alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Herman TALLEY and Farm Bureau Insurance Company.

No. 62749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Jefferson Davis.

Writ denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.M.,

Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY,

Appellee.

No. 4D 2 02 2

- 3326

[ December 14, 2023 ]

Appeal from the School Board of Broward County ; L.T. Case No. SE

2021

- 22

- 305

.

Nathan Soowal, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Hudson C. Gill of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper &

Hochman, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C IKLIN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Homer L. THOMAS and Willie Watson, Appellants, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46833.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 19, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1972.

Hugh L. Bailey, Winona, Murray L. Williams, Water Valley, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by J. B. Gar-retty, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 476

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 26, 1994.

Whereas the people of the United States and Germany have

enjoyed warm and amicable relations for 5 decades;

Whereas throughout the Cold War the existence of a free and

democratic West Berlin served as a symbol of Western

resolve in the face of totalitarian aggression;

Whereas the armed forces of the United States have maintained a continuous presence in defense of the city of

Berlin for 49 years;

Whereas, in 1948 and 1949, the United States came to the

assistance of the people of Berlin during the 462 days of

the Berlin airlift;

Whereas, following the construction of the Berlin wall, the

armed forces of the United States stationed in Berlin

demonstrated the American resolve to participate in the

defense of Western Europe;

Whereas the United States takes pride in having admirably

fulfilled its administrative responsibilities over its sector

in the city of Berlin;

Whereas the citizens of Berlin have reciprocated the United

States’ commitment by demonstrating warm and genuine

hospitality and a willingness to integrate the American

community deeply into the life of the city;
2

•HRES 476 EH

Whereas the American people shared the joy of the German

people at the collapse of the Berlin wall and German unification;

Whereas the termination of the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent unification of Germany reduced the strategic requirement for a continued United States military presence in Berlin;

Whereas the United States Berlin Brigade, together with

French and British contingents stationed in Berlin, are

now preparing for their departure from Berlin; and

Whereas the history of friendly relations and longstanding

commercial and cultural bonds between the people of

Berlin and the United States form a sound basis for continued warm and positive relations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) congratulates the people of Germany on the unification of the Nation and the city of Berlin as it prepares to resume its position as the seat of government

of united Germany;

(2) congratulates the armed forces of the United

States, civilian administrators, and the American people

for 5 decades of sacrifice and steadfast support for the

city of Berlin;

(3) recognizes and salutes the contribution of British and French allies in the defense of Berlin;

(4) reaffirms the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obligations of the United States and America’s con-
3

•HRES 476 EH

tinued support for a free, democratic, and united Germany; and

(5) welcomes the further enrichment of the relationship between the United States and the city of Berlin

based on an approach fostering new traditions in economic and cultural links.

Attest:

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ROBERT FAYANT ; JULIE

LORRAINE FAYANT,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

U.S. BANK,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 35097

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 00139

- SMJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY , WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

William Robert Fayant and Julie Lorraine Fayant a ppeal from the district

court’ s judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)

claim for rescission

. We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( b )( 6 ). Serra

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concl udes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35097

v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Fayants’ action as time

- barred

because the Fayants did not send a notice of rescission to defendant within three

years of consummation of the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ( providing a right of

rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender

fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of

rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years

after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp. , 309 F.3d

1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the

courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the

three

- year limitation period.” ). We reject as without merit the Fayants ’ contention

that the subject loan transaction was not consummated.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright

, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           19503
<SECURITIES>                                     17619
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 35243
<PP&E>                                           32084
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (661)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   74619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6241
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        101670
<OTHER-SE>                                     (34243)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     74619
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   409
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (652)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
# GSA Federal Tenant Satisfaction Survey

 

The Tenant Satisfaction Survey is here! For the first time since 2019, the Tenant Satisfaction Survey (TSS) is being distributed, and all federal employees should receive the survey via email on Oct. 3. The survey is used to gauge satisfaction with building services, including building condition and cleanliness, security, and building management staff in all federally-owned and leased buildings, regardless of whether they are managed by GSA. The feedback we receive is extremely valuable as the results are used to inform best practices and operational improvements, and it lets us know about any shortcomings in the services we provide so we can take actionable steps to remedy any issues that arise.

The 2023 TSS survey will launch on Tuesday, Oct. 3. Federal employees will receive an email from:

"Federal Tenant Satisfaction Survey TSScustomerservice@research.gsa.gov" that will provide individual survey links.

If you have any questions, please send an email to TSScustomerservice@research.gsa.gov. Thanks for your input. 

**Resources:**

2023 TSS Toolkit [ZIP - 17 MB]

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### EDWARD PARKINSON COMPANY, Appellant, v. DIAMOND T. MOTOR TRUCK COMPANY, a solely owned subsidiary of White Motor Company, a foreign corporation, and White Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CENTRAL LOUISIANA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, et al.

No. 62009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc., applying for supervisory writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.

SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         104,389
<SECURITIES>                                    63,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                  510,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    350,448
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,053,890
<PP&E>                                      22,917,195
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,933,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,190,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,012,924
<BONDS>                                      1,332,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,901
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,479,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,190,497
<SALES>                                      1,270,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,293,790
<CGS>                                          745,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,407,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (169,508)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (159,508)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (159,508)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Harold Kenneth MOYE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-579.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 7, 1972.

Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pensacola Lodge No. 497, B.P.O.E. v. State, 1917, 74 Fla. 498, 77 So. 613; Peel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 281.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Ernest Jay TAMERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-961.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

*403Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Richard S. Power and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey and Thomas M. Carney, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Defendant was charged with obtaining property in return for a worthless check. On April 25, 1973, counsel for the state and defendant presented a negotiated plea to the court, i. e., defendant would withdraw his plea of not guilty, plead nolo con-tendere, the court to withhold adjudication and place defendant on probation. The court advised defendant it would order a presentence investigation and, if unable to accept the recommended plea, it would allow defendant to withdraw his nolo plea.

Six months later, after receipt of the presentence investigation, the court rejected the recommendation and sentenced defendant to one year in the Division of Corrections. No doubt due to the lapse of time, no one mentioned defendant’s right to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. While it would certainly appear the public defender representing defendant should have called this to the court’s attention, it is the court’s affirmative duty to so advise defendant before sentencing, and call upon him to either affirm or withdraw his plea. Barker v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 200; Enos v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 847; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So.2d 307.

From the record it would appear that defendant has already served his sentence. Thus, we have the anomalous situation of reversing the judgment and sentence already served with directions to allow defendant to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and plead anew. However, defendant has continued to maintain this appeal and he is entitled to a determination on the merits thereof.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that defendant be allowed to withdraw his plea of nolo con-tendere, and enter such plea as he deems advisable.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000751255
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1985-1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             68,872
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      55,595
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  124,467
<PP&E>                         20,981,447
<DEPRECIATION>                 20,883,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    232,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               5,053
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        193,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      232,383
<SALES>                           293,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  295,675
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     163,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   132,375
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               132,375
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      132,375
<EPS-BASIC>                         31.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
#### The VOLUNTEER STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, a foreign corporation, and Northwestern National Life Insurance Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. Patricia M. FOREMAN, Executrix of the Estate of Donald G. Foreman, Deceased, and Patricia M. Foreman, for the use and benefit of United Mortgagee Servicing Corp., a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; M. W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Terry Curtis, Appellant, v Penelope Curtis, Respondent.

[654 NYS2d 538]

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Monroe County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Although Family Court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition *(see,*28 USC § 1738A [a], [d], [f]; *see also, Capobianco v Willis,*171 AD2d 834; Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d), it abused its discretion in dismissing the petition on the ground that New York State is an inconvenient forum *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 75-h). The court, in declining to exercise jurisdiction, placed far too much emphasis on the fact that the child resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia and too little emphasis on respondent’s reprehensible conduct in removing the child from New York State in violation of the court’s custody and visitation order and secreting the child in Virginia, which resulted in the complete frustration of petitioner’s visitation rights *(see, Grossman v Meller,*213 AD2d 221). In light of the indigency of petitioner, making him unable to participate meaningfully in a hearing in Virginia, and the fact that the parties may obtain relevant evidence from Virginia pursuant to the reciprocal provisions of Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-r and 75-s, we conclude that the hearing on the petition, which is limited solely to the issue of enforcement of petitioner’s established visitation rights, must be held before Monroe County Family Court *(cf., Matter of Swain v Vogt,*206 AD2d 703). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J.— Visitation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
# Official Journal L 329/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.329.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 329 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5314 December 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.329.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 329

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5314 December 2010

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 1091/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement | 1 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2010/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations, and the supervisory review of remuneration policies (1) | 3 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 1091/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

1

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2010/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations, and the supervisory review of remuneration policies (1)

3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
257 La. 178

#### C. I. T. LEASING CORPORATION v. BAR-TENDER OF LOUISIANA, INC. and Robert U. Blum.

No. 51039.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 1970.

In re: Bar-Tender of Louisiana, Inc. and Robert U. Blum applying for writ of certiorari and stay order.

Application deniedv There is no showing that warrants the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
#### W. T. RUCKER and Marie Louise Rucker, his wife, Appellants, v. Lewis D. NORRIS et al., Appellees.

No. 70-750.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 974

To eliminate any salary adjustment for Members of Congress under section

601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, in fiscal year 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. GUTIERREZ (for himself, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas,

Mr. FINGERHUT, Mr. DEAL, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. BAESLER, and Ms.

WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on House Administration and Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To eliminate any salary adjustment for Members of Congress

under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization

Act of 1946, in fiscal year 1994.

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

3 That no rate of pay referred to in paragraph (1) of section

4 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2

5 U.S.C. 31) shall be adjusted to reflect any increase which,

6 but for this Act, would take effect under paragraph (2)

7 of such section 601(a) in fiscal year 1994.

Æ