alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

|  (1) |  The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group) for the      quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (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 FPL      Group.                                                                                           |

|   |    LEWIS      HAY, III                                               |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Lewis      Hay, IIIChairman      and Chief Executive Officerof      FPL Group, Inc. |   |

|   |    ARMANDO      PIMENTEL, JR.                                                                        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Armando      Pimentel, Jr.Executive      Vice President, Finance andChief      Financial Officer of FPL Group, Inc. |   |

----
#### 25 Jay Street Tenants’ Association et al., Appellants, v 25 Jay Street, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 271]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs’ apartments are rent stabilized, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated October 23, 2000, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the seventh cause of action alleging breach of the warranty of habitability, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 29, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue their action without prejudice.

Ordered that the order dated October 23, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 29, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,

*504Ordered, that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court improperly denied their motion for a voluntary discontinuance of the instant action. The authority of a court to grant or to deny an application for voluntary discontinuance of a litigation made pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) is within its sound discretion *(see, Tucker v Tucker, 55*NY2d 378, 383; *Great W. Bank v Terio,*200 AD2d 608, 609). In the instant case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to discontinue the action, as the defendants were able to establish prejudice to them if the action was discontinued *(see,*CPLR 3217 [b]; *Tucker v Tucker, supra,*at 383; *Great*W. *Bank v Terio, supra; Matter of Carla L. v Terry M.,*178 AD2d 881; *State of New York v Hubbard,*126 AD2d 717, 718).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### MARLER HOLDING CO., Inc., a corporation, Gus Rubino, Sol Feldman and Robert Taylor, Appellants, v. RUTTGER HOTEL CORP., a corporation, Donald W. Ruttger, Max J. Ruttger and Rose S. Ruttger, Appellees.

No. 69-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Claude I. BRUTON, Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al., Appellees.

No. 46656.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 17, 1972.

J. A. Travis, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, K. Hayes, Callicutt, Jackson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8158 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8158

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive budget 
    neutrality for oxygen under the Medicare program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 4, 2020

 Mrs. Rodgers of Washington (for herself and Mr. Loebsack) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive budget 
    neutrality for oxygen under the Medicare program, 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. WAIVING BUDGET NEUTRALITY FOR OXYGEN UNDER THE MEDICARE 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(9)(D)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(9)(D)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new sentence: ``The requirement of the preceding sentence 
shall not apply beginning with the second calendar quarter beginning on 
or after the date of the enactment of this sentence.''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--
            (1) In general.--Section 4552(b) of the Balanced Budget Act 
        of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) is amended by striking ``section 
        1848(a)(9)'' and inserting ``section 1834(a)(9)''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
        Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33).
    (c) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement the amendments 
made by this section by program instruction or otherwise.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Jerome E. Ball, Chief Executive Officer for ForwardIndustries, Inc. ("Forward"), and Douglas W. Sabra, Chief Financial Officer ofForward, do each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 that, to the best of theirknowledge:

1.             Forward'squarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended March 31,2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Forward.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 21st day of April, 2004.

/s/ JEROME E. BALLJerome E. BallChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer

/s/ DOUGLAS W. SABRADouglas W. SabraChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

              Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) March 25, 2004


                        ADVANTAGE MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


       OKLAHOMA                     001-13343               73-1323256
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission            (IRS Employer
    of incorporation)              File Number)         Identification No.)

                              711 N.E. 39th Street
                          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma         73105
               (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

                                 (405) 842-0131
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

<PAGE>

Information To Be Included in the Report


Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(c)  The following exhibit is filed with this Form 8-K and is identified by
     the number indicated:

Exhibit
  No.                 Description
  ---                 -----------

99.1            Earnings call script dated March 25, 2004.

99.2            Press release dated March 25, 2004.

Item 9.  Regulation FD Disclosure.

     On March 25,  2004,  Advantage  Marketing  Systems  held an  earnings  call
regarding its 2003 operating  results and guidance for 2004. The script from the
earnings call is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

Item 12.  Results of Operation and Financial Conditions.

     On March 25,  2004,  Advantage  Marketing  Systems  issued a press  release
setting forth its year-end  financial  results and financial  guidance for 2004.
The press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2.

<PAGE>
                                     SIGNATURES

     Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,
the Registrant has duly  caused  this  report to be signed on its  behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                         ADVANTAGE MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.


                                         By:     REGGIE COOK
                                         Name:   Reggie Cook
                                         Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 25, 2004

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit
  No.        Description                       Method of Filing
  ---        -----------                       ----------------

99.1  Earnings call script dated March 25,    Filed herewith electronically
      2004.

99.2  Press release dated March 25, 2004.     Filed herewith electronically
#### Esther SPERLING et al., Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-684.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

William R. Alvin, Miami, for appellants.

Stephens, Magill, Thornton & Sevier and Thomas A. Graham, III, Miami, for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida in the above styled cause filed July 31, 1973 (281 So.2d 297), the prior opinion and judgment of this court (258 So.2d 475) is hereby modified as directed by the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida and, except as modified, is adhered to. The final judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to make a specific finding of the amount of petitioners’ loss in accordance with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
WINTHROP
REALTY TRUST


FORM
10-Q SEPTEMBER 30, 2009





Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winthrop Realty Trust (“the
Company”) for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
L. Ashner, Chief Executive Officer, 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.





By:
              /s/ Michael L. AshnerName:
              Michael
      L. AshnerChief
      Executive Officer





November
9, 2009
#### Gordon NATAL, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of his minor daughter, Melanie Natal v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 54388.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Gordon Natal, Sr., individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, Melanie Natal applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 286 So.2d 738.

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.

Writ granted. Limited to the assignment of errors against homeowners and insurer.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the judgment of the Court of Appeal presents no error of law reviewable by this Court.
#### Victor MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1970.

Law Offices of Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lake-land, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, Victor Miller, was charged by information with assault with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: rape, in violation of Fla.Stat. 784.06, F.S.A. He appeared before the Court of Record of Lee County in the presence of his attorney, William J. Nelson, who is also an assistant public defender but in this instance was representing the appellant privately. Appellant plead not guilty and the trial was set for April 7, 1970. Prior to the trial date appellant along with his attorney appeared before the court and asked to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty. At this juncture the court went into great detail to determine if the change in plea was given knowingly, freely and voluntarily as required by law.

The record is very clear that the appellant was examined both by his attorney and by the court in great detail before the court would accept the plea of guilty. We believe the examination made by the appellant’s attorney as well as by the court was sufficient to support the proposition that the change in plea was made knowingly, intelligently and without coercion.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm.

PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### A. J. EDMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 7, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### A. M. Gilmore, Respondent, *vs.*St. Louis, Kansas City and Northern Railway Company, Appellant.

1. Fickle vs. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. R., *ante*p. 219, affirmed.

*Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.*

*John M.*Woodson, for Appellant.

See brief in Fickle vs. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., *ante*p. 219.

*Barrow &*Millan, for Respondent.

I. The same strictness is not required in a finding made by a court as in one made by a jury.

II. If the petition is technically defective in not stating that the stock strayed on the road at a point where the same was not fenced, etc., yet the defendant having failed to demur, and the court having heard the evidence, and made a finding for the plaintiff, defect in the petition is cured.

III. The fact that the road was not fenced where said stock was killed, is certainly some evidence that the stock was on the road by reason of its not being fenced.

Vories, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This ease is in every material matter identical with the case of William Fickle vs. The St. Louis, Kansas City, and Northern Railway Co., decided by this court at this term, *ante*p. 219, and, for the same reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment in this case will be affirmed.

Judge Adams being absent, the other judges concurring,

the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                             _______________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                             _______________________

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):

                                 October 3, 2005

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      375 North Front Street, Suite 300, Columbus, Ohio              43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.     Other Events
- -------   --------------------------------------------

          As of September 30, 2005, preliminary assets under management totaled
totaled $1.150 billion.  Following is a summary of assets under management as of
September 30, 2005 (in millions):

				Equity	  Fixed Income	    Total
Individually Managed Accounts	$324.0	      $165.1      $  489.1
Mutual Funds			 492.4	        72.7         565.1
Private Investment Partnership    96.0           0.0          96.0
                                ------        ------      --------
Total				 912.4	       237.8       1,150.2


Investment Strategy
-------------------
Small Cap		      $  232.5
Large Cap			 176.6
All Cap				 176.9
Long/Short			 328.4
Bank & Financial		  21.1
Strategic Income		 148.9
Other Fixed Income		  59.9
Other				   5.9
				------
Total			       1,150.2


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: October 3, 2005	                     By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
#### LOGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. WARREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. O-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1972.

*53John F. Fannin, of Milam, Martin & Ade, Jacksonville, for appellant.

John C. Taylor, Jr., of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellant, a general contractor, appeals from an adverse final summary judgment wherein the appellee was awarded $2,787.89.

Without going into the factual situation involved herein, it is sufficient to state appellant’s point on appeal to be as follows: Can an unpaid materialman recover a money judgment against the general contractor for materials delivered to a subcontractor ?

We do not feel that the trial court erred as a matter of law in entering a money judgment against the appellant general contractor. Statutes of a remedial nature, such as the Mechanic’s Lien Statute, should be liberally construed to advance the remedy intended. Pools by Tropicana, Inc. v. Swan, 167 So.2d 775 (Fla.App.2nd, 1964). Also see Canada Dry Bottling Company v. Meekins, Inc. of Dade County, 219 So.2d 439 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969).

Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., concurs.

RAWLS, J., dissents.

RAWLS, Judge

(dissenting).

This action was filed by Warren Brothers Construction Company, a materialman, against appellant-defendant, Logan Construction Company, a general contractor, and others. The plaintiff-materialman furnished paving materials to Harry J. Kelly Paving Company, a sub-contractor of Logan, the general contractor. When the subcontractor failed to pay for the delivered materials a Mechanic’s Lien was filed by the materialman. The general contractor, Logan, moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the materialman to the sub-contractor was not in privity with it and was not entitled to a money judgment against Logan.

I am in complete accord with my brother Carroll of the Third District Court of Appeal in his dissent in Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Meekins, Inc., of Dade County, 219 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969), wherein he stated:

> “I concur in the judgment affirming the holding that a lien was established against the affected property of the owner and affirming the granting of a money judgment against the *owner,*for the value of materials supplied by the plaintiff to the sub-contractor, since the statute expressly so authorizes. However, in my opinion the trial court committed error in granting the plaintiff a money judgment against the *contractor,*because the statute does not make provision for it. The materialman contracted with the subcontractor. It had no contract with the defendant contractor, Wesley Construction Co. In the absence of privity, the materialman was not entitled to obtain a money judgment against the contractor, unless the statute conferred that right, which it did not. The personal judgment against the general contractor should be reversed.”

> I dissent.