alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1020

GINO CORNELIUS CAUTHERN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, of Northwest North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-693-1) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gino Cornelius Cauthern, Appellant Pro Se. Penni Pearson Bradshaw, Eugene Hamilton Matthews, Sr., KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gino Cornelius Cauthern appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor in this employmentdiscrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cauthern v. Goodwill Indus. , No. CA-98-693-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Kennedy v. Ching

24025

05/17/2002

Vacated and Remanded
IV 

House Calendar No. 4 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 42 

[Report No. 114–4] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded 

abortions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2015 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit 

taxpayer funded abortions. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All points of 

4 order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 

5 shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

6 provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 

7 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

8 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 42 RH 

1 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

2 controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 

3 or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recom4 mit. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 4 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 42 

[Report No. 114–4] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to 

prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. 

JANUARY 21, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Palma v. Palma

17483

9/30/97

Affirmed in part and Remanded in part
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Gus D. Halas, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of T-3 EnergyServices, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (d) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (e) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      /s/ GUS D. HALAS  Gus D. Halas
#### State v. Mendes

22728

01/11/2001

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 399 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the House should 

consider legislation to protect traditional marriage and prevent taxpayer 

funding of abortion. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. JONES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 

the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the House should consider legislation to protect traditional marriage and prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. 

Whereas the United States of America was founded upon 

Judeo-Christian principles, and even today many Americans believe that our strength comes from these principles; 

Whereas the creator is explicitly mentioned in the Declaration 

of Independence as endowing us with all of our rights; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 399 IH 

Whereas the Supreme Court recently legalized nationwide 

same-sex marriage in the case of Obergefell et al. v. 

Hodges; 

Whereas the Court’s decision invalidated the wishes of States 

that prohibited same-sex marriage; 

Whereas over 50,000,000 unborn children have been aborted 

in the years after abortion was legalized as a result of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade; 

Whereas Planned Parenthood Federation of America, America’s largest abortion provider, receives over 

$500,000,000 of Federal funding annually; 

Whereas senior officials of Planned Parenthood were recently 

recorded facilitating the sale of fetal body parts from 

aborted babies in violation of Federal law; 

Whereas in Jeremiah 1:5 the Bible reads ‘‘Before I formed 

thee in the belly I knew thee.’’; and 

Whereas in 1 Timothy 4:1–5 the Bible reads ‘‘Now the Spirit 

speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and 

doctrines of devils’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls 

2 upon the Speaker to encourage committee chairs to sched3 ule the following legislation for immediate committee con4 sideration, then follow through with scheduling votes on 

5 the House floor if they are reported favorably by their re6 spective committees: 

7 (1) H.R. 2802, the First Amendment Defense 

8 Act, introduced by Mr. Labrador of Idaho. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 399 IH 

1 (2) H. Res. 359, Providing that the House of 

2 Representatives disagrees with the majority opinion 

3 in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other pur4 poses, introduced by Mr. King of Iowa. 

5 (3) H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood 

6 Act of 2015, introduced by Ms. Black of Tennessee. 

7 (4) H.R. 3197, the Protecting Life and Tax8 payers Act of 2015, introduced by Ms. Black of Ten9 nessee. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
890 P.2d 684

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII

#### State v. Vierra

15703

2/08/95

Dismissed
191 P.3d 1095

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAFI

#### State v. Iseke.

27807

08/29/2008

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Plant Health Technical Bilateral

Meetings

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS conducts plant health technical bilateral meetings both in-person and virtually

in efforts to continue mission critical work in regards to making progress on

phytosanitary topics.

The following schedule is tentative and subject to change.

March 2024

U.S. – Colombia Plant Health Bilateral Meeting, March 19, 2024: (Virtual).

Contact Sarah Hieskill for details, sarah.r.hieskill@usda.gov

April 2024

U.S. – E.U. Plant Health Bilateral Meeting, April 30 to May 1, 2024: (in-person,

Riverdale, MD) (Specific Location Tentative).

