alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roberta WITH, on Behalf of herself as the widow of Alvin With, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York corporation, d/b within the State of Colorado, Bowers Transfer and Storage, a Colorado corporation, and Natkin & Company, a Missouri corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 82CA0499.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 21, 1982.

*765Glasman, Jaynes & Carpenter, Richard H. Glasman, John A. Steninger, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Watson, Nathan & Bremer, P.C., Howard W. Bremer, Denver, for defendant-appellee General Elec. Co.

Greengard, Blackman & Senter, William L. Senter, Peter T. Moore, Denver, for defendant-appellee Bowers Transfer and Storage.

The Law Firm of Thomas J. de Marino, Mark E. Macy, Denver, for defendant-appel-lee Natkin & Co.

PIERCE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Roberta With, commenced this wrongful death action in December 1981, approximately two years and ten months after her husband died in an industrial accident. On General Electric’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed With’s complaint, holding her claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death. We affirm.

Section 13-21-204, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum. Supp.) provides:

> “All actions provided for in this part 2 shall be brought within two years after the commission of the alleged negligence resulting in the death for which suit is brought or within one year after the death for which suit is brought, whichever is later.”

Plaintiff contends the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the alleged negligent act is “discovered.” In January 1980, she received and read an OSHA report on the accident, at which time, she contends, she first became aware of the alleged negligence. Therefore, she alleges the statute did not begin to run until she became aware of the contents of the report. She cites several medical malpractice cases as authority for application of the “discovery” rule to this case. We disagree with her argument.

The discovery rule has been applied by case law and statute to malpractice actions as courts and legislatures have realized that, in many instances, a plaintiff in such an action may be completely unaware of injuries resulting from treatment on the date it is given, and thus, may have no immediate notice of a potential tort claim. When a death occurs following an accident, this lack of knowledge is removed.

The above statute both now, and in its previous form, has consistently been strictly interpreted and we can only conclude that the statute of limitation specifically started running no later than the date of death. *See*e.g. *Crownover v. Gleichman,*194 Colo. 48, 574 P.2d 497 (1977); *Ferrari v. District Court,*185 Colo. 136, 522 P.2d 105 (1974); *Fish v. Liley,*120 Colo. 156, 208 P.2d 930 (1949).

The judgment is affirmed.

COYTE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON F URTHER M OTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 9 18

- CV

Trial court case number: CV

- 0 077741

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

The panel has voted to deny appellant s ’ pro se Request for Explanation, filed on July 9, 2018, and Complaint, filed on July 12, 2018, construed together as a further

motion for rehearing of this Court’s July 3, 2018 Order denying appellants’ Motion for Rehearing

. 1

It is ordered that the further motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting for the Panel

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley

.

Date: July 24 , 2018

1 A lthough this Court did not modify or vacate its judgment or issue a different opinion, because the appellants are proceeding pro se, this Court uses Rule 2 to suspend the normal operation of Rule 49.5 and construes their filings together as a further motio n for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 49.5. While t he R ules of Appellate Procedure only require this Court to give reasons for resolving an appeal in its opinion, which it already

did in its April 3, 2018 memorandum opinion, t he r ules do not require this Court to give any reasons for denying a motion for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4

, 49.3. In any

event, while there was no letter filed by the appellants with the Clerk of this Court on March 12, 2018, according to the Galves ton County Clerk’s Office website, there was a complaint filed by appellants there on March 9, 2018, which was addressed to the district

clerk. The Clerk of this Court generally marks every appeal as “Submitted” at least one day before issuing the Court’s opinion and judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8, 43.1.
[No. 17245.

Department Two.

August 29, 1922.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jim Psaras, Appellant. 1

Sodomy (3)—Evidence—Corroboration—Necessity. Under our statutes, corroboration of the prosecutrix is not necessary in a prosecution for sodomy.

Indictment and Information (45)—Intent — Sufficiency of Averment. An intent to commit sodomy is sufficiently charged by alleging that it was “wilfully” done, the term being synonymous with the word “intentionally.”

Appeal from a judgment of .the superior court for Spokane county, Webster, J., entered December 14, 1921, upon a trial and conviction of sodomy.

Affirmed.

*E. W. Robertson,*for appellant.

*William C. Meyer*and *E. E. Alley,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 208 Pac. 1094.

Per Curiam.

Defendant in this action was charged, with the crime- of sodomy, and from his conviction thereof has appealed.

