alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
259 La. 885

#### Leo SWINDLE v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 51767.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Leo Swindle applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Helena. 251 So.2d 787.

Writ denied. Under the assignment of errors and on the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Perry Law, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of

material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements

made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,

not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial

information included in this report, fairly present in all material

respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of

the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as

defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant

and have:



(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such

disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our

supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the

registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known

to us by others within those entities, particularly during the

period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls

and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about

the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of

the end of the period covered by this report based on such

evaluation; and



(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal

control over financial reporting that occurred during the

registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth

quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially

affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the

registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,

to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's

board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design

or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are

reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to

record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or

other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's

internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Executive Officer



November 13, 2006
Order entered December 6, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01041

- CV

PINGHUA LEI, JIE ZHU , AND CHIUNG YING “JO ANN” CHEN, Appellant s

V.

NATURAL POLYMER INTE R NATIONAL CORPORATION AND NPIC SHANGHAI CO., LTD., Appellee s
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199

- 01725

- 2018



### O RDER

Before the Court is Bill Pedersen, III’s December 4, 2018 motion to withdraw as coun s el
for appellant Pinghua Lei

. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to

remove Mr. Pedersen as counsel for Mr. Lei. All future co mmunication with Mr. Lei shall be

directed to:
Pinghua Lei neillei049@yahoo.com 11126 Still Hollow Dr. Fr isco, Texas 75035 (972) 750

- 0834.

On our own motion, we EXTEND the deadline for filing a ppellants’ reply brief to
January 3 , 2019

.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1026 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1026

          To assist survivors of stroke in returning to work.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2013

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To assist survivors of stroke in returning to work.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Return to Work Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTING STROKE SURVIVORS IN RETURNING TO WORK.

    The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Accommodation 
Network, may promote awareness and assistance among employers to enable 
survivors of stroke to return to work.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARCUS B. HARRIS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4364

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 2, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, 

Judge.

Marcus B. Harris, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### CHRISTIAN EGBERS *vs.*FRANCIS LOGAN.

**%uere.*Can one tenant in common of a vessel maintain trover against his co-tenant without a destruction of the thing held in common?

"What is the legal evidence of property in a vessel?

Case. Trover by one tenant in common of a vessel against his co-tenant.

*Bead, jr.,*for plaintiff.

This was an action of trover brought under the following circumstances. Egbers and Logan purchased together a schooner called the Ohio; and sailed her on their joint account for some time. Logan afterwards entered the vessel at the custom house in his own name, took out a license as sole owner, and then sold her without the knowledge or consent of his partner Egbers. He offered the license in evidence, and it was objected to.

*Bayard.*

The license is no evidence of ownership. The ships husband is the proper person to take out license and give bond; nor is it necessary, by any means, that the names of all the owners should appear in the license. The bill of sale is the only evidence of property. 2 *U. S. L.*171, § 4, *of act of*1793; *Abbot on Ship. Old. p. 94,*86; *Th. Raymond*15; *Graves*vs. *Saucer, 2 Johns. Rep.*468; *St. John*vs. *Standring; Roscoe Ev.*408, 6.

*Read, jr.*The evidence is offered to show, not that the property was actually vested in the person named in this license, but to prove the fact that he took out such a license; that is, that he, in the most public manner, took exclusive possession of the vessel and claimed to be the sole owner. It is evidence to establish a conversion.

*343
      *Hamilton.*

The question before the court is one of *property*as well as conversion. Proof of one must precede the other. Can the property in this vessel be proved by such evidence as this? Moreover the paper itself is not authentic.

*Read, jr.,*for plaintiff.

*J. JL. Bayard*and *Hamilton,*for defendant.

It turned out that the paper had no seal to it, and not being duly authenticated, it was rejected on this ground, and the plff. suffered a nonsuit.

The question which he designed to raise in this case was whether one tenant in common of a vessel could be guilty of such a conversion as that trover would lie against him, without an actual destruction of the thing. The older cases are against the action; but a doubt is expressed in *2 Johns. Rep.,*and very strong in 7 *Com. Law Rep.*148; *Barton et al*vs. *Williams et al.*
#### The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Florence BORAKS, Appellee.

No. 72-739.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

Shutts & Bowen and Robert C. Sommer-ville, Miami, for appellant.

Snyder, Young & Stern, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant insurer seeks review of an adverse final judgment based on*a non-jury trial awarding appellee $50,000 allegedly due her on a life insurance policy of her husband, and an adverse finding on appellant’s counter-claim for an amount paid on the policy that was allegedly an overage. This action arose out of a conflict as to the amount of insurance coverage carried by appellee’s decedent.

A recitation of the facts herein involved is not necessary to a determination of this cause. It is well established that the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and that these findings come to this court on appeal clothed with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless it is shown that there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support those conclusions. See Benedict v. Dade County Realty, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 553, opinion filed March 13, 1973, and the cases cited therein.

Our review of the record on appeal convinces us that there appears substantial competent evidence therein to support the trial court’s conclusions and that the *247judgment is fully supported in law and fact.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### SHARPE *v.*SHARPE.

Divorce — Preponderance op Evidence.

Wife’s suit for divoreo *held,*properly dismissed on ground that plaintiff’s charges were not supported by preponderance of evidence.

Appeal from Wayne; Merriam (DeWitt H.), J.

