alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daniel MEADOWS, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. CURLY’S TRASH SERVICE, INC., Maryland Casualty Company and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 39344.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1971.

Howard N. Pelzner and Peter S. Schwe-dock, Miami, for petitioner and cross-respondent.

Joseph V. Niemoeller, of Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for respondents, cross-petitioner.

Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for Industrial Relations Commission, respondents.

SPECTOR, District Court Judge.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Industrial Relations Commission to review an order of that agency which reversed a workmen’s compensation order entered in favor of claimant-petitioner by the Judge of Industrial Claims.

The Commission’s order of reversal rests on its determination that “ * * * there is no competent substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s heart failure and his employment”.

That the Commission departed from its proper role as an administrative appellate tribunal is amply, if tersely, demonstrated by the following single response to a question as to the connection between the subject accident and claimant’s congestive heart failure which was put to a medical witness called by claimant, viz:

> “A. Well, it would appear from the course of events that this accident actually precipitated his heart failure. Based on the setting of hypertension and some increase in heart size prior to this relates to his long standing hypertension, but I would have to assume he had no evidence of congestive heart failure prior to this because he had been working every day and had no difficulty.”

The above is the “competent substantial evidence” which the Commission majority chose to ignore in total disregard of this court’s frequent rulings. The following excerpt from our opinion in Painter v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 223 So.2d 33, 34 is particularly appro*418priate to the Commission’s departure from its role in these cases:

> “Once again the Full Commission has clearly departed from its proper function in reviewing Compensation Orders and has clearly invaded the authority of the fact finder. In recent months we have repeatedly reversed Orders of the Full Commission for this reason and have carefully and meticulously pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner is the sole trier of fact and that his findings are binding upon the Full Commission when they are supported by competent substantial evidence * * * ”

Review of the evidence adduced before the trial judge convinces us that his findings and order were supported by competent substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the order of the Commission reviewed herein is quashed and the order of the claims judge is reinstated.

We have directed our attention to respondents’ cross-petition for writ of cer-tiorari and find the same to be without merit and the same is accordingly denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
Docket Management Facility !• 'I\i'^U-'^ 

U.S. Department of Transportation - ^ LJ. iv> 

Docl<et No. FAA-2012-0089 

. • 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To whom it may concern: 

I am writing in response to Docket No. FAA-2012-0089, which concerns the petition for 

exemption for Sun Country Airlines. The service of Sun Country Airlines from Washington, DC to 

Lansing, Ml is essential to the economic growth of the mid-Michigan region. Currently, Sun Country 

provides the only large aircraft service from Reagan National Airport to Michigan, outside of Detroit. 

The loss of this service will have an enormous, long-term detriment to the region. 

The Sun Country Service from Ronald Reagan Airport to Lansing, Ml has been very successful. 

Further, the service has saved millions of dollars in airfare for passengers travelling between MidMichigan and Washington, DC. Prior to Sun Country, the Lansing community had tried unsuccessfully to 

obtain the same service from other carriers, without success. Should this exemption not be granted, it is 

probable that the Lansing area will not be able to obtain this service at all. 

The granting of this exemption will not adversely affect safety. Sun Country has been operating 

safely out of Reagan National Airport, and this exemption will merely allow them to continue the 

existing safe service. 

Sincerely, 

Eric Sherman
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10120

Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Johnny Ortiz,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-15-12

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Johnny Ortiz has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Ortiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10120 Document: 00516057896 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2021
No. 21-10120

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-10120 Document: 00516057896 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2021
#### Lewis W. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip J. LEON et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11314.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1970.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, by Harry A. Johnson, Jr., Shreveport, for Phillip J. Leon and State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., defendants-third-party plaintiffs-appellants.

Watson, Brittain & Murchison, by Jack O. Brittain, Natchitoches, for Lewis W. Adams and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., third-party defendants-appellees.

George T. Anderson, Shreveport, for Lewis W. Adams, plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and PRICE, JJ.

AYRES, Judge.

This is a companion case to that of J. J. O’Reilly et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., bearing No. 11313 on the docket of this court, with which it was consolidated for trial and which was this 'day decided (La.App., 230 So.2d 630). The question of liability was determined in\the companion case.

Remaining only for consideration is the question of the award to which plaintiff is entitled to compensate *him*for the injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiff was awarded $75ti for his personal injuries, con*636sisting of a one-inch laceration of his head near the .hairline; $100 for property damage to his automobile, as the deductible portion of his insurance coverage; $417.13 for medical expenses incurred on behalf of Mrs. Adams; and $100 as the administrator of the estate of his minor son, a six-month-old infant, who was shaken up and received bumps on his head; or a total of $1,367.13. In view of the fact that the injuries to Mr. .Adams and his infant son were minimal, the awards of general damages were adequate and proper in this case.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed at defendants-appellants’ costs.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.7





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 IMRIS Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kelly McNeill, 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 to the best of 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.





