alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chris CHOROUHIS, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 69-1087.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1970.

Michael M. Tobin and Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, and Gus Efthimiou, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, and Norman A. Coll, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing a complaint. The complaint was labelled an action in fraud and as such, it failed to state a cause of action. See Bernard Marko & Associates, Inc. v. Steele, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 42. Appellant has urged on appeal that the complaint stated a cause of action as a contract to issue an insurance policy. A review of the complaint and the amended complaint reveals that they totally fail to state the elements necessary for such an action.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roger S. BOURGEOIS.

No. 62531.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Roger S. Bourgeois applying for writs of certiorari and review. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit      21.1**

| WHOLLY-OWNED                SUBSIDIARIES                            | STATE                OF INCORPORATION |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                                |
| Grand                Palais Riverboat, Inc                          | Louisiana                             |
| IOC-Boonville,                Inc.                                  | Nevada                                |
| IOC-Davenport,                Inc.                                  | Iowa                                  |
| IOC                Holdings, L.L.C.                            | Louisiana                             |
| IOC-Kansas                City, Inc.                                | Missouri                              |
| IOC-Lula,                  Inc.                                | Mississippi                           |
| Isle                of Capri Bettendorf, L.C.                  | Iowa                                  |
| Isle                of Capri Marquette, Inc.                        | Delaware                              |
| Louisiana                Riverboat Gaming Partnership               | Louisiana                             |
| Riverboat                Corporation of Mississippi            | Mississippi                           |
| Riverboat                Corporation of Mississippi -Vicksburg | Mississippi                           |
| St.                  Charles Gaming Company, Inc.                   | Louisiana                             |
|                                                                |
|                                                                |
| PARTIALLY                OWNED SUBSIDIARIES                         |
|                                                                |
| CCSC/Blackhawk,                Inc.                                 | Colorado                              |
| Isle                of Capri Black Hawk, L.L.C.                     | Colorado                              |
Exhibit 3.1



|                                                                                                                                            |  |                                                     
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE Division of Corporations & Commercial Code Articles of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation (Profit) |  | RECEIVED SEP 15 2009 Utah Div. Of Corp. & Comm. Code

File Number:

AMENDMENT

Pursuant to UCA §16-10a part 10, the individual named below causes this Amendment
to the Articles of Incorporation to be delivered to the Utah Division of Corporations for filing, and states as follows:

1. The name of the
corporation is: CROFF ENTERPRISES, INC.

2. The date the following amendment(s) was adopted: September 14, 2009

3. If changing the corporation name, the new name of the corporation is: AMHN, INC.

4. The text of each amendment adopted (include attachment if additional space needed):

The name of the corporation is hereby changed to AMHN, Inc.

5. If providing for an exchange, reclassification or cancellation of
issued shares, provisions for implementing the amendment if not contained in the amendment itself:





6. Indicate the manner in which the amendment(s)
was adopted (mark only one):



| ̈ | Adopted by Incorporators or Board of Directors  Shareholder action not required.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|þ | Adopted by Shareholders  Number of votes cast for amendment was sufficient for approval.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Delayed effective date (if not to be effective upon filing)
 (not to exceed 90 days)

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that this Amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct and complete.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Robert Cambridge
|Title: |  | President           
|Date:  |  | September 14, 2009  

Under GRAMA (63-2-201), all registration information maintained by the Division is classified as
public record. For confidentiality purposes, you may use the business entity physical address rather than the residential or private address of any Individual affiliated with the entity.

Mailing/Faxing Information: www.corporations.utah.gov/contactus.html    Divisions Website: www.corporations.utah.gov



State of Utah Department of Commerce Division of Corporations and Commercial Code  I hereby certified that the foregoing has been
filed And approved on this 15 day of Sep 2009 In this office of this Division and hereby issued this Certificate thereof. Examiner
Swansom     Date 9-16-09LOGO

Kathy BergKathy Berg Division
Director
EXHIBIT 10T.2


                     AMENDMENT NO.2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         MADE AND ENTERED INTO this 25th day of May, 2004 by and between
DECORATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, with offices at Suite
201, 10011 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 (hereinafter called
"Decorator" or "Employer") and WILLIAM BASSETT, residing at 1167 N.W. 97th
Drive, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 (hereinafter called the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an employment agreement dated
August 2, 1994 (hereinafter the "Employment Agreement"), as amended by an
Amendment to Employment Agreement dated July 29, 2003 (the "Agreement")
(together, the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter
provided.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises,
warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties, intending to be
legally bound hereby each for themselves and their respective heirs, successors
and assigns, covenant, warrant, promise and agree that the reference to sixty
percent (60%) in the 3rd line of Paragraph 3.1 of the Agreement and is deleted
and seventy percent (70%) is substituted in lieu thereof.

