alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
259 La. 774

#### Marshall E. HIGGINS v. LOUISIANA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF BATON ROUGE et al.

No. 51645.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1971.

In re: Marshall E. Higgins, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 249 So.2d 289.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
NHI-21/31/2013-10K EX 10.32






EXHIBIT 10.32




John M. Brittingham
Harwell Howard Hyne Gabbert & Manner, P.C.
333 Commerce Street, Suite 1500
Nashville, TN 37201




AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO MASTER AGREEMENT TO LEASE




This Amendment No. 7 to Master Agreement to Lease (hereinafter “7th Amendment”) is made to that certain Master Agreement to Lease between National Health Investors, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Landlord”) and NHC/OP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Tenant” ) dated October 17, 1991, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Master Agreement of Lease, effective June 2, 1993, as further amended by that Amendment No. 2 to Master Agreement of Lease, effective January 15, 1996, as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 3 to Master Agreement of Lease, effective July 22, 1997, as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 4 to Master Agreement, effective December 31, 1997, as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 5 to Master Agreement of Lease, effective January 1, 2007, as further amended by Amendment No. 6 to Master Agreement to Lease dated December 26, 2012, as further amended by Amended and Restated Amendment No. 6 to Master Agreement to Lease dated as of December 26, 2012 (collectively the “Master Lease”) and is entered into on this the 28th day of August, 2013.


WHEREAS, pursuant to the Assignment of Master Agreement to Lease, effective December 31, 1997, National HealthCare Corporation, successor by merger to National HealthCare L.P. formerly National HealthCorp L.P., assigned its obligations and rights of the Master Lease to NHC/OP, L.P. (“Assignment”); and


WHEREAS, in Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement of Lease, Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement to Lease and, Amended and Restated Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement to Lease, (collectively the “Amendments”) the Tenant was erroneously identified; and 


WHEREAS, the intent of this 7th Amendment is to correct the name of the Tenant to NHC/OP, L.P in the Amendments.


NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES the parties do hereby amend the Master Lease as follows:


1.The Amendments are hereby amended to change the name of the Tenant from National HealthCare Corporation to NHC/OP, L.P.


2.In all other respects the terms and conditions of the Master Lease and Assignment remain in full force and effect. 











3.Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Master Lease. 


(Remainder of page intentionally left blank.)




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this 7th Amendment as of the date set forth above.


LANDLORD:


NATIONAL HEALTH INVESTORS, INC.,
a Maryland corporation






By: /s/ J. Justin Hutchens
J. Justin Hutchens, President and CEO




TENANT:


NHC/OP, L.P., 
a Delaware limited liability company


By: NHC Delaware, Inc., 
       a Delaware corporation
Its: General Partner






By: /s/ Stephen F. Flatt
Title:     VP
Name:     Steve Flatt
<PAGE>

                                  [LETTERHEAD]

NEWS RELEASE


                INTRUSION.COM, INC. ANNOUNCES INVESTMENT BY SAIC

            INTRUSION.COM RECEIVES APPROXIMATELY $7.9 MILLION IN CASH


RICHARDSON, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 - Intrusion.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: INTZ) today
announced that SAIC Venture Capital Corporation (SAIC VCC) exercised its second
and final warrant to purchase 750,000 shares of Intrusion.com common stock for
$10.50 per share. As a result of the exercise of this warrant, Intrusion.com
received approximately $7.9 million.

In conjunction with Intrusion.com's acquisition of Kane Secure Enterprise and
certain other intellectual property from Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) in September of 1998, SAIC received 1.6 million shares of
Intrusion.com common stock and two warrants. After exercising both warrants,
SAIC VCC now owns 3,150,000 shares or approximately 15% of Intrusion.com's
outstanding stock. Additionally, SAIC continues to have representation on
Intrusion.com's Board of Directors.

"SAIC continues to be a strong corporate partner," said Tim Kinnear, President
and CEO for Intrusion.com. "The technology acquired from SAIC has become a key
component of our Kane family of vulnerability assessment, intrusion detection
and security analysis solutions. In addition, as a system integrator and service
provider, SAIC is a valued customer and channel for Intrusion.com."


ABOUT INTRUSION.COM, INC.