Date:   February 28, 2011Kelly McNeillChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2440 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2440

  To prohibit States from restricting a person from providing food or 
  drink to individuals at a polling place in an election for Federal 
                    office, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

    Ms. Wild (for herself, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr. Raskin, Ms. 
Barragan, Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Takano, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Suozzi, 
   Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Jones, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Demings, Mr. 
Cooper, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Speier, and Ms. DelBene) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit States from restricting a person from providing food or 
  drink to individuals at a polling place in an election for Federal 
                    office, 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 ``Stay in Line To Vote Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING STATES FROM RESTRICTING THE PROVISION OF FOOD OR 
              DRINK TO INDIVIDUALS AT A POLLING PLACE.

    (a) Requirement.--Subtitle A of title III of the Help America Vote 
Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 
        and 306, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 303 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 304. PROHIBITING STATES FROM RESTRICTING THE PROVISION OF FOOD 
              OR DRINK TO INDIVIDUALS AT A POLLING PLACE.

    ``A State may not prohibit a person from providing food or drink to 
individuals at a polling place in the State in an election for Federal 
office, including at a polling place at which individuals may cast 
ballots prior to the date of the election.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Enforcement.--Section 401 of 
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21111) is amended by 
striking ``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 304''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating the items relating to sections 304 and 
        305 as relating to sections 305 and 306, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 303 the 
        following new item:

``Sec. 304. Prohibiting States from restricting the provision of food 
                            or drink to individuals at a polling 
                            place.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20626 Conference Calendar

GEORGE O'BRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PHILLIP, Sheriff Deputy; HARRIS COUNTY; HARRIS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR/DIRECTOR, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-2760

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * George O'Brien, Texas prisoner number 900306, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. O'Brien argues that under federal law he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his claim that defendant Phillip used excessive force against him by shoving him down a staircase. However, the Supreme Court hasNo. 02-20626 -2- held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) does apply to suits alleging excessive force. See Porter v. Nussle , 122 S. Ct. 983, 992 (2002). O'Brien has not adequately briefed a claim that he did exhaust his administrative remedies. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(a)(9)(A). O'Brien has not challenged the district court's denial of relief on his claim that he was denied inadequate medical care. Accordingly, that issue is deemed abandoned. See Yohey , 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
U.S. Position on the World Bank’s South Africa COVID-19 Response 

Development Policy Operation

February 3, 2022

The United States welcomes this first-ever World Bank Development Policy 

Operation (DPO) for South Africa.

This inaugural DPO strikes a good balance between shorter-term measures to 

address the immediate socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic and the longerterm, ambitious reforms needed for durable economic growth in the country. If 

implemented well, this operation can help pave the way for additional future 

engagement between the World Bank and South Africa on much-needed structural 

reforms. 

The United States affirms the following three specific points on the DPO: 

First, with regard to pillar one, which is focused on social support, the United 

States notes that allegations of corruption with regard to COVID procurement and 

funding have surfaced. The United States appreciates the DPO’s focus on 

digitizing social assistance, which should improve transparency and governance of 

these programs. The United States also welcomes the government’s efforts to 

revise its Procurement Bill to help address these challenges but notes that this 

legislation has room for improvement and has not yet been passed. The United 

States takes the corruption allegations seriously and has asked to be kept apprised 

of efforts to ensure that social support funding is used for its intended purpose.

Second, the United States strongly supports pillar two’s focus on South Africa’s 

climate agenda and plans to support the government as it transitions away from 

coal-based energy. The United States welcomes the project’s focus on advancing 

South Africa’s implementation of its Nationally Determined Contribution targets 

(NDCs) and reforms to accelerate the deployment of renewables and promote 

decarbonization. The United States urges the World Bank to continue working 

closely with the authorities to seek investments in non-fossil fuel energy sources 

while also investing in reskilling labor to support a Just Transition as South Africa 

takes important steps to decommission its coal assets. 

Third, the United States remains deeply concerned about the long-standing 

challenge of unemployment and slow growth in South Africa, which has been 

further exacerbated by the pandemic. The short-term social support measures under 
pillar one of this operation are a helpful step towards protecting livelihoods, 

however, the United States strongly encourages the World Bank Group to consider 

an increased focus on job creation and sustainable private-sector led growth in any 

future policy-based lending or project support, including through the Jobs 

Platform.

The United States notes that while the structural reforms needed to fully address 

unemployment in the country will take time to implement, the impact of job losses 

on the population are acute and require urgent attention.