         Except as provided herein, all the other terms of the Agreement shall
remain as heretofore.


ATTEST:                                      DECORATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                             By:  The Compensation Committee



/s/ Michael K. Solomon                       /s/ Thomas L. Dusthimer
----------------------                       ------------------------
Vice President
                                             /s/ Joseph N. Ellis
                                             ------------------------

                                             /s/ Ellen Downey
                                             ------------------------



                                             /s/ William Bassett
                                             ------------------------
                                             WILLIAM BASSETT
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 
(DOT/FAA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the information 
collection request described below has been forwarded to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The FAA is requesting a 
clearance in accordance with 5 CFR #1320.10. The following information 
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected 
burden.

DATES: Submit any comments to OMB and FAA by February 23, 1998.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

    Title: Flight Standards Customer Satisfaction Survey #2.
    Need: The need is for the Flight Standards Service to survey 
customers in keeping with our strategic initiative to improve the 
quality of our service by anticipating customer needs and responding to 
the public interest. The action of conducting customer satisfaction 
surveys is consistent with, and mandated by, such executive and federal 
level issuances as the September 1993 Presidential Executive Order, 
Vice President Gore's Report of the National Performance Review, and 
the FAA's Strategic Plan.
    The completion of this survey is voluntary. No assurance of 
confidentiality is provided as the respondents are not asked to reveal 
information about themselves, except if they wish to do so voluntarily 
in the comments section. Additionally, we are stating in the 
questionnaires themselves that any names or identifying information 
will be redacted by the contractor before a list of comments is turned 
over to the FAA.
    Respondents: A combination of approximately 53,625 airmen, air 
operators, or air agencies are expected to respond.
    Frequency: Every 18 months.
    Burden: The Federal burden is approximately $205,500; the 
respondent burden is approximately 10,725 hours and $375,000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: or to obtain a copy of the request for 
clearance submitted to OMB, you may contact Ms. Judith Street at the 
Federal Aviation Administration, Corporate Information Division, ABC-
100, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments may be submitted to the agency at the address above and 
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10202, Attention FAA Desk Officer, 725 17th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20503.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 1997.
Steve Hopkins,
Manager, Corporate Information Division, ABC-100.
[FR Doc. 97-33462 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### William Karniol et al., Respondents, v Good Move Trucking, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[722 NYS2d 143]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2000, which denied defendant Good Move Trucking, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), without prejudice to renewal after completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s argument that the motion court should have unconditionally dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that a prior United States District Court action between the same parties based upon the same causes of action was discontinued “with prejudice.” Defendant fails to address the conference which took place in the District Court prior to plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter of discontinuance with prejudice being “so ordered,” at which plaintiffs’ counsel claims it was understood by all those present, including defendant’s counsel, that the Federal action was being discontinued only because the monetary threshold for Federal subject matter jurisdiction had not been met, and that plaintiffs’ counsel would initiate an identical action in State court, which he did three weeks later. Under these circumstances, where the inclusion of the words “with prejudice” in the order discontinuing the prior action may well have been attributable to a unilateral mistake by plaintiffs’ counsel and contrary to the previously reached understanding of the parties and the court as to the effect of the discontinuance, the *288motion court, pending the conduct of discovery respecting the understanding upon which the discontinuance had been agreed to, properly declined to accord the discontinuance res judicata effect *(see, Forte v Kaneka Am. Corp.,*110 AD2d 81, 84-85). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Lerner, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Equivalent of Birds
Eye Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 24, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on February
3, 2006, and as amended by the Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment No. 1) filed
with the Commission on March 20, 2006 (collectively, the "Report"), I, Earl L.
Powers, 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 my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 29, 2006                    /s/ Earl L. Powers
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Secretary
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)

                                        8
**EXHIBIT 15**

** **

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of CubicCorporation as of March 31,2010, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cashflows for the three- and six-month periods ended March 31, 2010 and2009.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial informationconsists principally of applying analytical procedures, and making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modificationsthat should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referredto above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accountingprinciples.

