alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lawrence NETTIE v. Antonio Vincent CARRACI and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York.

No. 4450.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 10, 1971.

Rehearing- Denied June 7, 1971.

Donald B. Ruiz, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Drury, Lozes & Curry, Rene A. Curry, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before REGAN, CHASEZ and BOU-TALL, JJ.

REGAN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Lawrence Nettie, filed this suit against the defendants, Antonio Car-raci, and his liability insurer, The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, endeavoring to recover damages for personal injuries which he asserts he incurred when he fell down a flight of stairs in the residence owned by Carraci.

Defendants answered by virtue of a general denial and then affirmatively asserted that the fall was caused entirely by plaintiff’s negligence in failing to observe where he walked. In the alternative, they pleaded that he was contributorily negligent.

From a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit, he has prosecuted this appeal.

Our review of the pleadings and the testimony convinces us that the plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence by a preponderance of credible evidence. It is apparent plaintiff’s pleadings, deposition prior to trial and finally his testimony are too contradictory to permit us to attach credibility to any of his statements. In his petition he asserted that he was painting upstairs in a residence owned by Carraci, and tripped over an object on the landing at the top of the stairs. In the course of the trial he testified that he was not painting, but was returning from closing the upstairs windows when he fell. This time he recounted tripping on the first or sec*367ond step from the top. According to plaintiff’s description the steps were uneven and he once approximated each step slanted sidewise as much as forty-five degrees. According to the photographs introduced in evidence by the defendants, the steps appear to be straight, safe and have a uniform pitch.

Since the plaintiff was the only witness to the accident and since we find his testimony totally lacking in credulity, we are compelled to reach the inevitable conclusion, as did the lower court, that the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim with that certainty that the law requires.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1997 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the TRICARE program 

for certain members of the Retired Reserve of the reserve components. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio (for himself and Mr. PHILLIPS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the 

TRICARE program for certain members of the Retired 

Reserve of the reserve components. 

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 ‘‘TRICARE Fairness 

5 for National Guard and Reserve Retirees Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRICARE FOR MEMBERS OF THE RETIRED RE7 SERVE. 

8 (a) ADJUSTMENT OF ELIGIBILITY.—Paragraph (2) 

9 of section 1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

10 amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1997 IH

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member or 

2 former member eligible for retired pay for non-regular 

3 service under chapter 1223 of this title who is under 60 

4 years of age unless such member or former member is in 

5 receipt of such pay (or would be in receipt of such pay 

6 but for section 5304 or 5305 of title 38).’’. 

7 (b) TRICARE RETIRED RESERVE.—Section 

8 1076e(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘who is quali10 fied for a non-regular retirement at age 60 under 

11 chapter 1223 of this title, but is not age 60,’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘described in paragraph (3)’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(3) A member of the Retired Reserve of a reserve 

16 component of the armed forces is described in this para17 graph if the member— 

18 ‘‘(A) is qualified for a non-regular retirement at 

19 age 60 under chapter 1223 of this title; 

20 ‘‘(B) is not age 60; and 

21 ‘‘(C) is not in receipt of retired pay under such 

22 chapter, unless the member is not in receipt of such 

23 retired pay due to the application of section 5304 or 

24 5305 of title 38.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1997 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect January 1, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
COASTAL CARIBBEAN OILS & MINERALS, LTD.

FORM 10-Q

PART II - OTHER
INFORMATION

EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals,
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Phillip W. Ware, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

|                   |                                           | 
|------------------ | ----------------------------------------- | 
|Date: July 5, 2005 | By /s/ Phillip W. Ware                    | 
|                   |                                           | 
|                   | Phillip W. Ware
  President and Treasurer | 

---
#### Minnie K. STALLWORTH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Benjamin Stallworth, Deceased, Appellant, v. SUPERIOR DAIRIES, INC., a/k/a Skaff's Superior Dairy and Nezzar Chalston Battle, Appellees.

No. FF-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1978.

R. P. Warfield of Levin, Warfield, Mid-dlebrooks, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellant.

John E. Houser, Jacksonville, for appel-lees.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit an expert witness called by her to testify on rebuttal as to the exact point of impact between the two vehicles involved in the accident which gave rise to this case. The record reveals that in response to the question “Do you have an opinion as to generally where the two vehicles came together?” appellant’s expert gave his opinion during the case in chief as to the general area of impact between the two vehicles. Appellees’ expert in his testimony gave an opinion pinpointing the point of impact at the spot where gouge marks had been found by accident investigators. Appellant’s counsel then recalled his expert on rebuttal and asked the following question: “Do you have an opinion as to the approximate point of impact of these two vehicles?” Appellees’ counsel objected, and after a colloquy in which the trial judge stated that he remembered appellant’s counsel had asked that question during her case in chief, the objection was sustained and the question withdrawn. On that set of facts, we fail to find reversible *951error. The question asked by appellant’s counsel on rebuttal was virtually identical to one he had asked during the expert’s earlier testimony, and the expert’s lengthy testimony during the case in chief and on rebuttal adequately established for the jury’s consideration his conception of how the accident had occurred.