Intrusion.com, Inc. is a leading provider of enterprise security solutions for
today's information-driven economy. Headquartered in Richardson, Texas,
Intrusion.com's security software and appliances help companies protect critical
information assets by quickly detecting, analyzing and


                                     -more-
<PAGE>

                                                                   Page 2 of 2

responding to network- and host-based attacks. Based on 15 years experience
developing high-security networks, the company's products include intrusion
detection and vulnerability assessment systems, and modular, scalable security
platforms. For more information, visit the company Web site at
WWW.INTRUSION.COM.


ABOUT SAIC

SAIC is a Fortune 500 company and the nation's largest employee-owned research
and engineering firm. SAIC provides information technology, systems integration
and eBusiness products and services to commercial and government customers. SAIC
engineers and scientists work to solve complex technical problems in
telecommunications, national security, health care, transportation, energy, the
environment and financial services. More information about SAIC and its
subsidiaries can be found at WWW.SAIC.COM.


                                      # # #

INVESTOR CONTACT:
Charleigh Shayne, Director, Investor Relations
972-664-8061, cshayne@intrusion.com
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43703-43704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18425]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
Amendments in the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma entered into compact amendments with the 
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma 
governing certain forms of class III gaming; this notice announces the 
approval of the State of Oklahoma Gaming Compact Non-house-Banked Table 
Games Supplement between the State of Oklahoma and the Quapaw Tribe of 
Oklahoma and the Sac and Fox Nation.

DATES: The compact amendments take effect on August 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 
293.4, all compacts and

[[Page 43704]]

amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The 
compact amendments authorize the Tribes to engage in certain additional 
class III gaming activities, provide for the application of existing 
revenue sharing agreements to the additional forms of class III gaming, 
and designate how the State will distribute revenue sharing funds.

    Dated: August 10, 2018.
Tara Sweeney,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-18425 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
250 La. 251

#### In re: Dan A. SPENCER.

No. 48563.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1967.

In re: Dan A. Spencer applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the contempt adjudication. See Arts. 17-25, C.Cr.P. The extenuating matters raised in the application address themselves to the mitigation of the penalty. Applicant’s rights as to said penalty are reserved.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
<PAGE>

                              September 26, 2000


Simple Technology, Inc.
3001 Daimler Street
Santa Ana, California 92705-5812

                  Re:      Simple Technology, Inc. Registration Statement on
                           Form S-1 for 7,318,600 Shares of Common Stock

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                  We have acted as counsel to Simple Technology, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the proposed
issuance and sale by the Company of up to 7,318,600 shares of the Company's
Common Stock (the "Shares") pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act").

                  This opinion is being furnished in accordance with the
requirements of Item 16(a) of Form S-1 and Item 601(b)(5)(i) of Regulation
S-K.

                  We have reviewed the Company's charter documents and the
corporate proceedings taken by the Company in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Shares. Based on such review, we are of the opinion that the
Shares have been duly authorized, and if, as and when issued in accordance
with the Registration Statement and the related prospectus (as amended and
supplemented through the date of issuance) will be legally issued, fully paid
and nonassessable.

                  We consent to the filing of this opinion letter as Exhibit
5.1 to the Registration Statement and to the reference to this firm under the
caption "Legal Matters" in the prospectus which is part of the Registration
Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we are within
the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act,
the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission
promulgated thereunder, or Item 509 of Regulation S-K.


<PAGE>

                                                             Simple Technology
                                                                        Page 2

                  This opinion letter is rendered as of the date first
written above and we disclaim any obligation to advise you of facts,
circumstances, events or developments which hereafter may be brought to our
attention and which may alter, affect or modify the opinion expressed herein.
Our opinion is expressly limited to the matters set forth above and we render
no opinion, whether by implication or otherwise, as to any other matters
relating to the Company or the Shares.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
                                            BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 20, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14337

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 92-00028-CR-ORL-18GJK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COLLIN MARSHALL,

a.k.a. Slim,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 20, 2009)

Before BIRCH, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Collin Marshall, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s reduction of
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Marshall was originally

sentenced in 1992 to 360 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute crack cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine. R1-575 at 1. Pursuant to Marshall’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district

court determined he was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendments 706

and 711 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base

offense level for crack cocaine offenses two levels. R1-577. The court sentenced

Marshall to 324 months of imprisonment – the minimum term permitted by the

amended guideline range. Id.; R1-572 at 4.

