alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph W. HAREN and Thelma G. Haren, his wife, Appellants, v. Rufus C. SUNDIE, Appellee.

No. 69-678.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 23, 1970.

Bernard Berman and Fred Patrox, Miami, for appellants.

James F. Pollack, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action. The trial court entered a summary final judgment *418for the appellee which was reversed on appeal. See Haren v. Sundie, Fla.App. 1969, 219 So.2d 731. Prior to the filing of that appeal the mortgaged property was sold pursuant to the summary final judgment of foreclosure. Thereafter the trial court tried the issue made by the defendants’ answer and entered a second judgment for the plaintiff appellee but did not set aside the sale made pursuant to the summary judgment, which was reversed.

On this appeal the defendants urge that the final judgment should have ordered a sale of the property so that they might exercise their right of redemption. It is apparent that a sale pursuant to a judgment which has been reversed is not a valid sale. See Housing Authority of the City of Miami v. Macho, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 916.

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a final judgment of foreclosure and to proceed thereon in accordance with established procedure.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Maurice J. BALL, Sr., d/b/a Maurice J. Ball, Sr., Plastering Contractor v. Mr. and Mrs. Carroll J. SERPAS et al.

No. 4659.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 10, 1971.

David M. Smill of LeBrun, Karno, Lockart & Brainis, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.

Christopher T. Grace, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

On motion to dismiss this devolutive appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was filed far beyond the ten-day period of LSA-C.C.P. art. 5002, as amended by Acts 1970, No. 107, plaintiff-appellant argues first that the order of appeal’s wording extended the time for filing until the return day, and alternatively that the 1970 change to ten days from 90 (see Martin v. Martin, La.App.1969, 228 So.2d 355) violates La.Const. art. 1, § 6.

Even if the trial court’s order intended to extend the time for filing the bond (which does not appear to be the case), it could not do so. The Legislature fixes times for appealing from judgments and furnishing the security, and by C.C.P. art. 2088 has provided that the jurisdiction of the court of appeal attaches only on *timely*filing of the appeal bond (where one is required). Since C.C.P. art. 5002 now provides the appeal bond “must be filed” within the ten-day delay allowed for a devolutive appeal, our jurisdiction does not attach unless the bond is timely filed, i. e., within the ten-day period.

Plaintiff-appellant also argues that art. 5002 now conflicts with Const, art. 1, § 6:

> “All courts shall be open, and every person for injury done him in his rights, lands, goods, person or reputation shall have adequate remedy by due process of law and justice administered without denial, partiality or unreasonable delay.”

Plaintiff’s argument is that ten days is too short a period for the litigant whose limited finances might not entitle him to proceed in forma pauperis yet require a longer period to obtain the bond.

*336We see the ten-day period as a reasonable amount of time for filing a bond. We recognize that an extremely short period (e. g., one hour) could be construed as closing the court of appeal to a litigant and denying him remedy for injury. But we believe ten days is not so unreasonably short a period as to be so construed.

We do note the anomaly that this identical case could have been filed in the district court, and there an appellant would have had 90 days to take a devolutive appeal and furnish the bond, C.C.P. art. 2087 (and 15 even for a suspensive one, art. 2123). But plaintiff elected the limited-jurisdiction court, and we believe he has no right to complain that some aspects of the court he elected are not as advantageous as those of the court he did not elect.

We conclude the appeal must be and it is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Clyde DARBONNE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 62219.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1978.

In re: Victoria Lynn Savoie Darbonne, Individually and as natural tutrix of the minor child, Anthony Paul Darbonne and as administratrix of estate of Clyde Darbonne, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. 357 So.2d 1269.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, TATE and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1607 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1607

To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow claims against foreign 
    states for unlawful computer intrusion, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2021

   Mr. Allred (for himself, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Neguse) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow claims against foreign 
    states for unlawful computer intrusion, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland And Cyber Threat Act'' or 
the ``HACT Act''.

