alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mrs. Fannie H. ROGERS v. William G. GILCHRIST, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Charles C. Kleinschmidt, Jr.

No. 45972.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 23, 1970.

Thomas, Price, Alston, Jones & Davis, Jackson, for appellant.

Watkins & Eager, Elizabeth Hulen, Jackson, for appellee.

INZER, Justice.

This is an appeal by Mrs. Fannie H. Rogers, plaintiff below, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County in favor of defendant William G. Gilchrist, Jr., administrator of the Estate of Charles C. Klein-schmidt, Jr., based upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

Will Cannon Rogers and Charles C. Kleinschmidt, Jr. were both killed as a result of an automobile collision which occurred in the intersection of Amite and North West Streets in the City of Jackson at about 12:25 A.M. on November 5, 1967. Rogers was a passenger in an automobile driven by Mrs. Janice Van Ledbetter proceeding east on Amite Street, and Klein-schmidt was driving north on North West Street. The two automobiles collided near the center of the intersection with the front of the Ledbetter automobile striking the left side of the Kleinschmidt automobile near the driver’s seat.

We do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to detail the evidence in this case. It is sufficient to say that after a careful review of the same, we are of the opinion that it was a question for the jury as to whether Kleinschmidt was guilty of any negligence that caused or contributed to the accident that resulted in the death of Rogers. The jury resolved this issue in favor of appellee and we cannot say that its verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We have carefully considered the errors assigned and find no reversible error. When the instructions to the jury are read together, the jury was correctly instructed as to the law and we do not think the jury was misled by any alleged errors therein.

There being no reversible error in this record, this case should be and it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and JONES, BRADY and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas E. HOPKINS, a/k/a Thomas Ray Jackson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-511.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Civil Rights Commission

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission Public Business Meeting.

# DATES:

Friday, July 13, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

Place: National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. (Entrance on F Street NW.)

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brian Walch: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116;                         *publicaffairs@usccr.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This business meeting is open to the public.There will also be a call-in line for individuals who desire to listen to the presentations: (855) 719-5012, Conference ID 6113336. The event will live-stream at:                     *https://www.youtube.com/​user/​USCCR/​videos.*                     (Streaming information is subject to change.) Persons with disabilities who need accommodation should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at                     *access@usccr.gov*                     at least seven (7) business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.                

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Business Meeting

A. Discussion and vote on Commission Advisory Committee Chair
    - John Malcolm, nominated to Chair the Washington, DC Advisory Committee

B. Presentation by New Hampshire Advisory Committee Chair on the Committee's recently released report: Voting Rights in New Hampshire

C. Presentation on the 50th anniversary of the Kerner Commission
    - Alan Curtis, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, The Eisenhower Foundation

D. Presentation by Alaska Advisory Committee Chair on the Committee's recently-released report: Alaska Native Voting Rights

E. Management and operations
    - Staff Director's Report

III. Adjourn Meeting

Dated: July 2, 2018.

Brian Walch,

Director, Communications and Public Engagement.

[FR Doc. 2018-14524 Filed 7-2-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 41

Requiring that travel awards that accrue by reason of official travel of

a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives be

used only with respect to official travel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1993

Mr. WELDON (for himself, Mr. LEACH, and Mr. SHAYS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Requiring that travel awards that accrue by reason of official

travel of a Member, officer, or employee of the House

of Representatives be used only with respect to official

travel.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF TRAVEL AWARDS.

3 Notwithstanding any provision of law or any rule,

4 regulation, or other authority, any travel award that ac5 crues by reason of official travel of a Member, officer, or

6 employee of the House of Representatives may be used

7 only with respect to official travel.
2

•HRES 41 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

2 The Committee on House Administration of the

3 House of Representatives shall have authority to prescribe

4 regulations to carry out this resolution.

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

6 As used in this resolution—

7 (1) the term ‘‘travel award’’ means any fre8 quent flier mileage, free travel, discounted travel, or

9 other travel benefit, whether awarded by coupon,

10 membership, or otherwise; and

11 (2) the term ‘‘official travel’’ means, with re12 spect to the House of Representatives, travel per13 formed for the conduct of official business of the

14 House of Representatives.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 16, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                        
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|January 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|                 |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
No. 10585.

#### Green et al., Exrs., *v.*Ashley, Exr., et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error *457to Circuit Court of Morrow county.

