alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LAND CORPORATION OF FLORIDA v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY.

No. 37023.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 204 So.2d 222.
# C_2015367EN.01000301.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/3

---

EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/08)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://osha.europa.eu/en/about-eu-osha/what-we-do/how-we-work/finance/finance-and-budget-information

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3731 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3731

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that 
    amounts paid to a member of the Armed Forces under the Special 
Separation Benefits program of the Department of Defense be offset from 
amounts subsequently paid to that member by the Department of Veterans 
                  Affairs as disability compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1994

Ms. Brown of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that 
    amounts paid to a member of the Armed Forces under the Special 
Separation Benefits program of the Department of Defense be offset from 
amounts subsequently paid to that member by the Department of Veterans 
                  Affairs as disability compensation.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF SPECIAL SEPARATION 
              BENEFIT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 1174a(g) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by striking out ``subsection (e)(2)(A)'' and inserting in 
lieu thereof ``subsections (e)(2)(A) and (h)(2)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as of December 5, 1991.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          42,348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  283,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,467
<INVENTORY>                                    169,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               504,878
<PP&E>                                       1,250,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                 682,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,377,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          192,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,270
<OTHER-SE>                                     928,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,377,995
<SALES>                                        262,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,083,965
<CGS>                                          175,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  726,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               164,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                175,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.14
        

</TABLE>
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          | Summit Hotel OP, LP                                                                 |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | By: Summit Hotel GP, LLC, its general partner                                       |
|                          | By: Summit Hotel Properties, Inc., its sole member                                  |
|                          |                                                                                |
| Date:  May 16, 2011 | By:   /s/  Daniel P. Hansen                                |
|                          | Daniel P. HansenPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 27, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00697-CV

KELLY BROOME, Appellant

V.

TUCKER ALBIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00672

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Myers

The Court has before it appellant’s August 25, 2015 unopposed motion to dismiss the 

appeal. Appellant states that all issues between him and appellee have been fully and finally 

settled and he no longer desires to pursue the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

150697F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KELLY BROOME, Appellant

No. 05-15-00697-CV V.

TUCKER ALBIN AND ASSOCIATES, 

INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00672.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices 

Fillmore and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We 

ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 27th day of August, 2015.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 361

To amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to reestablish minimum

inspection and processing standards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SMITH of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to reestablish

minimum inspection and processing standards.

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

3 That the Poultry and Poultry Products Inspection Act,

4 chapter 10 of title 21, United States Code, is hereby

5 amended to add a new section as follows:

6 ‘‘All poultry and poultry products slaughtered or

7 processed pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall be

8 slaughtered and processed under standards which would

9 have complied with the rules and regulations and all in10 spection and reinspection standards in effect July 1, 1977.
2

•HR 361 IH

1 Any further change in such requirements shall not be ef2 fective until or unless specifically approved in a Public

3 Law.’’.

Æ
254 La. 791

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clarence TYLER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50022.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Clarence Tyler applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. We find no error in the judgment complained of.
10 K 12.31.2013 Exhibit 10.22






Exhibit 10.22
First Amendment


To


BorgWarner Inc. Board of Directors Deferred Compensation Plan


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)
Effective January 1, 2011, Section 4.3 of the the BorgWarner Inc. Board of Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) is hereby amended as follows:
Section 4.3 Timing of Deferral Credits. The percentage amount of a Retainer Fee that a Participant elects to defer in the Deferral Election shall cause an equivalent reduction in the amount of the Retainer Fee actually paid in cash to the Participant for that year. Retainer Fee deferrals shall be credited to each Participant’s appropriate Deferred Benefit Account as of the first Business Day of the calendar quarter immediately following the calendar quarter in which the Retainer Fee was payable to the Participant. For example, a Retainer Fee payable to the Participant during November will be credited to the Participant’s Deferred Benefit Account as of the first Business Day of January. The amounts credited to the Participant’s deferred Benefit Account will be allocated among the Investment Options elected by the Participant under Section 5.1.

1
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 24, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2081

Lower Tribunal No. F14-18345

________________

Joseph Scott,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge.

Joseph Scott, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLUE WAVE SYSTEMS AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                       184
<INVENTORY>                                      3,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,541
<PP&E>                                          10,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,624
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,683
<SALES>                                         21,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,303
<CGS>                                            9,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
```
**Exhibit 31.1

                            Section 302 Certification
                        of David R. Schroder (President)****CERTIFICATION**
     I, David R. Schroder, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K of MACC Private  Equities
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a  material  fact or omit to sate 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  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  officers  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  or   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 presented in this report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness
          of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
          this report based on such evaluation;  and c) Presented in this report
          our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
          procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying  officers 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 registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  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
          controls.

Date: December 28, 2007

/s/ David R. Schroder
----------------------------
David R. Schroder
President and Secretary
```
#### Donald W. McKinnon et al. *vs.*Joseph R. Cianchette a/k/a J. R. Cianchette

Penobscot.

Opinion, August 7, 1957.

*44
      *Harry Stern,*for plaintiff.

*Clair L. Cianchette,*for defendant.

Sitting: Williamson, C. J., Webber, Beliveau, Tapley, Sullivan, Dubord, JJ.

Williamson, C. J.

