alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Christopher David WHITE, a minor, by his next friend and mother, Karen Johnson, and Karen Johnson, Individually, Appellant, v. COWLES FLORIDA BROADCASTING, INC., and Sonny Barrs, Appellees.

No. II-331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Stewart Cohen, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for appellant.

Harry K. Anderson, of Anderson & Lek-lem, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants maintain on this appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in taxing costs against them pursuant to the offer of judgment rule, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.442. They further urge that the amount of the costs awarded was excessive. We disagree and affirm on both points. Appellants’ first argument, that taxation of costs was unjustified because the offers by appellee were made to them jointly rather than individually, has recently been resolved in appellees’ favor by this court’s opinion in *Tucker v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. of Shelby, Ohio,*343 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Appellants also contend, however, that the amount of the costs was excessive because it included the expense of appellees’ counsel’s air fare to an out-of-state deposition. The deposition was initiated by appellants’ counsel after appellants had refused two offers of judgment which exceeded the verdict eventually returned by the jury after trial. We believe that the purpose of Rule 1.442, to encourage settlements and eliminate the costs and delays of trials, would be affronted by reversing the cost award to appellees in these circumstances.. Appellees made two good faith attempts at settlement and appellants chose to reject those attempts. There was no abuse of *822discretion in requiring appellees to bear the costs of that choice.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

McCORD, Acting C. J., MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas Homer COOPER v. Barbara Jean Basic COOPER.

No. 49557.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 24, 1977.

Hurlbert & O’Barr, Clyde Hurlbert, Biloxi, for appellant.

Estes & Blackwell, George Estes, III, Gulfport, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; John S. Morris, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON, WALKER, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 26, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 26, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0673. STANLEY STEED et al. v. MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2142 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2142

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 Manhattan Avenue in Buffalo, New York, as the ``Indiana Hunt-
                     Martin Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. INDIANA HUNT-MARTIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 170 Manhattan Avenue in Buffalo, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Indiana Hunt-Martin Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Indiana 
Hunt-Martin Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2142