With that, the United States wishes the World Bank and the Government of South 

Africa the best in implementing this DPO.
Document

Exhibit 10(d)

NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE
GE PERFORMANCE STOCK UNIT GRANT AGREEMENT


This NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE GE PERFORMANCE STOCK UNIT GRANT AGREEMENT (this “Notice”) is hereby that, effective July 30, 2021 (the "effective date"), certain adjustments were made to the GE Performance Share Grant Agreement between General Electric Company (the “Company”) and Carolina Dybeck Happe, dated September 3, 2020 (the “Award Agreement”), which documents the grant of certain performance stock units by the Company to Ms. Dybeck Happe.
This Notice is to advise Ms. Dybeck Happe that proportional adjustments have been made to the Award Agreement to reflect the reverse stock split of the Company’s common stock at a ratio of 1-for-8 (the “reverse stock split”), which was completed on the effective date. The adjustments described herein are made in accordance with the anti-dilution provisions of the Award Agreement and the 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated, and are consistent with the adjustments made for shareholders generally.
1.Adjustments:


a. The number of performance shares granted at target is adjusted from 1,093,920 to 136,740.


b.The reference to par value shall mean $0.01 per share.


c.The Reference Stock Price is adjusted from $6.67 to $53.36.


d.The closing price per Share used to calculate the Highest Average Price shall be adjusted for any day prior to and including the effective date of this Notice to reflect the reverse stock split. 


2.Effect of Notice. Except as set forth in this Notice, the terms of the Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Notice has been duly given by and on behalf of the Company.


									
	 	 General Electric Company
	 	 	
		By:	/s/ L. Kevin Cox
		Name:	L. Kevin Cox
	 	Title:	Chief Human Resource Officer
# Recovered_Sheet1

MonthlyApril 2013	
javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl00','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl09','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl10','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl01','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl02','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl03','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl04','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl05','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl06','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl07','')javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$Rightplaceholder$ProjectsGridview$ctl00$ctl02$ctl00$ctl08','')
#### GOULD, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. HYDRO-SKI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 73-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1974.

Lloyd Herold, North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Louis Vernell, Miami, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellee is engaged in the manufacture of watercraft at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One of its assets is a leasehold of the premises occupied by the manufacturing plant, which lease contains a prohibition against assignment without lessor’s approval.

Appellant loaned appellee several hundred thousand dollars, represented by two promissory notes, which in turn were secured by a security agreement encumbering all of appellant’s inventory, accounts re*116ceivable, equipment, all of its contract rights, and all of its general intangibles. Asserting that the notes were in default, appellant sued to foreclose the security agreement. In aid of foreclosure a writ of attachment was procured with instructions to levy upon two specified vessels “and other property as is described in the security agreement, etc.” Appellee filed a traverse and answer and the court in due course entered an order based upon a stipulation which essentially allowed appellee to continue in business without prejudice to appellant’s right ünder the security agreement and the attachment. Several weeks later appellee moved the court for leave to renegotiate the aforementioned lease. Appellant objected to said motion on the ground that the lease was encumbered by the security agreement as one of appellee’s “contract rights” referred to in said agreement. The trial court ruled that the appellee’s leasehold was not subject to the security agreement and. that appellant could proceed to renegotiate the lease. This interlocutory appeal seeks review of that order.

Appellant contends that a leasehold interest is personal property, Thalheimer v. Tischler, 55 Fla. 796, 46 So. 514 (1908); that a lessee may mortgage his leasehold interest, Johnson v. Metzinger, 116 Fla. 262, 156 So. 681 (1934); Oliver v. Mercaldi, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 665, regardless of the prohibition contained therein against assignment without the lessor’s approval, Great Southern Aircraft Corporation v. Kraus, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 608; and that the security agreement encumbers the leasehold. We agree. The provision of the security agreement is all inclusive and unequivocal. It granted to appellant as collateral security “all of its contract rights”. Unquestionably, the lease in question is one of appellee’s contract rights.

The parties have devoted a considerable portion of their briefs to the validity vel non of the attachment in this case. However, the sole question passed on by the trial court and presented for review here is whether or not the security agreement covered the leasehold interest. As we construe the security agreement it does encumber the appellee’s leasehold interest as one of its contract rights. Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding to the contrary in its order of April 16, 1973, which order is hereby reversed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Regular Totals (Holders)

Airport = EWR

Holder = 0001(Exclude)

Status Date = 07/01/2010 (Current & Future)

12/21/2010 07:49:27

Query Parameters:
12/21/2010 07:49:27

Carrier

Regular Totals (Holders)

Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded Excludes FAA Held PF7 Status Date = 07/01/2010 (Current & Future)

EWR

AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 54 

ABX ABX AIR 2

ACA AIR CANADA 24

AFR AIR FRANCE 2

AIC AIR INDIA 2

ASA ALASKA AIRLINES 4 

AVI L'AVION/OPENSKIES 4

AZA ALITALIA 2

BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 6

CKS KALITTA FLYING SERVICES (AMERICAN INT'L 1

COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 882

CSQ CARGOJET 2

DAL DELTA AIR LINES 64 

DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 8

ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 1

EVA EVA AIRLINES 2

FDX FED EX 8

JAI JET AIRWAYS 2

JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 27

POE PORTER AIRLINES 14

QTR QATAR AIRWAYS 2

RPA REPUBLIC AIRLINES 8 

SAS SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES 4

SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 2

SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2

TAP TAP-AIR PORTUGAL 2

TRS AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (new 3ltr eff 03/22/03) 13

UAL UNITED AIRLINES 33

UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 4

USA US AIRWAYS 31

VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 4

WJA WESTJET 2

Page 2