the sum of $228.46. The suit against State Farm was dismissed.

Only plaintiff has appealed and solely on the question of quantum.

Several experts testified as to the damages sustained to plaintiff’s car. The court, in its written opinion, noted that the evidence of the experts was conflicting.

Apparently the trial judge was impressed with the appraisal of C. B. Maybou, for he accepted Maybou’s figure in awarding judgment. We cannot say that the trial judge committed error in accepting the lowest bid submitted.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at appel-pant’s costs.

Affirmed.
#### Arthur FRAZIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
##### 





EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of ProxyMed, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory J.
Eisenhauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ GREGORY J. EISENHAUER, CFA

---




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ProxyMed, Inc. and will be retained by ProxyMed, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Orville COON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIKING EXPLORATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6211.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1978.

Wm. Henry Sanders, Jena, for plaintiff-appellant.

Griffing & Scott, George F. Griffing, Jonesville, Stafford, Randow, O’Neal & Smith, Hodge O’Neal, III, Gist, Methvin & Trimble, David A. Hughes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, WATSON and JOHNSON, JJ.

WATSON, Judge.

This suit was brought by Orville Coon against his employer, Viking Explorations, Inc., to recover workmen’s compensation benefits after an accident on August 31, 1974. The claim was compromised for $4,500. The workmen’s compensation suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with *748our docket no. 6210, *Orville Coon v. W. S. Blaney, Jr., d/b/a W. S. Blaney, Jr. Construction Company,*353 So.2d 744, which is a tort action against third party Blaney, whose negligent construction allegedly caused plaintiff's accident. The workmen’s compensation claim is not at issue except for Viking’s third party demand against Blaney for recovery of the amount of the compensation settlement. Other defendants in the compensation suit are not involved in the appeal.

For the reasons assigned in docket no. 6210, *Coon v. Blaney,*353 So.2d 744 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977) the trial court judgment dismissing Viking’s third party demand against Blaney is affirmed at the cost of Viking.

AFFIRMED.
# table_4_QW-exceedances

# table_6_Tukey_lithosubgrp

# table_1-1_lithgroups

# table_1-2_State_Geology_attrib

# table_1-3_site-data

# table_1-4_QW-data

# table_1-4a_parameter_descrip

# table_1-5_QW-stats

# table_1-6_Tukey_lithogrp

# table_1-7_QW-corr
REFER TO: 

hNG-14 

Ray C. Minor, P. E. 

Manager of Engineering 

Hapco Division 

P.O. Box 547 

Abingdon, Virginia 24210 

Dear Mr. Minor: 

This is in response to your February 20 letter to Mr. Thomas 0. Willett 

requesting the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of your 

company's number 69338-002 Cast Aluminum Transformer Base and your number 

67238 Impact Safety Coupling. Submitted with your letter was a report by the 

Southwest Research Institute, "Pendulum Test Report of Lighting Support Pole 

Tests H-l, H-Z, and H-3." 

The information provided for the transformer base is insufficient to document 

its design. We will need complete dimensionaldetails for the tested base 

before we can complete our review. Therefore, we will suspend our review of 

the transformer base until this information is submitted. 

Four Impact Safety Couplings mounted under a 556-pound aluminum luminaire 

support system with a 15-foot mast arm and a 54-foot mounting height were 

tested at 20 m.p.h. Impact was with an 1,800-pound pendulum with a crushable 

nose simulating the front end of a mini-compact automobile (test H-3). The 

change in velocity was 5.0 feet-per-second. The calculated velocity change 

for a 60 m.p.h. test was 9.6 feet-per-second. The coupling is shown on the 

enclosed Drawing Number 9 67238 "Impact Safety Coupling." 

.This information shows that the actual test and calculated changes in vehicle 

velocity and pole stub height for the Impact Safety Coupling meet the 

provisions of Section 7 of the 1985 American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials "Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for 

Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals." 

Therefore, the tested Impact Safety Coupling No. 67238 will be acceptable for 

use on Federal-aid projects, within the range of conditions tested, if 

proposed by a State. One of the test conditions was that the test pole was 

10 inches in diameter and had a l/4-inch wall thickness. Our acceptance does 

not extend to poles with greater base diameters or thinner walls. 