SEC. 2. FOREIGN STATE COMPUTER INTRUSIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1605B the following:
``Sec. 1605C. Computer intrusions by a foreign state
    ``A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the 
courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise 
covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a 
foreign state by a national of the United States for personal injury, 
harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property resulting from any 
of the following activities, whether occurring in the United States or 
a foreign state:
            ``(1) Unauthorized access to or access exceeding 
        authorization to a computer located in the United States.
            ``(2) Unauthorized access to confidential, electronic 
        stored information located in the United States.
            ``(3) The transmission of a program, information, code, or 
        command to a computer located in the United States, which, as a 
        result of such conduct, causes damage without authorization.
            ``(4) The use, dissemination, or disclosure, without 
        consent, of any information obtained by means of any activity 
        described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
            ``(5) The provision of material support or resources for 
        any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), 
        including by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign 
        state.''.
    (b) Application.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act 
shall apply to any action pending on or filed on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60494-60495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-32-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Changes In FERC Gas Tariff

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 31, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, proposed tariff sheets to be 
effective December 1, 1997.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to provide for 
two pooling points in the Texok Zone. Two pooling points in the Texok 
Zone will improve Natural's service to its customers by making it 
easier for Natural to timely and accurately schedule and confirm 
volumes that are nominated to be transported to and from the Texok Zone 
pooling points.
    Natural requested any waivers which may be required to permit the 
tendered tariff sheets to become effective December 1, 1997.
    Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
Natural's customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the

[[Page 60495]]

Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29561 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Rouge Resources Ltd. on
Amendment No. 2 to Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: March
   15,  2011

ROUGE RESOURCES LTD.

/s/ Darcy Krell
------------------------------------Darcy Krell, Secretary and Chief
Financial Officer

---
#### Dorothy Simkin STOLIER v. Bert STOLIER.

No. 62314.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1978.

In re: Bert W. Stolier, applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review, to the Court of *622Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 357 So.2d 1334.

Denied.

SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
----

|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   May      6, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Charles N. Eldred        |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Charles      N. Eldred            |
|                                    |   | Executive      Vice President and |
|                                    |   | Chief      Financial Officer      |
|                                    |   | PNM      Resources, Inc.          |

----
ASHRAE 

Attendee List

Attending Last Name First Name Title

Company/

Organization Address/Street City State/ Prov Zip Country Phone Fax 

Amrane Karim Ph.D.

Vice President, Regulatory and Research

Air-Conditioning, Heating

& Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

2111 Wilson BoulevardSuite 500

Arlington VA 22201-3001 USA 703-600-0307 703-562-19

Armstrong Ashley Senior Consultant Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street NW

Suite 500

Washington DC 20006-1301 USA 202-973-4528 202-973-24

Ballo Timothy Associate Attorney Earthjustice 1625 Massachusetts Avenue 

NWSuite 702

Washington DC 20036 USA 202-667-4500 202-667-23

Brookman Doug Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 USA 410-719-0580 410-719-05Carr Belinda Administrative 

Analyst

Energetics Inc. 7067 Columbia Gateway Drive Columbia MD 21046 USA 410-953-6217 410-290-03

Darlington Adam Consultant Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street NW

Suite 500

Washington DC 20006-1301 USA 202-481-7526 202-973-24

Duron-Licona Nery Energy Manager Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command (NAVFAC)

1013 O Street SEBuilding 168Suite 100N WNY

Washington DC 20374-5018 USA 202-685-4363 202-433-22

Edwards Brenda Program Support 

Specialist

Department of Energy (DOE)

1000 Independence Avenue SWMailstop EE-2J

Washington DC 20585 USA 202-586-2945 202-586-46

Harris Jeffrey P. Vice President for 

Programs

Alliance to Save Energy (ASE)

1850 M Street NWSuite 600

Washington DC 20036 USA 202-530-2243 202-331-95

Kendall Mark Manager, 

Engineering and Research

Burnham HydronicsU.S. Boiler Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 3079 Lancaster PA 17604 USA 717-390-7825 717-293-58

Khan Mohammed Program Manager Department of Energy 

(DOE)

1000 Independence Avenue SWMailstop EE-2J

Washington DC 20585 USA 202-586-7892 202-586-46

Parker Graham B. Senior Staff 

EngineerTechnology Planning and Development

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

902 Battelle BoulevardP.O. Box 999MSIN: K6-05

Richland WA 99352 USA 509-375-3805 509-372-43

Pinto Francine Attorney-Advisor 

(General)