*Mr. W. P. Vaughan*and *Mr. J. W. Barry,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Mitchell & Bruce; Messrs. H. H. & R. M. Greer; Mr. F. V. Owen*and *Messrs. Harlan & Wood,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Price,.JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.6**

 

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 Miramar Mining Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Elaine Bennett, Chief Financial 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|   | April 24, 2007 | Elaine Bennett                               |   |
|--------|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Elaine Bennett |
# C_2016136EN.01001001.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

(Case C-29/16)

(2016/C 136/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Applicant:

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Where the procedural law of a Member State provides for independent proceedings for the taking of evidence in which, by order of the court, an expert report is obtained (in this case the ‘expertise judiciaire’ in French law), and where such independent proceedings for the taking of evidence are conducted in that Member State and an action based on the findings of those independent proceedings is subsequently brought in the same Member State between the same parties:

expertise judiciaire

In that case, is the document by which the independent proceedings for the taking of evidence were instituted a ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? (1) Or is it only the document by which the action is brought that is to be regarded as being the ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---
#### James L. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 44528.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

BOYD, J., dissents and concurs with ERVIN, J.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting):

This case involves an attack on the validity of a trial jury by appellant, a criminally charged defendant. He contends F. S. Ch. 40, F.S.A., is invalid on its face because thereunder veniremen are selected for Dade County Criminal juries only from among fully qualified electors who have resided in the State for one year and in Dade County for six months to the exclusion of large numbers of unregistered persons eligible to vote and those purged from the voter rolls in accord with F.S. § 98.081, F.S.A. I find that appellant’s contentions appear to have strong support. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) and Hinnant v. Sebesta, Op. 3 judge U.S.Dist.Ct., Middle District of Florida, 363 F.Supp. 398, filed September 12, 1973.

BOYD, J., concurs.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        Golden West Financial Corporation
        Statement of Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                                            (Dollars in thousands except per share figures)


                                                                  Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                                       June 30                         June 30
                                                             -----------------------------   -----------------------------
                                                                  2000            1999            2000            1999
                                                             -------------   -------------   -------------   -------------

<S>                                                          <C>             <C>            <C>              <C>
Net Earnings                                                 $    133,262    $    122,387    $    259,196    $    242,755
                                                             =============   =============   =============   =============

Weighted Average Shares                                       157,999,885     167,665,377     158,979,248     168,698,412
    Add:  Options outstanding at period end                     6,735,779       5,526,915       6,735,779       5,526,915
    Less:  Shares assumed purchased back with
              proceeds of options exercised                     5,141,709       3,895,077       5,487,657       3,921,822
                                                             -------------   -------------   -------------   -------------
Diluted Average Shares Outstanding                            159,593,955     169,297,215     160,227,370     170,303,505
                                                             =============   =============   =============   =============

Basic Earnings Per Share                                      $       .84    $        .73     $      1.63     $      1.44
                                                             =============   =============   =============   =============

Diluted Earnings Per Share                                    $       .84    $        .72     $      1.62     $      1.43
                                                             =============   =============   =============   =============
</TABLE>
#### J & R FORMING COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. Willie STOKES et al., Respondents.

No. 40674.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 10, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.7

Ignyte Acquisition Corp.
277 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10172

[●], 2021

Ignyte Sponsor LLC
277 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10172

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of securities of Ignyte Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Ignyte Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”) shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 277 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10172 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay the Sponsor the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Sponsor hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) to be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.

[Signature Page Follows]










			Very truly yours,
			 
			IGNYTE ACQUISITION CORP.
			 
			 
			By: 	                                	 
				Name: David Rosenberg
				Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer
				 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:		
			 
	IGNYTE SPONSOR LLC		
	 		
		 
	By:	                                	 		
	 	Name:		
	 	Title:		



[Signature Page to Administrative Services Agreement]
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 1901

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lewis Miles

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

____________

Submitted: April 13, 2022 Filed: August 8, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

___________ _

PER CURIAM.

After Lewis Miles pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine,
the district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 846. Miles argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable . W e affirm.-2- Despite varying 52 months upward above the top of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range, the district court 1 did not abuse its
discretion. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8 th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (setting forth the standard of review). The record establishes the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and concluded the upward variance w as necessary to reflect Miles’s extensive criminal history, the
need to deter future criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public from further crimes by Miles. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (2)(B)

– (C).

Miles argues the district court improperly reli ed on his criminal history to justify the upward variance because his criminal history was fully accounted for by
the Guidelines. Not so. We have repeatedly stated

, “factors that have already been taken into account in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless
form the basis of a variance.” United States v. David , 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8 th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Chase , 560 F.3d 828, 831 (8 th Cir. 2009) ). This may be the case, for example, when “the Guidelines do not fully account for those
factors [.] ” United States v. Richart , 662 F.3d 1037, 1052 (8 th Cir. 2011). And here
the district court properly concluded the Guidelines did not fully account for Mi les’s criminal history

. Specifically, t he district court emphasized that Miles had repeatedly returned to selling drugs immediately upon completing past sentences

. This included the instance here where Miles dealt drugs while on pretrial release and only days after he had pled guilty to another federal drug charge. Th e district court’s upward variance was not improper.

In sum, we conclude this is not the “unusual case” that warrants reversal due

to a substantively unreasonable sentence

. Feemster , 572 F.3d at 464

. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, David W. Cole, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March 9, 2007
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14584]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor 
Performance and Durability

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute--
Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor Performance and 
Durability (``PSPD-II'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Faurecia Systemes D'Echappement (FSE), Nanterre, FRANCE, 
has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PSPD-II intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 15, 2017, PSPD-II filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
April 14, 2017 (82 FR 18012).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 6, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on March 19, 2018 (83 FR 12025).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14584 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
```