Contact Prakash Hebbar for details, prakash.hebbar@usda.gov
May 2024

U.S. – Morocco Plant Health Bilateral Meeting, Week of May 6, 2024: (in-person,

Morocco).

Contact Mohamed Sedegui for details, mohamed.sedegui@usda.gov

July 2024

U.S. – Mexico Plant Health Bilateral Meeting, July 15 to 19, 2024: (in-person,

Seattle, WA).

Contact Amanda Elkhateeb for details, amanda.m.elkhateeb@usda.gov

September 2024

U.S. – Japan Plant Health Bilateral Meeting, September 17 to 19, 2024: (inperson, Idaho Falls, ID).

Contact Lisa Kohl for details, lisa.m.kohl@usda.gov

The Phytosanitary Issues Management (PIM) staff requests stakeholder input in

developing agenda items for upcoming Plant Health Technical Bilateral Meetings. To

provide input, please send email to the contact listed above. The meetings are an

opportunity to acquire, expand, or maintain export and import agricultural markets

by:

Exchanging information about specific commodities.

Amending current phytosanitary requirements based on updated information.

Documenting agreements made and next steps.

Establishing time frames for completion of items/resolution of issues.

Establishing joint working groups to explore and resolve issues of mutual

concern.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAOLA FRENCH; RUSSELL FRENCH,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

SALVADOR SANCHEZ, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; DOES, 1

- 10, inclusive,

Defendants. No. 22

- 55571

D.C. No.

5:20

- cv

- 00416

- JGB

- SP Central District of California,

Riverside

ORDER

Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

The Memorandum filed on October 16, 2023, Dkt. Entry 49, is amended as

follows:

1. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 5, replace <Under California’s scope of employment rule, “[a] nexus must exist between the employment and the tort if the employer is fairly to be held liable.” Xue Lu v. Powell , 621 F.3d 944, 948

– 49 (9th Cir. 2010).> with < Under California’s scope of employment rule, the employee’s tortious conduct must have “a causal nexus to the employee’s work.” Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp. , 12 Cal. 4th 291, 297 (1995). “The nexus required for respondeat superior lia

bility

— that the tort be engendered by or arise from the work

— is to be distinguished from ‘but for’ causation,” and the California Supreme Court “[has] used varied language to describe the nature of the required additional link (which, in theory, is the sam e for intentional and negligent 

# FILED

NOV 27 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

torts): the incident leading to injury must be an ‘outgrowth’ of the employment; the risk of tortious injury must be ‘inherent in the working environment’ or ‘typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise [the employer] has undertaken.’” Id. at 298 (internal citations omitted) (second alteration in original). >

.

2. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 12, delete < We have recognized that California’s scope of employment rule is significantly broader than the

traditional rule. See Xue Lu , 621 F.3d at 948. >.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel

rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no

judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P.

35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are

DENIED

. No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 23, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D 2 1

- 286 Lower Tribunal No s

. 1 9

- 7905 S P & 20

- 2 51 AP

________________ Progressive American Insurance Company , Appellant,

vs. Columna Inc./Thomas Roush, M.D., a/a/o Andrea Mejia , Appellee.
An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Michaelle Gonzalez

- Paulson , Judge. deBeaubien, Simmons, Knight, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP , and Kenneth P. Hazouri (Orlando) , for appellant

. Landau & Associates, P.A., and Todd A. Landau and Matthew Emanuel (Sunrise) , for appel lee.

Before LOGUE , SCA L E S and GORDO , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2 Appellant Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”), the defendant below, challenges a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, Columna Inc./Thomas Roush, M.D , a health care provider that was assigned the personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits of Progressive’s Insured, Andrea Mejia . The parties’ competing summary judgment motions were heard by the trial court on July 27, 2020, and, i n reliance upon Geico v. Accident & Injury Clinic Inc. , 290 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the trial court determined that Progressive was required to pay 80% of the amount adopted in the statutory fee schedule, 1 rather than 80% of the amount billed by a ppellee. Neither the trial court, nor the parties, though, had the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in MRI Associates of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mut ual Auto mobile Ins urance Co. , 46 Fla. L. Weekly S379 , 2021 WL 5832298 (Fla. Dec. 9, 2021) (“ MRI ” )