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidatedbalance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30, 2009 and therelated consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity andcash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our reportdated December 9, 2009, we expressed an unqualified opinion on thoseconsolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth inthe accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30,2009, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to theconsolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 

 
|                   | /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                   |                            |
|                   |                            |
| San  Diego, California |                            |
| May 5,  2010      |                            |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2

Promissory Note

On this date of July 21, 2009, in return for valuable consideration received, the
undersigned borrower promises to pay to Seatac Digital Resources, Inc., the Lender, the sum of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) percent per annum.

Payable On Demand: The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest thereon, if any, shall become immediately due and payable on demand by the
holder of this Note.

Default - In the event of default, the borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender, including all
reasonable attorney fees (including both hourly and contingent attorney fees as permitted by law) for the collection of this Note upon default, and including reasonable collection charges (including, where consistent with industry practices, a
collection charge set as a percentage of the outstanding balance of this Note) should collection be referred to a collection agency.

Acceleration of
Debt - In the event that the borrower fails to make any payment due under the terms of this Note, or breach any condition relating to any security, security agreement, note, mortgage or lien granted as collateral security for this Note, seeks
relief under the Bankruptcy Code, or suffers an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership not vacated within thirty (30) days, the entire balance of this Note and any interest accrued thereon shall be immediately due and payable to the
holder of this Note.

Modification - No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be allowed unless by written agreement
signed by both parties. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature.

Transfer of the Note - The borrowers hereby waive any notice of the transfer of this Note by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agree to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer, and agree
that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note.

Severability of Provisions - In the event that any
portion of this Note is deemed unenforceable, all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect.

Choice of Law - All terms
and conditions of this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of The State of California.

Dated: July 21, 2009



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald R. Mastropietro                      
|Americas Minority Health Network, Inc. Borrower
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS • 1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D.C. • 20220 • 

FOR RELEASE AT 3 p. m. May 1, 1995 Contact: Jon Murchinson (202)-622-2960

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING ESTIMATES

The Treasury Department on Monday announced that its net market

borrowing for the April-June 1995 quarter is estimated to be $25.8 billion, with a 

$45.0 billion cash balance on June 30. The Treasury also announced that its net

market borrowing for the July-September 1995 quarter is estimated to be in a range 

of $40 billion to $45 billion, with a $30 billion cash balance at the end of September. 

The estimates do not include new cash to be raised in the September 2- and 5-year 

notes, which will be issued on

October 2.

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing needs on January 30, 1995, 

the Treasury estimated net market borrowing during the April-June quarter to be a 

paydown of $5 billion to $10 billion, assuming a $35 billion cash balance on June 30. 

The increase in the borrowing estimate is due to a shift of tax refunds from the prior 

quarter into the April-June quarter, higher outlays, and an increase in the June 30 

cash balance assumption.

Actual net market borrowing in the quarter ended March 31, 1995 was 

$74.5 billion, while the end-of-quarter cash balance was $18.1 billion. On January 

30, the Treasury had estimated net market borrowing for the January-March 

quarter to be $93.7 billion, with a $20 billion cash balance on March 31. The lowerthan-expected market borrowing reflected in part the slow down in tax refund 

payments, compared with the Treasury estimate in January, and lower outlays. The 

actual cash balance was little changed from the January 30 estimate.

RR-254
#### James Calvin WILLIAMS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 61166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 8, 1977.

In re: James Calvin Williams applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

*1031Granted. The ruling of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, is set aside and the ruling of the trial judge is approved and made the judgment of this Court.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be denied. There is no error demonstrated in its ruling.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EPHRAIM VANDORIAN STANCIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-237-R, CA-95-625-3)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ephraim Vandorian Stancil, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley

Glaser, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Stancil, Nos. CR-89-237-R; CA95-625-3 (M.D.N.C. May 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED