alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. Wayne SYLVESTER, et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2899.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1971.

Writ Refused May 13, 1971.

*498Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe by J. J. Davidson, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

Guillory, Guillory & Guillory by Robert K. Guillory, Eunice, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY, HOOD, CUL-PEPPER, MILLER, DOMENGEAUX and EVERETT, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

This case is before this Court for the second time.

In our original decision of May 14, 1970, 237 So.2d 431, this Court amended the judgment of the district court by reducing the award made to the parents of John Wayne Sylvester and Elizabeth Claire Sylvester for. the deaths of their minor children from the sum of $30,000.00 to each parent for each child to the sum of $20,000.00 to each parent for each child. Plaintiffs applied to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. That court granted plaintiffs’ request, 256 La. 764, 238 So.2d 748. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on December 14, 1970. That court rendered a decision setting aside our decision of May 14, 1970, and remanded the case to this Court for further hearing.

The basis for the remand was that this Court, sitting en banc, required four votes to render a decision; however, five judges sat on the case and only three judges voted to amend the judgment. Therefore, said judgment was null.

After reading the briefs of counsel and listening to their oral arguments, a majority of this Court adhered to its original decree of May 14, 1970.

For the reasons assigned in our original decree, judgment is hereby rendered amending the judgment of the district court by reducing the awards made to L. Wayne Sylvester and his wife, Barbara Sylvester, from $30,000.00 to the sum of $20,000.00 each for the deaths of each of their children, John Wayne Sylvester and Elizabeth Claire Sylvester; and as amended, is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Amended and affirmed.

MILLER, Judge

(dissenting).

For the reasons assigned at 237 So.2d 431, I respectfully dissent.

FRUGÉ, J., joins in the dissent of MILLER, J., and adheres to the original dissent. Further he believes that on the hearing the case should be -heard before the original panel of three since we are now operating on the panel basis.

Rehearing denied.

MILLER and FRUGÉ, JJ., vote for rehearing.
#### Jonas GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39803.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 156.

ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.
# C_2004139EN.01000101.xml

| 19.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 May 2004

(2004/C 139/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1983 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4408 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6774 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,162 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5346 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,05 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,274 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9462 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5861 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,905 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,51 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4527 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,658 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4268 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7358 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 620 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 238,7493 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,12 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 855 202 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7423 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6733 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3466 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9882 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0666 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 419,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1066 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1983

JPY

Japanese yen

136,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4408

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6774

SEK

Swedish krona

9,162

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5346

ISK

Iceland króna

88,05

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,274

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9462

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5861

CZK

Czech koruna

31,905

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,51

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4527

LVL

Latvian lats

0,658

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4268

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7358

ROL

Romanian leu

40 620

SIT

Slovenian tolar

238,7493

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,12

TRL

Turkish lira

1 855 202

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7423

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6733

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3466

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9882

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0666

KRW

South Korean won

1 419,93

ZAR

South African rand

8,1066

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 842 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 842

   To increase the number of weeks for which emergency unemployment 
                        compensation is payable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mrs. Kennelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the number of weeks for which emergency unemployment 
                        compensation is payable.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS FOR WHICH EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT 
              COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE.

    Subparagraph (A) of section 102(b)(2) of the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164, as amended) is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
                            ``(vii) Additional entitlement.--Effective 
                        with respect to weeks beginning after the date 
                        of the enactment of this clause--
                                    ``(I) the applicable limit 
                                otherwise determined under this 
                                subparagraph shall be increased by 6, 
                                and
                                    ``(II) the percentage otherwise 
                                applicable under paragraph (1)(A) shall 
                                be increased by 25 percentage points.
                        Adjustments similar to those provided in the 
                        preceding sentence shall be made to the 
                        provisions of section 501 of this Act.''

                                 <all>
```
#### SOUTH COAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., and Bituminous Casualty Corporation, Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, v. Josie CHIZAUSKAS, et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 39614.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 93

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide mandatory life

imprisonment for persons convicted of a third violent felony.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide mandatory

life imprisonment for persons convicted of a third violent

felony.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Life Imprisonment for

5 Egregious Recidivists Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

7 Section 3581 of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(c) IMPRISONMENT OF CERTAIN VIOLENT FEL10 ONS.—
2

•HR 93 IH

1 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

2 other provision of this title or any other law, in the

3 case of a conviction for a Federal violent felony, the

4 court shall sentence the defendant to prison for life

5 if the defendant has previously been convicted of two

6 other violent felonies.

7 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—As used in this section the

8 term ‘‘violent felony’’ is a State or Federal crime of

9 violence (as defined in section 16 of this title)—

10 ‘‘(A) that involves the threatened use, use,

11 or the risk of use of physical force against the

12 person of another;

13 ‘‘(B) for which the maximum authorized

14 imprisonment exceeds one year; and

15 ‘‘(C) which is not designated a mis16 demeanor by the law that defines the offense.

17 ‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This sub18 section shall not be construed to prevent the imposi19 tion of the death penalty.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

SNODGRASS 

Certified Public Accountants andConsultants 

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors 

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of June 30, 2005, and the related consolidatedstatements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. Theseconsolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical proceduresto financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, theobjective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes instockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 4, 2005 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

 

/s/    S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

 

Wheeling, West Virginia 

August 11, 2005 

 

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062 

 

37
#### B. O. S. S., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### FLORIDA DUST CONTROL SERVICE, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. Ethel G. BYRNES and Publix Super Markets, Inc., etc., Respondents.

No. 43479.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 10Q of Frawley Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael P. Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL P. FRAWLEY
|Name:                    
|Title:                   



Date:  June 10, 2003



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

d1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139019(29)

RONALD SEATON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139019 COA: 289166 Ingham CC: 07-001788-AA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s September 28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
263 La. 986

#### Mrs. Constance JARREAU v. Succession of Paul JARREAU.

No. 53015.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Mrs. Constance Jarreau applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Pointe Coupee. 268 So.2d 101.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Pizza Hut of America, LLC V. Houston Community College System

Appellate case number: 01-17-00101-CV

Trial court case number: 1043516

Trial court: Co Civil Ct at Law No 4 of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 17, 2018

Party filing motion: Appellant Pizza Hut of America, LLC

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Caughey

Date: February 13, 2018
<Page>

             ALLMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY

                       ENHANCED DEATH BENEFIT "EDB" RIDER


OVERVIEW:

The EDB Rider ("Rider") is an optional rider the Owner has selected. It provides
an enhanced Death Benefit, which guarantees [5%] growth and provides a ratchet.

APPLICABILITY:

The Rider is made a part of the contract to which it is attached and is
effective on the issue date.

BENEFIT:

The "Death Benefit" provision on [page XX] of the contract is replaced by the
following:

I.   If an Owner, or an Annuitant if the Owner is a non-natural person, dies
     before the Annuity Date and before his/her [90th] birthday, the Death
     Benefit will be the greatest of:

     (a)  the Accumulated Value on the Effective Valuation Date increased for
          any positive Market Value Adjustment ("MVA");

     (b)  gross payments accumulated daily at the "EDB Effective Annual Yield"
          shown on the Specifications page, starting on the Effective Valuation
          Date of each gross payment and ending on the date of death,
          proportionately reduced for subsequent withdrawals; and

     (c)  the highest Accumulated Value on any contract anniversary prior to the
          date of death, as determined after being increased for any positive
          MVA and subsequent payments and proportionately reduced for subsequent
          withdrawals.

II.  If an Owner, or an Annuitant if the Owner is a non-natural person, dies
     before the Annuity Date but after his/her [90th] birthday, the death
     benefit will be the greater of:

     (a)  the Accumulated Value on the Effective Valuation Date increased for
          any positive MVA; or

     (b)  the Death Benefit, as calculated under Section I, that would have been
          payable on the deceased's [90th] birthday, increased for subsequent
          payments and proportionately reduced for subsequent withdrawals.

PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION:

Sections I(b), I(c) and II(b) refer to a proportionate reduction. This
proportionate reduction is calculated by multiplying the (b) or (c) value,
whichever is applicable, determined immediately prior to the withdrawal by the
following:

                            Amount of the withdrawal
                            ------------------------
        Accumulated Value determined immediately prior to the withdrawal


FORM 3292-00                         1


<Page>



CHARGE FOR BENEFIT:

While this Rider is in effect, the Company will assess the EDB Charge (see the
Specifications page).

TERMINATION:

This Rider will terminate on the earliest of the following:

     (a)  the Annuity Date;

     (b)  when a Death Benefit is payable and the contract is not continued
          under a spousal takeover; or

     (c)  surrender of the contract.

                    Signed for the Company at Dover, Delaware





/s/ Richard M. Reilly                   /s/ Charles F. Cronin
President                               Secretary












FORM 3292-00                         2
Order entered February 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00935-CR

No. 05-19-00936-CR

CHRISTIN LEE GORBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-00375-T & F18-29750-T

ORDER

The reporter’s record in these appeals, requested August 2, 2019, was due November 25, 

2019. By order dated January 10, 2020, we ordered it filed by February 3, 2020. On February 4, 

2020, court reporter Vearneas Faggett filed an extension informing us for the first time that 

Yolanda Atkins also worked on the reporter’s record.

We ORDER the complete reporter’s record filed on or before March 4, 2020. We 

caution Ms. Faggett and Ms. Atkins that the failure to file the complete reporter’s record by that 

date will result in the Court ordering each one not to sit until the reporter’s record is filed, 

regardless of what portions are complete.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela Mays, 

Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; to Verneas Faggett, office court reporter, 283rd 

Judicial District Court; Yolanda Atkins, deputy court reporter; and to counsel for all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20043 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL NELSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. BRYAN COLLIN, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, Texas; WARDEN BAILEY, Senior Warden of Estelle Unit; UNKNOWN CORRECTION OFFICER #1; UNKNOWN CORRECTION OFFICER #2 , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CV

- 2340

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Nelson, Texas prisoner # 1498715, filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

. Nelson alleged that, while he was housed in the wing for prisoners with sight and hearing disabilities, his hand was injured because a prison guard failed to follow the proper procedures. The district court dismissed the civil action , under 28

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20043 Document: 00514918232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2019No. 18

- 20043

2 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted. We
review dismiss al s for failure to state a claim de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s s afety

. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). M ere negligence is not enough. See Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5t h Cir. 1999). Nelson’s alleg ations do not suggest that the guard acted deliberately or knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety.
T o establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Title II of the A DA, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that he has a qualify ing disability; (2) that he is being denied the benefits of services, program s, or activities for
which the public entity is responsible, or is otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that such discrimination is by reason of his disability.” Hale v. King , 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). Nelson’s allegations do not set forth facts supporting a claim that he was discriminated against in any way because of his disability. See id

. F or the first time on appeal, Nelson asserts that he was denied medical

care for the injuries he suffered in the Estelle Unit

. Because he did not raise
this claim in the district court, we need not consider it on appeal. See Leverette

v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999)

. The district court did not err in dismissing Nelson’s complaint, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Nelson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
DENIED. Case: 18-20043 Document: 00514918232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019