The only issue on appeal is whether the district court had discretion under

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), to treat the

guidelines as advisory and further reduce Marshall’s sentence below the amended

guideline range. The answer is no. See United States v. Melvin, No. 08-13497,

___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 236053, at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009) (per curiam)

(“Concluding that Booker and Kimbrough do not apply to § 3582(c)(2)

1

proceedings, we hold that a district court is bound by the limitations on its

discretion imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statements by the

Sentencing Commission.”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). 1

2
sentence.

AFFIRMED.

3
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40253

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO PADRON-RIVERA, also known

as Antonio Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-679-1

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Sergio Padron-Rivera appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Padron-Rivera complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Padron-Rivera thus contends that his sentence should not exceed
No. 03-40253

-2-

the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Padron-Rivera acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Shafeeq Hameed

4646 Sparrow Ave

269-381-2455

Shameed00@hotmail.com

11-05-2015

Petition for Section 333 Exemption

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for Shafeeq Hameed (hereafter “PETITIONER”) to 

operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for recreation or hobby.

PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to 

operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging. 

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within and without the United States. 

PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS in 

accordance with all laws of foreign and domestic governmental authorities.

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 1, DJI 

Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire , 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 

3D Robotics X8- M, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models.

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the NAS, other 

persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight 

inspection before each flight to examine air-worthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from 

commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will not be 

flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sight to operator(s) pursuant to 

Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will 

never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operator will perform a pre-flight visual inspection of the 

NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, power 

lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote 

control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) nonparticipating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the flight path of the UAS 

and its landing location. PETITIONER is an experienced UAS operator with more than one year of 

experience.

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER will provide imagery which is not 

otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAV, which will assist companies to which 

the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of nature photographed by the UAS, 
and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he or she 

comes in contact.

Please grant the requested exemption under Section 333.

Shafeeq Hameed

11/05/2015 03:58:28 pm

SigPlus1
#### William BINDER and Robert M. Dougherty v. STATE.

No. 37088.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3949

Entitled the ‘‘Volunteer Firefighter and Rescue Squad Worker Act’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1994

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

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

Entitled the ‘‘Volunteer Firefighter and Rescue Squad

Worker Act’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. FIREFIGHTER AND RESCUE SQUAD SERVICES.

4 Paragraph (4) of section 3(e) of the Fair Labor

5 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 303(e)) is amended by

6 adding after subparagraph (B) the following:

7 ‘‘(C) The term ‘employee’ does not include a fire8 fighter or a member of a rescue squad during the period

9 in which the firefighter or rescue squad member volunteers

10 the firefighter’s or member’s services at a location where

11 the firefighter or member is not employed.’’.
2

HR 3949 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

2 The employer of a firefighter or member of a rescue

3 squad is not required to pay the firefighter or member

4 overtime compensation under section 7 of the Fair Labor

5 Standards Act of 1938 for a period—

6 (1) when the firefighter or member volunteered

7 their services to the employer, and

8 (2) for which the firefighter or member signed

9 a legally binding waiver of such compensation.

10 SEC. 3. COERCION.

11 Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

12 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the

13 following:

14 ‘‘(r) No employer may require (directly or indirectly)

15 an employee who is a firefighter or member of a rescue

16 squad to volunteer the employee’s firefighting or rescue

17 squad services during any period in which such employee

18 would be entitled to receive compensation for overtime em19 ployment under subsection (a) if section 3(e)(4)(C) was

20 not in effect.’’.

Æ
No. 00-7375.

#### Hamilton *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.
# C_2013166EN.01000601.xml

| 12.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 June 2013

2013/C 166/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3273 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4575 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85390 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7454 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2305 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6860 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,613 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,71 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7020 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2789 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5113 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5172 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4206 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3594 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3057 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7080 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6723 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 503,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6365 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1410 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4988 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 038,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1883 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,209 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,1010 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,133 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8642 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2549 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,5210 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3273

JPY

Japanese yen

128,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4575

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85390

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7454

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2305

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6860

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,613

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,71

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7020

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2789

RON

Romanian leu

4,5113

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5172

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4206

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3594

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3057

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7080

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6723

KRW

South Korean won

1 503,51

ZAR

South African rand

13,6365

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1410

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4988

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 038,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1883

PHP

Philippine peso

57,209

RUB

Russian rouble

43,1010

THB

Thai baht

41,133

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8642

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2549

INR

Indian rupee

77,5210

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---