Submitted April 19, 1932.

(Docket No. 158, Calendar No. 36,474.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Bill by Effie M. Sharpe against Lewis Sharpe for divorce. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Wm. Henry Gallagher,*for plaintiff.

*Frank B. Ferguson (Gerald R. Marshall,*of counsel), for defendant.

Butzel, J.

Effie M. Sharpe, plaintiff, filed a bill for divorce against Lewis Sharpe. The parties were married on January 11, 1928, at Detroit. Plaintiff was 48 years of age and had never been married before. Defendant was almost 10 years older. Previous to her marriage, plaintiff was a buyer for a department of a very large mercantile establishment. She gave up her position and cannot get it back. Defendant had three children by two previous marriages, both wives having died. They were sisters whom plaintiff had known and through whom she had met defendant over 20 years prior to her marriage to him. Plaintiff knew that defendant ran *452a saloon where intoxicating liquor was sold. He gave up the business when he married. The parties had spent many evenings together previous to their marriage and frequently at roadhouses where intoxicating liquors were partaken of at their meals. Liquor was used during their honeymoon trip, and although plaintiff very vehemently declared in the course of her testimony that she hated liquor, she admitted’ that she herself had indulged in its use. She must have known that the running of a saloon was illegitimate. The parties had many quarrels during the short period of four months during which they lived together, but excepting one or two instances they were not of a serious nature. We do not believe there is any reason why, with an effort on the part of each of them, there cannot be a reconciliation and a restoration of domestic peace. According to plaintiff’s own testimony, after the return from the wedding trip, she found that defendant was drinking to excess and she asked him to again engage in the liquor business. He acted in accordance with her suggestion and they took up their residence in a flat over the saloon he conducted. The charges made by her were not, in the opinion of the trial judge, supported by the requisite preponderance of testimony reaching the dignity of evidence. He was not at all in sympathy with plaintiff’s asking for legal redress when she admitted that she asked defendant to engage in an illegal business which may have been indirectly the contributing cause of defendant’s alleged misconduct.

We believe the court reached the correct conclusion in dismissing the bill of complaint. The decree is affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                           TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


     In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of LION,  Inc.  (the
"Registrant")  for the fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2002 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  David
Stedman, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief Financial Officer, of
LION,  Inc., a Washington  corporation  (the  "Company"),  each hereby certifies
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Company's  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.


                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                             /s/ David Stedman
                             -----------------------
                             David Stedman

                             March 31, 2003



                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                             /s/ Steve Thomson
                             -----------------------
                             Steve Thomson

                             March 31, 2003

                                       64
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                 <C>                   <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1998         APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS              12-MOS
<CASH>                                      165,994             507,726
<SECURITIES>                                   0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              3,242,867           2,793,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                150,000             126,000
<INVENTORY>                                2,554,643           1,425,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           6,668,845           5,120,101
<PP&E>                                     2,001,776           1,393,604
<DEPRECIATION>                              991,347             971,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            15,973,475           6,179,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      7,370,895           2,176,084
<BONDS>                                        0                   0
<COMMON>                                     8,287               4,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                 6,392,751           3,998,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              15,973,475           6,179,038
<SALES>                                   12,673,917          10,217,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          12,673,917          10,217,911
<CGS>                                      5,464,708           4,285,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             18,381,120           9,821,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (100,573)            (4,344)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (5,764,764)           406,649
<INCOME-TAX>                                232,239            (304,661)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (5,997,003)           711,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                   0
<CHANGES>                                      0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              (5,997,003)           711,310
<EPS-BASIC>                               (1.09)               0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.09)               0.14


</TABLE>
#### Rose Ann ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1077 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 420
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1077

                          [Report No. 113-189]

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

  Mr. Cardin (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
  Coons, and Mr. Kaine) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                              June 5, 2014

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (16 
U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
years'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ``fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 420

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1077

                          [Report No. 113-189]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 5, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
II 

Calendar No. 339 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1044 

[Report No. 113–141] 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World 

War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an 

inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed 

with the United States on D-Day, June 6, 1944. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

MARCH 31, 2014 

Reported by Ms. LANDRIEU, without amendment 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the 

area of the World War II Memorial in the District of 

Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the 

words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with 

the United States on D-Day, June 6, 1944. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1044 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘World War II Memo3 rial Prayer Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE OR INSCRIPTION AT 

5 WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior— 

7 (1) shall install in the area of the World War 

8 II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable 

9 plaque or an inscription with the words that Presi10 dent Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United 

11 States on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day; 

12 (2) shall design, procure, prepare, and install 

13 the plaque or inscription referred to in paragraph 

14 (1); and 

15 (3) may not use Federal funds to prepare or in16 stall the plaque or inscription referred to in para17 graph (1), but may accept and expend private con18 tributions for this purpose. 

19 SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT. 

20 Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (com21 monly known as the ‘‘Commemorative Works Act’’), shall 

22 apply to the design and placement of the plaque within 

23 the area of the World War II Memorial. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 339 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1044 

[Report No. 113–141] 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in 

D-Day, June 6, 1944. D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on scription with the words that President Franklin District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inthe area of the World War II Memorial in the 

MARCH 31, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### COLONIAL CHICKEN SYSTEMS, INC., now known as Chicken Express, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FINANCIAL VISTAS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.