Department of Energy (DOE)

1000 Independence Avenue SWMailstop GC-72

Washington DC 20585 USA 202-586-7432 202-586-41

Raymond Kristen Contact Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

450 5th Street NW Washington DC 20530 USA 202-616-5913 N/A 

Sachs Harvey Ph.D

Senior Fellow, Buildings Program

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

529 14th Street NWSuite 600

Washington DC 20045 USA 202-507-4014 202-429-22

Stanonik Frank Chief Technical 

Advisor

Air Conditiong, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

2111 Wilson BoulevardSuite 500

Arlington VA 22201-3001 USA 703-524-8800 703-562-19

Stas Eric Attorney-Advisor 

(General)

Department of Energy (DOE)

1000 Independence Avenue SWMail Stop GC-72

Washington DC 20585 USA 202-586-5827 202-586-41

Winiarski David Senior Research 

Engineer-Energy and Engineering Division

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

P.O. Box 999MSIN K5-08

Richland WA 99352 USA 509-375-4461 509-375-36

Last Rev: 4/8/09 -BC@EI Attendee List 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0013 COMMENT 09
#### Richard M. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41952.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 18, 1972.

Charles W. Musgrove, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The' appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Subsequently, under authority of Furman v. Georgia,1 the Supreme Court of Florida in Anderson et al. v. State,2 reduced the appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. After argument, and upon careful consideration of the record and briefs in this case, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of sentence, is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., and DREW, J., (Retired), concur.

1

. 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (Opinion filed July 17, 1972).

2

. 267 So.2d 8, (Opinion filed September 8, 1972).
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1651 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the sunset for the 

definition of a small business debtor, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1651 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘COVID–19 Bank3 ruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1113 of the CARES Act 

6 (Public Law 116–136) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(5) (11 U.S.C. 1182 note), 

8 by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘2 years’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (b)(2)(B) (11 U.S.C. 101 

10 note), by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘2 years’’. 

11 (b) MODIFICATION OF PLAN AFTER CONFIRMA12 TION.— 

13 (1) Section 1329(d)(1) of title 11, United 

14 States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding 

15 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘this subsection’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘the COVID–19 Bankruptcy Relief Exten17 sion Act of 2021’’. 

18 (2) Section 1113(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the CARES 

19 Act (11 U.S.C. 1329 note) is amended by striking 

20 ‘‘this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘the COVID–19 Bank21 ruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021’’. 

22 (c) BANKRUPTCY RELIEF.—Section 1001 of division 

23 FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public 

24 Law 116–260) is amended by striking ‘‘the date that is 

25 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act’’ each place 

26 the term appears and inserting ‘‘March 27, 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1651 RDS

1 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

2 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

3 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

4 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

5 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

6 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

7 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro8 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

9 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 17, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2006 - Present

UT Investigating Officer's Report of Traffic 

Crash 2006,

UT Investigator's Vehicle Crash Report 

Instruction Manual 2011

04 Incapacitating Injury A

Incapacitating Injury: Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person 

from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of 

performing before the injury occurred, often defined as “needing help from the scene.” 

1. Crash Severity (shown as Injury Level on 

PAR)

codes found on Manual pg48,

definitions found on Manual pg18

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2011 - Present

UT Investigator's Vehicle Crash Report 

Instruction Manual 2011,

UT Investigating Officer's Report of Traffic 

Crash 2006

Pedestrian 03 PEDESTRIAN - Any person afoot. Person Type code found on Manual pg47.

Definition found on Manual pg68.

Scooter/Skater 05 No definition found. Person Type code found on Manual pg47.

Pedalcyclist 2011 - Present

Pedalcyclist 04

BICYCLIST - Anyone riding a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, or in any trailers or sidecars attached to 

a bicycle. Person Type code found on Manual pg47.

definition found on Manual pg65

Utah
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1651 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                        March 24, 2021.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1651) entitled ``An Act to amend the CARES Act to extend the sunset for 
the definition of a small business debtor, and for other purposes.'', 
do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

             Strike section 2(c).

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H.R. 1651

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```