alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COSID, INC., Appellant, v. BAY STEEL PRODUCTS CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1060.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 3, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1971.

Alan R. Lorber, of Kommel, Rogers, Lorber & Shenkman, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Joe N. Unger, of Smith, Mandler, Smith & Parker, Miami Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Bay Steel was granted summary judgment in an action by plaintiff-Cosid to replevy a quantity of steel. We reverse and remand.

Cosid claims the steel in question was bought under suspicious circumstances and that defendant had a duty to inquire further concerning the origin and ownership of the steel. Such an inquiry would have disclosed that Cosid gave no actual authority for the steel’s disposition and that the alleged authority was a forgery. Defendant feels he acquired possession of the steel rightfully and should be allowed to retain possession.

The absence of an investigation, according to plaintiff, would render defendant ineligible for the protection of the U.C.C. offered to buyers in the ordinary course of business.

> “(9) ‘Buyer in ordinary course of business’ means a person who *in good faith*and *without knowledge*that the sale to him is in violation of the ownership rights or security interest of a third party in the goods *buys in ordinary course from a person in the business of selling goods*of that kind but does not include a pawnbroker. ‘Buying’ may be for cash or by exchange of other property or on secured or unsecured credit and includes receiving goods or documents of title under a pre-existing contract for sale but does not include a transfer in bulk or as security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a money debt.” (Emphasis supplied.) Section 671.1-201(9), F.S.1969, F.S.A.

The significance of being a buyer in the ordinary course of business is the acquisition of the goods free of the outstanding title of the true owners. See Anderson’s Uniform Commercial Code, 2nd Edition, § 1.201:19 and 1.201:23; Section 671.1-203, F.S.1969, F.S.A.; Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 1967, 54 Misc.2d 168, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400 and Correria v. Orlando Bank *275& Trust Company, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 20.

In the instant case the selling price of the steel was low and the credit terms unusually attractive. In addition, for the first time, the sale was not made by the agent in his capacity as such, but by the agent in his personal capacity.

A factfinder may decide that all these facts should have put defendant on notice. It is, therefore, quite possible defendant would not be a buyer in the ordinary course of business. But we do not decide that issue. We do feel that the facts should be examined fully. We reverse and remand for a full trial to determine the critical fact issues involved.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, TJ., concur.
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2433 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to take actions 

necessary to ensure that certain individuals may update 

the burn pit registry with a registered individual’s cause 

of death, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2433 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Burn Pit Registry En3 hancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BURN PIT REGISTRY UPDATES. 

5 (a) INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO UPDATE.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec8 retary of Veterans Affairs shall take actions nec9 essary to ensure that the burn pit registry may be 

10 updated with the cause of death of a deceased reg11 istered individual by— 

12 (A) an individual designated by such de13 ceased registered individual; or 

14 (B) if no such individual is designated, an 

15 immediate family member of such deceased reg16 istered individual. 

17 (2) DESIGNATION.—The Secretary shall pro18 vide, with respect to the burn pit registry, a process 

19 by which a registered individual may make a des20 ignation for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). 

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) The term ‘‘burn pit registry’’ means the 

23 registry established under section 201 of the Dig24 nified Burial and Other Veterans’ Benefits Improve25 ment Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–260; 38 U.S.C. 

26 527 note). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2433 RFS

1 (2) The term ‘‘immediate family member’’, with 

2 respect to a deceased individual, means— 

3 (A) the spouse, parent, brother, sister, or 

4 adult child of the individual; 

5 (B) an adult person to whom the indi6 vidual stands in loco parentis; or 

7 (C) any other adult person— 

8 (i) living in the household of the indi9 vidual at the time of the death of the indi10 vidual; and 

11 (ii) related to the individual by blood 

12 or marriage. 

13 (3) The term ‘‘registered individual’’ means an 

14 individual registered with the burn pit registry. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Jerry REED v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50630.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Whittington, Brock, Swayze, Dale & Calhoun, Tom Calhoun, III, Greenwood, James R. Allen, Philadelphia, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Leflore County; B. B. Wilkes, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32758]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards


Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice 
of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on January 23, 1998, in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Friday, January 23, 1998--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business
    The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff activities regarding the 
license renewal implementation issues and proposed industry guidelines. 
The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other interested 
persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy (telephone 301/415-6889) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: December 10, 1997.
Gail H. Marcus,
Acting Deputy Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-32758 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,658,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                   248,504
<INVENTORY>                                  8,311,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,446,612
<PP&E>                                       8,966,573
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,299,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,031,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,741,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,493,595
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,031,206
<SALES>                                      2,499,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,499,463
<CGS>                                        2,302,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,275,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,132,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (430,509)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (702,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (702,409)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
#### The Honorable Alfonso C. SEPE, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida ex rel. Herman BOREN, Respondent. The Honorable Alfonso C. SEPE, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. James WATERMAN, Respondent.

