alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INVESTORS ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. B.F. TRAPPEY’S SONS, INC.

No. 87-C-0269.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Investors Associates Ltd.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-996; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial Distrtict Court, Div. “A”, No. 51640.

Prior report: La.App., 500 So.2d 909.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8076** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICKY EDWARD DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:06

- cr - 00063

- sgw - mfu

- 1; 7:09

- cv - 80143

- sgw - mfu )

Submitted : July 29 , 2010 Decided: August 18, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ricky Edward Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Edward Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demo nstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district c ourt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. In this cas e, while Davis’ appeal was proceeding, he obtained the relief he sought . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# SkyPhilly, Inc

. Request for amendments to FAA 333 UAS exemptio n Exemption No. 11256 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0908

Contact: Paul Caskey VP Technology SkyPhilly, Inc.
215.680.2808 www.SkyPhilly.com To whom it may concern:Date: M ay 5, 2015

Re: Exemption No. 11256 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0908

SkyPhilly is requesting amendments to their existing 333 exemption as listed and described below. The purpose for the amendments is to be able to offer the services as listed in the existing 333 exemption. Each amendment will serve to increase th e functionality and usefulness of UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working environments in the industries in which they are deployed.

1. Additional Aircraft

SkyPhilly would like to add an additional UAS to the existing exemption. The new craft is a quadrotor designed in

- house using commercial off

- the

- shelf (COTS) components.

Manufacturer: SkyPhilly

Model No.: M1,

By using a collection of best

- in

- class compon ents, SkyPhilly was able to construct a very reliable vehicle, with additional features and longer air time than the DJI S

- 900 listed on the 333 exemption. The M1 meets all weight, speed and other criteria spelled out in the 333 exemption.

The M1 UAS was designed primarily for agricultural applications. The proprietary pilot operating handbook (POH) will be emailed directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov.

2. Relief from restriction #2 for filming in closed set movie or television production

SkyPhilly has extensive video and film production experience and would like to be able to use UASs for such purposes as called out in the 333 exemption. It is therefore requesting relief from restriction #2 on the 333 exemption for operation in closed set environments for movie and television production.

SkyPhilly’s proprietary Motion Picture and Television Flight Operations for Unmanned Aerial Systems will be mailed directly directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

3. Relief from restriction # 15 prohibiting night flight.

SkyPhilly would like the ability to perform roof inspections on large commercial building s with flat roofs. In warmer seasons/climates, spots of a roof that are leaking have collected water that retain s the day’s heat for a few hours longer than the rest of the roof t hat has not been compromised. The traditional method for locating leaks, or wet spots on large flat roofs is to use a handheld thermal imaging camera shortly after nightfall and have the technician walk the roof to identify leaks. While many safety features are in place, every year, several people become distracted and accidentally walk off an edge in the dark resulting in serious injury or death.

This is a very dangerous job that commercial roofing companies would like to make much safer and even save lives by using UASs. Since the thermal imaging needs to be done shortly after sunset, and after several hours does not yield results, SkyPhilly is requesting only partial relief from limitation #15 and seeking permission to operate up to 4 hours after sunset. SkyPhilly will still maintain visual flight

rules and only fly under VFR conditions

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         224,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,927
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,946,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,658,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,946,325
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (1,912,966)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,265,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,178,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,178,483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,178,483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.31





 Exhibit 10.31 

From: Clarke Neumann 
 Sent: Thursday,
November 19, 2020 10:33 AM 
 To: Miller, Grant E 
 Cc:

 Subject: RE: EXTERNAL - RE: Progenity/UHC Settlement Payments - PROGENITY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

Grant, thank you very much. Very much. We appreciate it, thank you. 

We are in agreement as you have written below. 
 Best Regards,
Clarke 
 Clarke Neumann 
 Senior Vice President General
Counsel & Secretary 
 Office                 | Mobile
                 

			
	  
	  	

 From: Miller, Grant E 

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:30 AM 
 To:
Clarke Neumann 
 Cc: 
 Subject: RE: EXTERNAL - RE:
Progenity/UHC Settlement Payments - PROGENITY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
 Clarke, 

Please allow this e-mail to serve as agreement by United to accept the December 1st payment on or before December 18, 2020. This is the absolute latest this payment can be made, and if not received by United by that date, United will consider Progenity in breach of the settlement
agreement. 
 This is a one-time extension that does not alter the remainder of the payment schedule as included in
the settlement agreement. It also does not alter or change any rights or obligations under the settlement agreement. 
 Please contact me with any
questions. 
 Grant Ellis Miller | Associate General Counsel 

(office)                  (email) 

(web)
www.unitedhealthgroup.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL TOWNS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 498 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.0

                            CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.