This acceptance is limited to breakaway characteristics of the couplings and 

does not cover their structural features. Presumably, you will supply 

potential users with sufficient information on structural design and 

installation requirements to ensure proper base performance. We anticipate 

that the States will require certification from Hapco that couplings furnished 
2 

have essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as 

those used in the tests and that poles mounted on the couplings will meet the 

FHWA breakaway requirements. 

Sincerely yours, 

cd Q, /-L&zn 

L. A. Staron 

Federal-Aid and Design Division 

Enclosure
258 La. 352

#### Wayne Arthur TILLMAN v. HOLSUM BAKERIES, INC., Travelers Insurance Company and Thomas Guidry.

No. 51301.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 14, 1971.

In re: Wayne Arthur Tillman applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 244 So.2d 681.

Application is denied; the judgment is correct.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 33-82982, 33-97024, 333-25769, 333-49497,
333-59245) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-69516, 33-69518, 33-69520, 33-84706,
333-50874, 33-88030, 33-92970, 33-92998, 333-04535, 333-29059, 333-29975,
333-29977, 333-34119, 333-38490, 333-38494, 333-56747, 333-56749, 333-80623)
of Genzyme Transgenics Corporation of our reports dated February 27, 2001
relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference
into those Registration Statements of our report, dated February 27, 2001 on
our audits of the financial statements of ATIII LLC which report is also
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference
to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2001
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 98-722 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ATOMIC ENERGY 

Safety 

 Agreements Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and UKRAINE Extending the 

Agreement of October 25, 1993

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kiev July 22, 1998 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kiev February 6, May 6 and 8, 2009 

and 

Agreement Amending and Extending the 

Agreement of October 25, 1993 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kiev April 5 and 23, 2004 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 UKRAINE 

 Atomic Energy: Safety 

Agreements extending the agreement of October 25, 1993. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Kiev July 22, 1998; 

Entered into force July 22, 1998. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Kiev February 6, 

 May 6 and 8, 2009; 

Entered into force May 7, 2009. 

And agreement amending and extending the 

 agreement of October 25, 1993. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Kiev 

 April 5 and 23, 2004; 

Entered into force April 23, 2004. 













NOTE: This is an unofficial translation provided by the Government of Ukraine. When the official English translation becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William M. OWRA, Relator, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY and T. W. Stewart & Associates, Respondents.

No. 77-1050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

William M. Owra, in pro. per.

Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondents.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

HAVERFIELD, Judge.

Claimant, William M. Owra, by way of certiorari seeks review of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission that his appeal to the appeals referee was untimely.

On January 10,1977 the claims examiner mailed a notice of claims determination to petitioner disqualifying him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner had 10 days from the date of mailing (or until January 20, 1977) to appeal this determination; however, he never received the notice. Petitioner first learned of the disqualification when he appeared at the local claims office on January 21, his normal reporting date, and thereupon he immediately filed an appeal. The appeals referee determined that under the circumstances petitioner’s appeal was timely and reversed the disqualification determination of the claims examiner. Petitioner's employer appealed the appeals referee’s decision to the Industrial Relations Commission. On April 19 the Commission entered an order determining that petitioner’s January 21 appeal to the appeals referee was untimely, and the appeals referee lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s appeal as the determination of the claims examiner became final on January 20. The order quashed the decision of the appeals referee and reinstated the disqualification determination of the claims examiner. Petitioner argues his appeal to the appeals referee was timely.

On two previous occasions this court has been presented with the identical jurisdictional issue and we determined that the denial of an appeal under similar factual circumstances amounts to a denial of due process. See *State ex rel. Martinez v. Fla. Div., etc.,*339 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and *Polatnick v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce,*349 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We find likewise in the ease at bar and hereby treat this cause as a petition for writ of mandamus and hold that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of such a peremptory writ.

The April 19 order of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed, the decision of *770the appeals referee is reinstated and the cause is remanded to the Commission with directions to consider the appeal by petitioner’s employer from the decision of the appeals referee on the merits and to hold a hearing. We assume these directions will be followed without the necessity for the issuance of a final peremptory writ of mandamus.

So ordered.