No. 42062.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for petitioner.

Franklin D. Kreutzer, of Wallace & Kreutzer, Miami, for respondent Herman Boren.

Gerald Kogan, Miami, for respondent James Waterman.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us to review the decision of the District Court reported at 256 So.2d 259, a decision certified by the District Court as passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:

> “The construction of the speedy trial rule, and particularly, what exceptional circumstances are required to be present to permit a trial to be held without the maximum limitations contained in the rule.”

After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly de*117cided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.

Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., dissent. ■
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of World Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stewart Jackson, 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, 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: April 23, 2008



| |  | /s/ Stewart Jackson                         
| |  | --------------------------------------------
| |  | Name: Stewart Jackson                       
| |  | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Conolog
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the
Report), we, Robert S. Benou Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company and Marc Benou, the Chief Operating
Officer, President and Secretary 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 complies with the requirements of Section 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Conolog Corporation and will be retained by Conolog Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

|                     |  |                                                   
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 16, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert S. Benou                               
|                     |  | Robert S. Benou                                   
|                     |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
|                     |  | Officer and Treasurer                             

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### James CORBIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42273.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 4, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

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
Hugoton Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity
but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Trust.



|                  |  |                                                          |  |                    
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|                  |  | Bank of America, N.A., Trustee for Hugoton Royalty Trust
|                  |  |                                                         
|February 29, 2012 |  | By:                                                      |  | /s/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|                  |  |                                                          |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|                  |  |                                                          |  | Vice President
#### Louis GLICK, Appellant, v. W. Charles BECKER, C. P. A., Appellee.

No. 69-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 21, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1969.

Louis Glick, in pro. per.

Norman F. Solomon, Miami, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Miami, of counsel, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee filed an action in the civil court of record of Dade County against the appellant Louis Glick, an attorney, and Harry Scherman to recover a balance claimed to be due for accounting services performed.

The plaintiff alleged that Glick, in the presence of his client Scherman, employed plaintiff to perform such services, to aid in certain litigation then pending in which Scherman was involved, and that Glick assured plaintiff he would be paid out of the proceeds accruing to Scherman from such litigation; that the litigation resulted in a judgment for Scherman in connection with which there was claimed as costs the amount of $1,857.50 for plaintiff’s services as an accountant and expert witness; that *538plaintiff had been paid $1,027.50, leaving a balance of $830 owing.

The defendants’ answer admitted plaintiff performed services, averred he had been paid therefor, and denied any balance due. The answer averred that the court in the earlier case had disallowed the amount claimed for the accountant’s services, and had allowed only $250 therefor; and averred that the plaintiff accountant had been paid $1,207.50.

On trial without a jury, plaintiff was granted judgment against the defendants Harry Scherman and Louis Glick “jointly and severally” for $650 with interest from a stated date, and with costs, to be subsequently taxed.

This appeal was filed by the defendant Glick. We find merit therein, and reverse. On consideration of the record and briefs we conclude that there was an absence of competent substantial evidence to support a finding that the attorney Glick became personally obligated to the plaintiff for payment for the latter’s services performed for the defendant Scherman. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed as to the appellant Louis Glick.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 ERNEST GUTIERREZ, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 30,212 9 GLORIA GARLY, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 12 John W. Pope, District Judge 13 Ernest Gutierrez 14 Los Lunas, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 Gloria Garly 17 Los Lunas, NM 18 Pro Se Appellee 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 FRY, Chief Judge. 21 Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. In this 22 Court’s second notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to reverse. 23 Defendant has not filed a memorandum in opposition, and the time to do so has 24 passed. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in support, with the caveat that he wishes 252 to clarify that his complaint alleged that Plaintiff’s attorney telephoned Defendant and 1 Plaintiff’s daughter, informing them that they should pick up Plaintiff’s equipment 2 and personal belongings from the motel. [RP 8] Because no party opposes our 3 second proposed summary disposition, we reverse for the reasons provided in our 4 second notice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,607<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,166
<INVENTORY>                                     11,703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,702
<PP&E>                                          99,847
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,691<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,142
<SALES>                                         35,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,306
<CGS>                                           26,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                       712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,210
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57<F4>
        
<FN>
<F1> RECEIVABLES ARE NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS.
<F2> OTHER SE INCLUDES TREASURY STOCK.
<F3> BASIC EPS AS PER SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE."
<F4> DILUTED EPS AS PER SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE."
</FN>

</TABLE>