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

         In connection with the quarterly report of Cord Blood America, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A (Amending Part I - Items 1, Note 2, Note 7 and
Note 14) for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew L. Schissler,
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:   September 2, 2005


/s/ Matthew L. Schissler
------------------------
Matthew L. Schissler
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**














Certification
      by the Chief Financial Officer


of


Boardwalk
      GP, LLC


pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief financial officer of Boardwalk
      GP, LLC hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the quarterly report
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk
      Pipeline Partners, LP (the "Partnership") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership.











May
      2,
      2006






/ *s/
      Jamie L. Buskill*


Jamie
      L.
      Buskill


Vice-President
      and Chief Financial Officer


(principal
      financial and accounting officer)
#### CAST-CRETE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. v. DAVID BOLAND, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 87-685, 87-1062.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 1988.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1988.

David A. Maney and Karen L. Jones of Maney, Damsker & Arledge, P.A., Tampa; and Michael R. Carey of Carey, Aylward & O’Malley, Tampa, for appellant/cross-ap-pellee.

Denis L. Durkin, Thomas W. Dickson and Adrienne Fechter Dingfelder of Baker & Hostetler, Orlando, for appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant subcontractor appeals from a judgment for damages in favor of the general contractor in the general contractor’s suit against the subcontractor for inadequate work. We affirm.

As to defendant’s first point on appeal, we do not conclude that there was error in construing the contract as not requiring the condition precedent which defendant contends was required.

As to defendant’s second point on appeal, we conclude that we are being asked to reweigh sufficient evidence which we are not entitled to do. *See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank of Florida,*497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

As to the point on cross-appeal, we also affirm. We do not conclude that there was error in the exclusion of certain proffered evidence.

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
#### Neill SAMUELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 3, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED on authority of *Harrell v. State,*486 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 29

   To designate the week of May 2, 1999, as ``National Correctional 
                     Officers and Employees Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1999

    Mr. Robb (for himself and Mr. Campbell) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To designate the week of May 2, 1999, as ``National Correctional 
                     Officers and Employees Week''.

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a crucial component 
        of our criminal justice system;
Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting the rights of the 
        public to be safeguarded from criminal activity;
Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care, custody, and 
        dignity of the human beings charged to their care; and
Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face 
        danger in their daily work lives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of May 2, 1999, as 
``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week''. The President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe such week with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anna Rizzo, as Administratrix of the Estate of Pasquale Vaglio, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Richard Mataranglo et al., Defendants.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Richmond,

December 23, 1953.

*Braisted <& Braisted*for plaintiff.

*Philip Weiss*for defendants.

Alfred J. Cawse, Jr., J.

In this case the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Pasquale Vaglio brings this action against the defendants for moneys allegedly due the plaintiff intestate for rent of the upper floor of premises 1325 Richmond Avenue.

It is claimed that the said Vaglio was a life tenant in part of said premises and entitled to the rents and income therefrom from June, 1949 to the date of his death in August, 1952. The pertinent facts are not in dispute and if plaintiff’s intestate was a life tenant, the plaintiff must prevail.

In order to determine whether he was such a life tenant it is necessary to examine the agreement between the defendants and plaintiff intestate. The agreement which was drawn by *21an attorney, John M. Braisted, a former Justice of this court, reads as follows: “Whereas, Pasquale Yaglio and Antonia Lanzillotti Yaglio, his wife, have conveyed to us certain premises in a deed bearing even date herewith, we hereby agree that the said Pasquale Yaglio and Antonia Lanzillotti Yaglio, *may malee*their home in said premises as long as they live.” [Italics supplied.]

It is noted that although the agreement was drawn by an experienced lawyer, the usual words denoting a life tenancy ‘ *‘*use and occupation ’ ’ were not used. It is the opinion of the court that the parties did not intend it to be such but the Yaglios merely wished to retain a right to occupy the upper apartment. Therefore, it was merely a right to occupancy as characterized in *Carpenter*v. *Carpenter*(131 N. Y. 101) cited with approval in *Matter of Rogers*(251 App. Div. 478) and other cases.

In view of the fact that it was a right of occupancy, the tenant could terminate it at his will which he apparently did in this case and, therefore, would not be entitled to the income.

All of the testimony of the witness Lucy Mataranglo with reference to conversations and transactions with the decedent Yaglio is stricken out as in violation of section 347 of the Civil Practice Act.

Judgment is, therefore, directed for the defendants.
# Službeni list C 296A/3. k

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 296A |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Godište 65.3. kolovoza 2022. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 296A

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Godište 65.3. kolovoza 2022.