Although we have already expressed our opinion of affirmance, we feel it pertinent to note in addition that appellant’s counsel withdrew the question upon which this appeal is based. While it is no longer necessary under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470, to take an exception to an adverse ruling in order to preserve a point on appeal, we do not think that it is proper for an appeal to be based on a matter which is affirmatively removed from consideration by the party at the trial level. There can be no error in a trial court’s ruling on such a matter because any ruling becomes immaterial after the question creating the objection is withdrawn.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
|   | a) | designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | c) | evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | d) | disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                |   |   |   |
| Dated:  December 17, 2010 |   |   |   | By:    |   | /s/ ZHU Mingzi                |
|                                |   |   |   |   |   | ZHU MingziChief Executive and Financial Officer |
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1891 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2021 

Mr. SCHRADER (for himself, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, 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. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMEND4 MENT. 

5 Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly 

6 known as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’) (102 Stat. 

7 1594) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘lands within 

9 the State of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres 

10 known as the Thompson Strip’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1891 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para2 graph (3); and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property 

6 obtained by the Tribes as part of a land claim settle7 ment approved by the United States shall not be eli8 gible, or used, for any class II gaming or class III 

9 gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

10 (25 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) (as those terms are de11 fined in section 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 

12 SEC. 2. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

13 TRIBES. 

14 Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this 

15 Act, shall be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, af16 fect, or modify any treaty right of an Indian tribe (as de17 fined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

18 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
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
WRASP 31, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my 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.





/s/
      Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      22, 2011
#### LIEB v. SUNSHINE DAIRY & VEGETARIAN RESTAURANT.

No. 38712.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### TRANS WORLD MARINE CORPORATION, etc., et al., Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, v. Major E. THRELKELD et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 40492.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 314.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### A. J. HENRY, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 17, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
106 S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices Exception #1:

If the required SMZ area exceeds 10% of the tract area, the SMZ may be reduced (down to 10%) by narrowing the SMZ width.

Exception #2:

In areas of existing pine management, the Primary SMZ is not required to be more than 35' wide (50' for OFW, ONRW and Class 1 waters) Reduced Primary SMZ
Original Primary SMZ

Existing Pine Management Area
EXHIBIT 31.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I, Vasileios Mavrogiannis, Chief Financial Officer, certifythat:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of Prime Estates and Developments,Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

 

*/s/ Vasileios Mavrogiannis*

Vasileios Mavrogiannis

Chief Financial Officer

October 26, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30539]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR Sec. 50.7, and with 
Section 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622, notice is hereby given that 
a consent decree in United States v. National Wood Preservers, Inc. et 
al., Civ. Action No. 96-CV-5269 (E.D. Pa.) was lodged on October 23, 
1997 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania. The consent decree resolves the claims of the United 
States under Sections 107(a), and 113(g) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), for reimbursement of response costs incurred at the 
Havertown PCP Superfund Site located in Haverford Township, Delaware 
County, Pennsylvania and for declaratory judgment as to liability that 
will be binding in actions to recover further response costs related to 
the Site. The consent decree obligates Donald Goldstein to reimburse 
$32,000 of the United States' response costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to United States 
v. National Wood Preservers, Inc. et al., DOJ Ref. # 90-11-3-1680.
    The consent decree may be examined at the office of the United 
States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA; the Region III 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut Street, 
Philadelphia, PA; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW 
4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the CERCLA 
may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a 
copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the 
amount of $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost), payable to the 
Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-30539 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Item 77D - DWS Strategic Income Fund

The Board of Trustees of DWS Strategic
Income Fund (the "Fund") has authorized the
Fund to invest up to 5% of net assets in shares
of DWS Floating Rate Plus Fund, an affiliated
DWS mutual fund, which invests primarily in
adjustable rate loans that have a senior right to
payment ("Senior Loans").  By investing in
DWS Floating Rate Plus Fund, the Fund may
achieve greater diversification within the Senior
Loan asset class (through indirect exposure to
more Senior Loan securities of varying sizes
and risks) than it could gain by buying Senior
Loan securities directly.


T:\FUNDREPT\NSAR\AprOct\Strategic Income Fund - SSIF\10-31-
07\Item 77D.doc