. A lthough we employ a de novo standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s adjudication of a summary judgment motion pertaining to an interpretation of the PIP statute , 2 we prefer here to allow the trial court, in the first instance , to adjudicate the parties’

1 See § 627.736(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2018).

2 Rivera v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 317 So. 3d 197, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)

.3 competing motions in light of MRI , 3 and we express no opinion on the merits of th ose motions. We , therefore , reverse the challenged judgment and remand for the trial court to consider the parties’ competing motio ns in light of MRI

. Reversed and remanded with instructions.

3 See e.g. Alvarez v. Food Lion, Inc. , 805 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); HJC Corp. v. Gallardo , 3D20

- 183 7 , 2022 WL 790278 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
30 Utah 2d 433

#### EQUITABLE REALTY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gerald NIELSON and Ruth S. Nielson, his wife, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13067.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 22, 1974.

Jackson B. Howard, Howard & Lewis, Provo, for plaintiff and appellant.

Milton T. Harmon, Nephi, for defendants and respondents.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment in a case where plaintiff, a realtor, sued for a commission for employment under an alleged listing agreement executed in October 1969, for having obtained a ready, able and willing buyer of ranch property. Affirmed with costs to the Niel-sons.

Equitable, by advertisement, obtained interested prospective buyers named Drou-bay. This ripened into an option agreement dated March 30, 1970, exercisable by January 25, 1971. At the same time plaintiff and defendants modified the listing agreement so as to adjust the commission to a specified amount, payable as time went along under the terms of stated periodic payments under the option agreement, if the latter were exercised according to its terms, — which included a written notice of *244its exercise and tender of the initial payment, — neither of which was accomplished either before or after the January 25 due date.

It is contended that such conditions were waived by the plaintiff realtor, on behalf of defendants, during a telephone conversation with Droubay’s attorney, one Clegg. There is nothing in the record to establish any authority granted by the Nielsons to plaintiff, either orally or in writing, to establish such authority, failing which the option was not exercised according to its terms, which in turn prevents plaintiff from claiming a commission based on the conditions precedent mentioned. The plaintiff has received a $1,260 commission on a down payment binder to preserve the option to buy the property under terms thereafter to be agreed upon by the parties, to which mutually to date they have not acquiesced, — resulting in other present litigation, — having nothing to do with the commission agreement here.

The basics of this case seem obvious: 1) A realtor cannot orally waive the rights of a seller on an option contract unless specifically authorized to do so,— -not the case here, and 2) Once an option is granted it must be exercised strictly according to its terms, lacking such binding authority, — which clearly appears to be failing here. The question immediately posed here is that were it otherwise, what would happen if the down payment were made to the realtor lacking such authority, —which strange coincidence was not even accomplished here, — if the realtor, receiving the payment without such clear and convincing evidence of authority, — could bind a seller to an anticipatory contract after he, the realtor, had gone South with the consideration without consideration from or to his principal.

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors

Premier Community Bankshares, Inc.

Winchester, Virginia

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-101619 and No. 333-41163) and Form S-3 (No. 333-138813), of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 15, 2007 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

 

Winchester, Virginia

March 15, 2007
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.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 62 titled                         *Transitional Amendment to SFFAS 54*.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        SFFAS 62 is available on the FASAB website at                         *http://www.fasab.gov/​accounting-standards/​.*                         Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

*Authority:*31 U.S.C. 3511(d); Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014.                    

Dated: November 30, 2023.

Monica R. Valentine,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2023-26627 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
February 28, 2001

23539

#### Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd.

Affirmed
# C_2018182EN.01001301.xml

| 28.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

(Case C-184/18)

(2018/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Applicant:

Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the combined provisions of Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 43(2) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares, approved by Decree-Law No 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No 109- B/2001 of 27 December 2001) which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) where that transfer is made by a national of that Member State residing in a third country (Angola) to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?’

---