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 Manhattan Avenue in Buffalo, New York, as the ``Indiana Hunt-
                     Martin Post Office Building''.
```
# Welcome

# Instructions

# PDO

This is the base condition. Analysts must fill out the entire column even if this interchange type is not under consideration.

# KABC

# SDF

This is the base condition. Analysts must fill out the entire column even if this interchange type isn't under consideration.

# Charts

Expected Total Crash Frequency (KABC Plus PDO) with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals

Number of Crashes

Expected Total Crash Frequency (KABC) with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals

Number of Crashes

Expected Total Crash Frequency (PDO) with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals

Number of Crashes
<PAGE>

              ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                               Twelve Months Ended
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                              SEPTEMBER           SEPTEMBER
                                                                                2000                1999

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

<S>                                                                      <C>                <C>

Earnings

        Net Income                                                                $36,579              $20,409
        Federal Income Tax                                                          9,410               45,233
        State Income Tax                                                            2,461                2,317
                                                                         -----------------  -------------------

        Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax                         48,450               67,959

Fixed Charges*                                                                     33,475               39,015
                                                                         -----------------  -------------------
                    Total Earnings Before Federal and State
                       Income Tax and Fixed Charges                               $81,925             $106,974
                                                                         =================  ===================



        * Fixed Charges

        Interest on Long-Term Debt                                                $23,276              $25,477
        Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense                          1,112                1,191
        Interest Component on lease Payment                                         5,918                5,442
        Other Interest                                                              3,169                6,905
                                                                         -----------------  -------------------

                    Total Fixed Charges                                           $33,475              $39,015
                                                                         =================  ===================




        Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                           2.45                 2.74

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2.1**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Kevin Burke, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.(the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: August 7, 2008
255 La. 911

#### J. H. McBRIDE v. H. E. DUCKWORTH, Executor.

No. 50472.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: H. E. Duckworth, Executor applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
254 La. 754

#### Elsie M. BRADFORD v. DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS, State of Louisiana.

No. 49943.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: State Department of Hospitals applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. 222 So. 2d 891.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### GULF AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, etc. and Thornton Leasing Company, etc., Petitioners, v. Martha SINGLETON, etc., Respondent.

No. 42845.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1972.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Percy SPANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-688.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
255 La. 907

#### Joseph D. WHITE et al. v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY.

No. 50422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Phillips Petroleum Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 232 So.2d 83.

Writ refused. The result of Court of Appeal decision is correct.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., takes no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2135 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2135

   To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit debt 
 collectors from collecting, or attempting to collect, on a debt of a 
consumer with respect to which the statute of limitations has expired, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2021

Mr. Cohen (for himself, Ms. Bonamici, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit debt 
 collectors from collecting, or attempting to collect, on a debt of a 
consumer with respect to which the statute of limitations has expired, 
                        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 ``Fair Debt Collection Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTING TIME-BARRED DEBT.

    (a) In General.--The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 
1692 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 811 the following:
``Sec. 811A. Prohibition on collecting time-barred debt
    ``A debt collector may not collect, or attempt to collect, any debt 
of a consumer with respect to which the statute of limitations has 
expired.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 811 the following:

``811A. Prohibition on collecting time-barred debt.''.
                                 <all>
```
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31499]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:05 a.m. on 
Tuesday, November 25, 1997, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), seconded by 
Ms. Judith A. Walter, acting in the place and stead of Director Eugene 
A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director 
Joseph H. Neely (Appointive) and Acting Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., 
that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on 
less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of 
the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require 
consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; 
and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by 
authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), 
(c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), 
and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: November 25, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James D. LaPierre,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31499 Filed 11-26-97; 10:44 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
```
ERA2 Reallocation Quarter 3 ‐ Voluntary Reallocation to Designated Entities

Transferring 

Entity (Transferor) 

Receiving Entity 

(Transferee) State Amount to be Reallocated 

State of Arizona City of Glendale Arizona $2,000,000.00 

State of Arizona Pima County Arizona $7,000,000.00 

Yavapai County Pima County Arizona $984,575.36 

City and County of 

Denver 

State of Colorado Colorado $409,016.31 

Cherokee County City of Augusta Georgia $1,201,842.11 

State of Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Louisiana $1,838,160.00 

Union County State of New Jersey New Jersey $3,997,857.57 

State of Ohio City of Columbus Ohio $35,000,000.00 

State of Ohio Franklin County Ohio $35,000,000.00 

State of Ohio City of Columbus Ohio $11,750,658.78 

State of Ohio Franklin County Ohio $11,750,658.78 

State of Ohio Cuyahoga County Ohio $25,000,000.00 

State of Ohio Butler County Ohio $2,000,000.00 

Utah County State of Utah Utah $3,426,355.69 

Total $141,359,124.60
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert N. Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2006, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: August 2, 2006
256 La. 779

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald J. MILLER.

No. 50697.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1970.

In re: Donald J. Miller applying for writs of certiorari, review, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. We find no error to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
### Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation : Western Energy Alliance 8/18/10 Date Staff Contact In formation (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if pos sible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability , reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

8/18/10 Roger Fernandez (EPA)

Suzie Waltzer (EPA) Craig Brown, John Fedrick, MarkPeak

– QEP Resources
Mari Johnson, Gasco Brad Rogers, Newfield Exploration

Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance To provide an overview of comments

submitted on the P roposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W. W ritten
comme nts
were submitted to the docket during the public comment period
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 27 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY WAYNE LEAF,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-7073

(D. C. No. 00-CR-78-S)

(E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal is from an order of the district court sentencing defendant to 18

years of incarceration to be followed by five years of supervised release, after a

plea agreement which required the government to file an information alleging
-2-

second degree murder in Indian Country and use and discharge of a firearm

during the commission of a crime of violence. On December 12, 2000, defendant

Leaf was originally charged in a two count indictment with first degree murder in

Indian Country and the use and discharge of a firearm during the commission of a

crime of violence. After plea negotiations were entered into, defendant

eventually entered into a written plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P.

§ 11(e)(1)(C), in which he waived an indictment and agreed to a total sentence of

18 years of incarceration. As required under the plea agreement, the government

filed an information that alleged second degree murder and use and discharge of a

firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Under the terms of the

plea agreement, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charges in the

information. The plea agreement mandated a sentence of 96 months on the

second degree murder charge and 120 months on the firearms charge. The

firearms charge is statutorily required to run consecutive to the sentence on the

murder count. 

We have reviewed the entire record on appeal before this court, including

the plea agreement and the presentence report. We find no basis on which to

determine that an error was made in the district court. Defendant’s attorney has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396 (1967). Defendant’s attorney moves this court for leave to withdraw. That
-3-

motion is granted. We affirm the order of the district court sentencing defendant

pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
| (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. |

|    | By:  /s/ Isa Odidi                                                                          |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |  Isa Odidi                                                                                  |
|         |  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer) |
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

The BVI Business Companies Act 

(No. 16 of 2004) 

Share Certificate 
  

					
	 Certificate Number [    ]
	  	 Satellogic Inc.
	  	Number of Shares [ ]

 The Company is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each, divided into
Class A ordinary shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each and Class B ordinary shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each. 
 THIS IS TO
CERTIFY THAT                 is the registered holder
of ***                 *** Class B Ordinary Shares
of US$0.0001 each fully paid in the above named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said Company and to the terms and conditions endorsed hereon. 

Signed by a director of the company this                day
of                 . 
  

	
	
	   

	Director
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 filing of this annual report on Form 10-K of DynaVox Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year
ended July 1, 2011, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Misch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 27, 2011



/S/
KENNETH D. MISCHKenneth D. MischChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)