This action of trespass *quare clausum fregit*is before us on defendant’s motion for a new trial. In 1955 in the course of work on an adjoining lot the defendant’s trucks and bulldozer crossed three vacant house lots belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted the trespass, and the sole issue before us is whether the jury-erred in assessing compensatory damages at $550. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs failed to establish any damage and thus could recover nominal damages and no more.

The case was tried on the theory that the plaintiffs’ land was permanently damaged, and that the measure of damages was the difference in market value immediately before and after the admitted trespass.

The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages. The ruling ■of the presiding justice taking this claim from the jury is not, however, before us.

The evidence on damages taken most favorably to the plaintiffs, is, in our opinion, insufficient for a jury verdict. In substance the evidence is this: The three vacant house lots, with a frontage of 120 feet on a city street in Bangor, were purchased by the plaintiffs in 1950 at a cost of “$1,000 plus my services as a carpenter.” “I (Mr, McKinnon) re*45alize that land is very scarce and valuable in Bangor.” Mr. McKinnon also testified that loam had been scraped from the land and an inferior fill “has been deposited on our land and has been ground in with our loam.” Mrs. McKinnon said, “The land was all dug up from the bulldozer, and there were ruts and holes, and the grass was all removed.” Photographs were introduced to show the damage caused by the acts of the defendant. From this evidence the jury concluded there was a loss in market value of $550.

We are unable to find evidence from which a jury could determine with reasonable certainty the market value before and after the trespass, and hence the proper damages. What was the market value before, and after, in this instance? The verdict, in our view, was based on guess or conjecture, neither of which is a firm base for a finding.

On a new trial the jury can be supplied with full data on which to place a reasonable verdict. We say no more than that on this record there is not sufficient evidence to find any damages, apart from nominal damages.

Illustrative cases are: *McDougal*v. *Hunt,*146 Me. 10, 14, 76 A. (2nd) 857; *Susi*v. *Diamond Match Co.,*131 Me. 487, 158 A. 698; *Bowley*v. *Smith,*131 Me. 402, 406, 163 A. 539.

Plaintiffs’ motion for treble costs on the ground defendant’s motion was frivolous or intended for delay is denied. R. S. Chap. 113, Sec. 59.

The entry will be

*Motion sustained.*

*Verdict set aside.*

*New trial granted.*
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3693 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

<DOC>

        H.R.3693

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction in 
Denver, Colorado,


            as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse being constructed through renovation 
of the old post office building in Denver, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Byron White United States 
Courthouse''.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
Exhibit 99.2


                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
           As Adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with Form 10-QSB of Digital Data Networks, Inc. (the "Company")
for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Boeglin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         3)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended, and
         4)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                  By:    /s/   Richard J. Boeglin
                                  -------------------------------
                                  Richard J. Boeglin
                                  Vice President, Finance and Operations
                                  August 9, 2002
N O

. 01

- 15

- 00094

- CR

01

- 15

- 00095

- CR

I N T HE C OURT OF A PPEALS

F OR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS

D IONYSIOS S PIRO K OSMETATOS

Appellant

v

.

THE S TATE OF T EXAS

Appellee

On Appeal from Cause Numbers 1414418 and 1449194

From the 338 th District Court of Harris County, Texas

M OTION TO S TRIKE B RIEF FOR THE A PPELLANT

To the Honorable Court of Appeals of Texas :

Comes now Appellant, in accordance with Rule 10.1 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure, and files this mot ion to strike brief for the appellant in this

cause, and, in support thereof, presents the following:

1. In the 338 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, following a jury trial

,

Appellant was sentenced on January 1 5, 2015 in Cause Numbers 1 414418

and 144 9194 , The State of Texas v. Dionysios Spiro Kosmetatos

. ACCEPTED

01-15-00095-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/23/2015 1:17:41 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 2. The Appellant’s brief was due October 22 , 2015

.

3. Counsel electronically filed Appellant’s brief on October 22, 2015 at exactly

11:08:56 pm.

4. The facts relied upon to explain the need to strike the file d brief are:

a. On October 23, 2015, Appellate counsel printed the filed brief to

mail to the Appellant and immediately realized a rough draft had

been mistakenly filed.

b. In a slight panic, counsel contacted the clerk ’s office of this court and

explained to Jesse Rodriguez that the correct draft needed to be filed

and would be done as soon as possible

.

Consequently, an Amended Brief for the Appellant has been filed along with

this motion to ensure the Court receives the correct draft . The Appellant’s motion is

not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that this Court will grant his Motion to

Strike Appellant’s Brief and re place with the Amended Brief for the Appellant

.

Respectfully submitted,

L

AW O FFIC E OF T ONYA R OLLAND

/s/ Tonya Rolland McLaughlin

_ ___ Tonya Rolland McLaughlin

4301 Yoakum Boulevard

Houston Texas 77006

Phone: (713) 529

- 8500

Fax: (713) 453

- 2203

TBN 240541763 C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered via

e

- service to the following :

Curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

Chief Prosecutor, Appellate Division

Harris County District Attorney’s Office

1201 Franklin Suite 600

Houston, Te xas 77002

- 1923

_ /s/ Tonya Rolland McLaughlin

_ _ Tonya Rolland McLaughlin

Attorney for Appellant