alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### AVIS RENT-A-CAR (ALASKA RENT-A-CAR), Appellant, v. Naomi CARROLL and H. Gray Carroll, Appellees.

No. 3038.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 22, 1977.

Stephen D. Cramer and Howard P. Sta-ley, Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, Inc., Fairbanks, for appellant.

Patrick T. Brown, Rice, Hoppner & Hed-land, Fairbanks, for appellees.

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, Justices.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves a personal injury action instituted by appellees Naomi and H. Gray Carroll. Liability was resolved in favor of appellees on their motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the damages issues were tried before a jury.1 Appellant Avis moved for a new trial based on an assertion that the superior court’s rulings during the cross-examination of Dr. Edwin Lindig, one of appellees’ witnesses, denied Avis adequate cross-examination. Avis also objected to the cost bills which had been submitted by the Carrolls because the bills were not timely submitted. The superior court denied the motion for new trial and allowed the cost bills. This appeal followed.

Before this court, appellant Avis asserts that the superior court committed reversible error in its restriction of Avis’ cross-examination of Dr. Lindig. Avis further contends that it should be granted a new trial because by its actions and rulings the superior court communicated to the jury a bias in favor of the Carrolls, thus depriving Avis of a fair trial. Avis also specifies as error the superior court’s allowance of the Car-rolls’ costs bills. Appellees have conceded this point on appeal.

Our careful review of the record in the case at bar has persuaded us that appellant’s specifications of error are devoid of merit. We therefore affirm the judgment which was entered below with the exception of the superior court’s award of costs to the Carrolls.

Affirmed in part, modified in part.

1

. The jury awarded H. Gray Carroll $1,000 and Naomi Carroll $60,937.27 in damages.
1

TSAI, YA-TING

From: James Payne <JPayne@morongo-nsn.gov>

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 1:29 PM

To: TSAI, YA-TING

Subject: RE: Part 71 Permit Renewal Information Request

Attachments: PTE_Cogen.JPG

Good Afternoon Ms. Tsai,

Thank you for calling and the email, please find below and attached the responses to your questions; if I can provide any

further clarification, please just let me know.

Take care,

James Payne, GISP 

Environmental Director

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

951.755.5298 - office

951.316.0027 - cell

 

33°56'14.0721" N 

116°48'33.5025" W 

From: TSAI, YA‐TING [mailto:Tsai.Ya‐Ting@epa.gov]  

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 10:24 AM

To: James Payne <JPayne@morongo‐nsn.gov>

Subject: Part 71 Permit Renewal Information Request

Good morning Mr. Payne,

I was just assigned Morongo’s Part 71 permit renewal and I have a few questions after reviewing your submitted

package. These are mostly administrative questions.

‐ Was the casino originally in Banning and now the area is called Cabazon? The casino has always been in

Cabazon, the administrative offices of the Tribe are located within Banning.

‐ Any new constructions/modifications since 2010? (for example, gas stations) There have been none.

‐ Under Section G of the application package, is the 1,500 Btu/scf a typo? (1005 Btu/scf?) You are correct, it

should be 1,005 Btu/scf.

‐ Under Section G of the application package, is 130, Btu/gal a typo? (130,000 Btu/gal?) Correct again, it is

another typo and should be 130,000

‐ For Form EUD‐1, is the fuel type under Section C for EG‐5, EG‐6, and EG‐7 a typo? (Diesel?) Engines 5, 6, and 7

are the emergency/backup generators and are fueled by diesel.

‐ Please provide a copy of your PTE calculations showing how the calculations were done. Some of the numbers

are slightly different from year to year, I just want to double check to see if they are due to rounding. I have

attached the original calculations for PTE. I looked back and did see a minimal variance for the HAP as well,

which yes would have been due to rounding.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you,
2

Sheila (Ya‐Ting) Tsai

Air Permits Office (AIR‐3)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 972‐3328

Tsai.Ya‐Ting@epa.gov
# C_2016202EN.01015701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/157

---

Article 250

(ex Article 219 TEC)

(ex Article 219 TEC)

The Commission shall act by a majority of its Members.

Its Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRACEY MACKEY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-1324

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County,

Lawrence J. Semento, Judge.

Tracey Mackey, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

This is Tracey Mackey’s third postconviction relief appeal to this court. In 

Mackey v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court reversed the 

summary denial of Mackey’s postconviction motion and instructed the lower court to 

afford Mackey the opportunity to amend. In Mackey v. State, 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2018), this court affirmed the denial, after amendment, of Mackey’s motion on all 
2

grounds except Ground Two, which alleged that Mackey’s trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to call a particular witness who would have afforded testimony supporting his 

defense at trial. This court ruled that Ground Two was “facially sufficient” and instructed 

the lower court to either hold an evidentiary hearing on that claim or attach records 

conclusively refuting it. Id. at 505.

On remand, the lower court denied Ground Two, finding that the record 

conclusively showed that: (1) Mackey and his counsel noted on the record at trial that 

the witness had proved difficult to find because she changed her phone number and 

refused to testify; and (2) Mackey could not show prejudice even if his allegations were 

true because there was “overwhelming evidence” of Mackey’s guilt. We respectfully 

disagree with the trial court. First, the records attached to the trial court’s order do not 

refute Mackey’s claim that counsel misrepresented to him the availability of the witness. 

Second, the alleged anticipated testimony of the uncalled witness, if found credible, 

would undermine the identification testimony of the two alleged victims, as well as 

provide a non-incriminating reason why a scrap of cloth with Mackey’s DNA was found 

at the scene of the alleged crime. 

The trial court is directed, on remand, to attach additional records conclusively 

refuting Mackey’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions. 

EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply535Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  David Linn (no... (not verified)PermalinkSeptember 7, 2017 - 9:31amInteresting.  The gnome adds a nice touch.  Thank you, Erin.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11783Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  David Linn (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 18, 2022 - 3:48pmThank you for sharing your story and encouraging us all to address our mental health.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Acting Chief Financial Officer
of infoUSA Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2003                      /s/ Stormy L. Dean
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Stormy L. Dean,
                                        Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jaimel Demetrius Smith v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-22-00365-CR

Trial court case number: 1765558

Trial court: 208th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above-referenced 

appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has 

filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response 

to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014).

On December 20, 2022, this Court issued an order granting appellant’s motion and ordering 

the trial court clerk to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s 

record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant within ten days of the date the order issued. 

We order the trial court clerk to certify to this Court within 15 days of our order the date upon 

which delivery of the record to appellant was made. The trial court clerk has not certified the date 

of delivery and appellant has notified this Court that he has not received a copy of the record. 

However, appellant does state that he has been moved from the Holliday Unit back to the Lewis 

Unit.

We order the trial court clerk to provide a copy of the record, as ordered on December 20, 

2022, to appellant within 10 days of the date of this order. We further order the trial court clerk 

to file a certification within 15 days of the date of this order stating the date upon which the 

record was delivered to appellant. Failure to comply with this order may require this Court to 

abate the appeal and remand for a hearing in the trial court regarding the failure to provide 

appellant with access to the record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Peter Kelly___________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____January 31, 2023_______
| NAME OF      SUBSIDIARY                       | STATE OR COUNTRY OF      INCORPORATION |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                          |                                   |
| Chattem      (U.K.) Limited                   | England                                |
| HBA      Indemnity Insurance, Ltd.            | Cayman      Islands                    |
| Signal      Investment & Management Co.   | Delaware                               |
| SunDex,      LLC                              | Tennessee                              |
| Chattem      Global Consumer Products Limited | Ireland                                |
| Chattem      Greece S.A.                      | Greece                                 |
| Chattem      (Canada) Corp.                   | Canada                                 |
| Chattem      Canada ULC                       | Canada                                 |
| Chattem      Canada                           | Canada                                 |
| Chattem      (Canada) Holdings, Inc.          | Delaware                               |
| Chattem      Peru S.R.L.                      | Peru                                   |
| Chattem      (Luxembourg) Holdings SARL       | Luxembourg                             |
Exhibit 10.3




                            SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT

The Shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc., Dirk Witte, as to FIFTY
ONE (51) SHARES, and Ian Jones, as to FORTY NINE (49) SHARES, hereby agree to
sell to Winmax Trading Group, Inc. and Winmax Trading Group, Inc. agrees to
purchase ONE HUNDRED (100%) PER CENT of the said issued shares of Global
Gemstone & Jewelry Inc. free and clear of any and an encumbrances for and in
consideration of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS per share being SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND ($75,000.00) DOLLARS payable SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY ($74,250,00) DOLLARS to Dirk Witte and SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00)
DOLLARS payable to Ian Jones the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Dirk
Witte and Ian Jones as is evidenced by their signatures affixed hereon.

The said shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc., Dirk Witte and
Jones, hereby represent and warrant to Winmax Trading Group, Inc., and are aware
that Winmax Trading Group Inc. is relying upon said representations and
warrants that:

a) Each of Dirk Witte and Ian Jones have the legal right to sell their shares to
   Winmax Trading Group, Inc. free and clear of any and all encumbrances
   whatsoever and wheresoever;

b) The shares of Global Gemstone and Jewelry being transferred to Winmax Trading
   Group, Inc. have not and are not presently security or encumbered in any
   manner by any entity whatsoever and wheresoever;

c) That Global Gemstone & Jewelry is not indebted to any entity whatsoever
   and wheresoever in any amount;

d) That there are no other shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry save
   and except for Dirk Witte and Ian Jones, the vendors of the shares herein and
   that the shares being transferred to Winmax Trading Group, Inc. are all of
   the issued shares of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc.; and

e) The within transaction being the sale of all the issued shares of Global
   Gemstone & Jewelry Inc. has been unanimously approved by the current
   Shareholders, Officers end Directors of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc.
   being the said Dirk Witte and Ian Jones.

DATED AT CHANGMI IN THE COUNTRY OF THAILAND THIS 15 DAY OF NOVEMBER AD 2001.


Dirk Witte                            Witness as to signature of Dirk Witte
/s/ Dirk Witte                        _____________________________________

Ian Jones                             Witness as to signature of Ian Jones
/s/ Ian Jones                         _____________________________________

Winmax Trading Group, Inc.
/s/ Gerald E. Sklar  (SEAL)
Gerald E. Sklar
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BARRA
INC.'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      18,674,207
<SECURITIES>                                21,046,794
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,834,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                   152,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,064,180
<PP&E>                                      30,615,245
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,890,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,704,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,300,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    28,741,605
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,320,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,704,702
<SALES>                                     35,913,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,913,148
<CGS>                                        2,630,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,460,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,605,973<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             572,835<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,419,654
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,893,351)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,526,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,526,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .330
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .310
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS MINORITY INTEREST SHARE OF NET INCOME AND LOSS ON EQUITY JOINT
VENTURES
<F2>REPRESENTS NET INTEREST INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12101Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Charles Badal (not verified)PermalinkSeptember 21, 2022 - 10:19amThank you, Erin Nelson, for your very insightful article highlighting the dedicated and expert staff of the Capitol Power Plant.  This is an important reminder of the many "behind the scenes" Architect of the Capitol staff that make the work of the Congress possible. Also of note are the excellent photographs.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# Arizona_county_differentials_20
August 30, 2006

25475

#### Thomas v. Hassler

Affirmed