The first point urged is that the evidence was insufficient to take the case to a jury, the claim being that there was no corroboration of the prosecuting witness. Under our statute, corroboration is not necessary in such a case, but even if it were, there were facts and circumstances which tended to corroborate the story.

It is next urged that the information and also the instructions to the jury were incorrect because they ignored the element of intent. Both the information and the instructions, while they did not use the word “intentionally,” did use the word “wilfully,” which words, so far as they are here concerned, are synony*157mous. *In re Van Orden,*32 Misc. Rep. 215, 65 N. Y. Supp. *720; People v. Pool,*27 Cal. 572.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




CERTIFICATE
      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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      M. Blodgett, 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:





|(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
              respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                Robert M. BlodgettName:
                Robert M. BlodgettTitle:  
                Chief Financial OfficerDate:  
                May 13, 2008
##### 



Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ace Cash Express, Inc.
(the Company) for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Donald H. Neustadt, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 26, 2003 |  | /s/ DONALD H. NEUSTADT                    
|                         |  |                                           
|                         |  | Donald H. Neustadt
Chief Executive Officer

1



---



##### 



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ace Cash Express, Inc.
(the Company) for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William S. McCalmont, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (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 26, 2003 |  | /s/ WILLIAM S. MCCALMONT                                                 
|                         |  |                                                                          
|                         |  | William S. McCalmont
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

2
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Drake L. LANCASTER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18781.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 9, 1983.

Phil L. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Bruce Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HOWE, Justice:

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant was arrested, charged and originally tried and convicted in the justice’s court. He appealed and received a trial de novo in the district court. A jury of his peers convicted him again. In such cases the district court is the court of last resort, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute á further appeal may be taken to this Court. Utah Constitution, Art. VIII, § 9. Defendant *1297contends that Utah’s Implied Consent Law, U.C.A., 1953, § 41-6-44.10(a) is unconstitutional because it allows the arresting officer to choose whether a chemical test of the breath of the arrested person or a test of the blood or urine shall be given. He argues that because a blood or urine sample may be stored for a future independent analysis by the defendant, an arrested person who is given a breath test is deprived of that privilege. This, he asserts, results in affording greater protection under the law to one class of arrested persons than another, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We are unable to reach the merits of the defendant’s constitutional issue because he has not brought to this Court a transcript of the trial in the district court. The record before us contains only an exhibit sheet from which it appears that a breathalyzer test was administered to the defendant and that the results were received in evidence. However, without a transcript we do not know whether the defendant objected to the introduction of that test and properly raised at that time the constitutional question which he now urges upon us. Under Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, a verdict cannot be set aside by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record objection to that evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear a specific ground of objection. The only reference in the record before us to the constitutional question which defendant now seeks to raise is contained in a post-trial motion he made for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. That belated attempt did not comply with Rule 4.

In view of this paucity of the record, we are left with no alternative but to refuse to entertain this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, OAKS and DURHAM, JJ., concur.
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2021-A Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a 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 thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2022 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
 
8 

**
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 74 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 74

  Expressing the support of the Senate for the members of the United 
States Armed Forces who are engaged in military operations against the 
                    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 1999

Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, 
    Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
 Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bryan, 
    Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
   Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
 Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
   Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
 Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, 
 Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, 
 Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, 
  Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
 Nickles, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, 
 Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
   Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
 Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the support of the Senate for the members of the United 
States Armed Forces who are engaged in military operations against the 
                    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Whereas the President has authorized United States participation in NATO 
        military operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;
Whereas up to 22,000 members of the Armed Forces are presently involved in 
        operations in and around the Balkans region with the active 
        participation of NATO and other coalition forces; and
Whereas the Senate and the American people have the greatest pride in the 
        members of the Armed Forces and strongly support them: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate supports the members of the United States 
Armed Forces who are engaged in military operations against the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia and recognizes their professionalism, 
dedication, patriotism, and courage.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Neurodegeneration.                    

*Date:*                         April 11, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         10 a.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Custer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1164,                         *custerm@csr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 27, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy

[FR Doc. 2012-7823 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MuellerGroup, LLC (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

I, Dale B. Smith,the Chief Executive Officer of Mueller Group, LLC, certify that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mueller Group, LLC.

| Date: February 21, 2006 |   | By:    | /s/ DALE B. SMITH         |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|                         |   |   | Dale B. Smith             |
|                         |   |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----