---

| Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- |
| | V.   Objave |
| | ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI |
| | Zajedničko poduzeće Fuzija za energiju |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Obavijest o izmjeni obavijesti Europskog zajedničkog poduzeća za ITER i razvoj energije fuzije (F4E) – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20086 ( SL C 285 A, 26.7.2022. ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

Stranica

V.   Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Zajedničko poduzeće Fuzija za energiju

2022/C 296 A/01

Obavijest o izmjeni obavijesti Europskog zajedničkog poduzeća za ITER i razvoj energije fuzije (F4E) – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20086 ( SL C 285 A, 26.7.2022. )

( SL C 285 A, 26.7.2022. )

1

---

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

V. Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Zajedničko poduzeće Fuzija za energiju

| 3.8.2022 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2022

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 296/1

---

Obavijest o izmjeni obavijesti Europskog zajedničkog poduzeća za ITER i razvoj energije fuzije (F4E) – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20086

(
  Službeni list Europske unije C 285 A od 26. srpnja 2022.
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

Na stranici 5, ‘Uvjeti zapošljavanja’, u šestom stavku:

| umjesto: | „Radno mjesto dostupno je od 1. siječnja 2024.”; |
| --- | --- |

umjesto:

„Radno mjesto dostupno je od 1. siječnja 2024.”;

| treba stajati: | „Radno mjesto dostupno je od 1. siječnja 2023.”. |
| --- | --- |

treba stajati:

treba stajati:

„Radno mjesto dostupno je od 1. siječnja 2023.”.

---
P130793.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0793 Focus Ready Draft 8/19/2013

ENGINEER: Arnold \ REC

Page 1P130793.eng

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1C

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0793

Page 3P130793.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0793

Page 5P130793.eng

Page 6P130793.eng

Page 7P130793.eng

Page 8P130793.eng

Page 9
# C,\^^ O ^ V/^'-^-^^^^yM^^^- ^ CIT YAN D BOROUG H O F WRANGEL L

INCORPORATE D MA

Y 30,200 8 P.O . BO X 53 1 (907)-874-238 1 WrangelU K

9992 9 FA

X [907)-874-395 2 ' • Januar y17 , 201 1 - O S P 'H'—' ^ Th e Honorabl e RayLaHood , Secretar yi^, >:^S— ^ U S Departmen t o fTransportatio n 1-
. o^ ^ 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E
. • • :?^ " Washington , D C 2059 0 " ^ '• " RE : Continuatio n o fAlasl< a Airlines ' Essentia l Ai rServic e a t Cordova
. Gustavas , Petersburg
. Wranaell
. an d Yakutat
. Alask a Docke t OST-1998-489 9 Dea rSecretar

yLaHood , Thi s lette ri s t o expres s stron g suppor t fo rth e selectio n o fAlaska Airline s t o continu e t o provid e essentia l ai rservic e t o ou rcommunity- Wrangell , AK
. Alaska Airlines ' curren t patter n o f servic e - utilizin g je t aircraft - meet s crucia l need s tha t woul d b e difficult , i fno t impossible , t o mee t wit h an yothe rtyp e o f servic e o raircraft type . Alaska Airlines ' servic e connect s Southeas t Alask a passengers t o on e o rmor e majo r communitie s o finterest , wit h singl e phas e servic e t o Anchorage , Juneau , Ketchikan , o rSeattle
. Fro m thes e hubs , ou rcommunityca n acces s th e airline' s extensiv e rout e syste m an d benefi t fro m it s marketin g relationship s wit h othe rcarriers
. Th e 737-40 0 combinatio n ("combi" ) passenge ran d carg o aircraft , whic h Alask a Airline s propose s t o continu e usin g o n thi s route , provide s freight , mail , an d carg o capacit ytha t a non-je t carrie rsimpl ycanno t provide
. Further , th e 737-40 0 comb i aircraft i s equippe d wit h Require d Navigatio n performanc e Technolog y precisio n technology , whic h enable s th e airlin e t o reliabl yacces s th e airport durin g inclemen t weather , thu s reducin g diversion s an d cancellation s and , i n turn , enablin g peopl e an d product s t o dependabl yreac h th e community
. I n sum , Alaska' s je t servic e i s critica l t o th e economi cwel l bein g o fno t onl you rcommunity , bu t th e entir e region
. Fo rthes e reasons , w e respectfull yurg e th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n t o select Alask a Airline s t o continu e t o provid e essentia l ai rservic e t o Southeas t Alaska , a s th e airlin e ha s successfull ydon e fo rmor e tha n thirtyyears . Sincerel y Timoth yD
. Boroug h Ma

\ Cc : Ms
. Susa n Kurland , Assistan t Secretar yfo rAviatio n an d Internationa l Affairs Mr
. Denni s DeVany
. Chief , EA S an d Domesti cAnalysi s Th e Honorabl e Sea n Parnell , Governor , Stat e o f Alask a Mr
. Mar k A
. Luiken , Commissioner , Alask a Departmen t of Transportatio n an d Publi c Facilitie s Mayo ran d Boroug h Assembly , Cityan d Boroug h o fWrangel l