alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KATHRYN LUCAS *v.*GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

(AC 19091)

MihalaJkos, Zarella and O’Connell, Js.

Argued March 20

officially released August 29, 2000

*Albert E. Sheary,*with whom was *Elizabeth A. Zem-bko,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Michael M. Wilson,*with whom, on the brief, was *Anthony P. Fusco,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Kathryn Lucas, from the judgment of the trial court *545confirming an arbitration award. The sole issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff was a resident in the home of the defendant’s insured at the time of her motor vehicle accident. Two of the three arbitrators concluded that the plaintiffs mere physical presence in her father’s home did not establish residency and, therefore, she was not covered under the underinsured motorist provisions of her father’s policy.

Our examination of the record and briefs persuades us that the judgment of the trial court confirming the arbitration award should be affirmed. The issue presented was resolved properly by the court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. See *Lucas v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America,*46 Conn. Sup. 502, 759 A.2d 156 (1998). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *East*v. *Labbe,*54 Conn. App. 479, 480, 735 A.2d 370 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 359, 746 A.2d 751 (2000).

The judgment is affirmed.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 923 

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2016 

Mr. JOYCE (for himself and Mr. TAKANO) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education 

Week. 

Whereas November 14 through November 18, 2016, marks 

the 95th annual observance of American Education 

Week; 

Whereas public schools are the backbone of the Nation’s democracy, providing young people with the tools they need 

to maintain the Nation’s precious values of freedom, civility, and equality; 

Whereas, by equipping young people in the United States 

with both practical skills and broader intellectual abilities, public schools give them hope for, and access to, a 

productive future; 

Whereas people working in the field of public education, be 

they teachers, higher education faculty and staff, 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 923 IH 

paraeducators, custodians, substitute educators, bus drivers, clerical workers, food service professionals, workers 

in skilled trades, health and student service workers, security guards, technical employees, or librarians, work 

tirelessly to serve children and communities throughout 

the Nation with care and professionalism; and 

Whereas public schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults, children, educators, volunteers, business 

leaders, and elected officials in a common enterprise: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of American 

3 Education Week; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe American Education Week by reflecting 

6 on the positive impact of all those who work together 

7 to educate children. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
#### George JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-6362.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 21, 2005.

Decided Oct. 18, 2005.

George Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

George Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 *828U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Johnson v. Dep’t of Public Safety,*No. CA-05-279-WDQ (D.Md. Feb. 16, 2005). We deny Johnson’s motions for summary judgment and for oral argument. 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*
18025

#### State v. Heckman

December 31, 1996

Order No. 96-45

Dismissed
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2005

USA v. McCarty

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-1665

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. McCarty" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1259.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1259
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-1665

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RYAN MCCARTY

Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 03-cr-00817)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

 

Argued November 2, 2004

Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: May 2, 2005)

Richard Coughlin

John H. Yauch (Argued)

Candace M. Hom

Federal Public Defender, District of New Jersey

972 Broad St., Fourth Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Christopher J. Christie
2

George S. Leone

Gail R. Zweig

David B. Lat (Argued)

Office of the U.S. Attorney

970 Broad St.

Newark, NJ 07102-2535

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Ryan McCarty challenges his sentence for mail fraud and mail theft. He argues that

his sentence violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, that one of the conditions

of his supervised release is overly broad, and that he is entitled to resentencing under United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Having determined that issues with respect to Booker are best determined by the

District Court in the first instance, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in

accordance with that opinion. Because we vacate the sentence, we do not reach McCarty’s

non-Booker sentencing challenges. We note, however, that any challenge to the conviction

has been waived, and we therefore affirm the conviction.
3

 

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Kindly file the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  August 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/  Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          May-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Feb-28-1999
<CASH>                                            33,914
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     48,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                       3,160
<INVENTORY>                                        5,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 129,565
<PP&E>                                           283,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (107,851)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   956,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            100,948
<BONDS>                                        1,458,857
<COMMON>                                             312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (606,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     956,672
<SALES>                                          262,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 262,591
<CGS>                                             50,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    288,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                48,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (56,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (10,114)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (46,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (40,526)
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (87,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1.90)             
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.90)
        

</TABLE>
#### Kama v. Kapalua Land Co., Ltd.

16149

10/28/96

Granted

- Hawai'i-, - P.2d -
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                    May-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      JAN-31-2001
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                             47,947,586
<SECURITIES>                                        9,750,934
<RECEIVABLES>                                       1,648,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                         3,478,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   63,827,127
<PP&E>                                             15,073,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1,664,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     81,370,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               9,847,151
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  194
<OTHER-SE>                                         69,547,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       81,370,376
<SALES>                                           101,416,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  101,416,349
<CGS>                                              26,570,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      26,570,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   56,718,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    116,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    21,109,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                        7,502,059
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                18,127,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       13,607,605
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.70



</TABLE>
H. Res. 862 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 13, 2016. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Cartwright. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERREQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)AND SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002, 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of
Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
  Company.

/s/ DENNIS E.
BUNDAYDennis E. BundayChief Financial
OfficerWilliams Controls, IncDecember 14, 2007

76

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 84182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26671]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: November 30, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26671 Filed 11-30-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
July 8, 2002

24152

#### State v. Helmke

Affirmed
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Our report on our audit of the  consolidated  financial  statements of Milestone
Scientific, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003, included
in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December  31, 2004 is
dated March 26, 2004. We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
in  the  following   Registration   Statements  previously  filed  by  Milestone
Scientific,  Inc. with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, Form S-3 (SEC File  No.333-39784) and Form S-3 (SEC File
no. 333-118807).


/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
March 30, 2005


                                       42
#### W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. ALLIED OUTLET STORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 20357.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1963.

Bessie Margolin, Assoc. Solicitor, Dept, of Labor, Caruthers G. Berger, Atty., Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, Jacob I. Karro, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. *505Worrell, Regional Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.

Emanuel Lewis, Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Court announced from the bench, upon oral argument, that the judgment in this case is remanded because it is plain that the employees involved here are covered employees under the principle announced by this Court in Mitchell v. C & P Shoe Corporation, 286 F.2d 109, 5 Cir., and Mitchell v. Sunshine Department Stores, Inc., 5 Cir., 292 F.2d 645.

The cause is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellant in the amount stipulated to be the underpayments to the three employees involved in this appeal.
### Niclosamide/TFM FOCUS Meeting Summary

November 5 , 2012

Participants:

PRD: Kelly Ballard, Neil Anderson, Laura Parsons

EFED: Andrew Sayer, Jim Carleton, Tom Steeger, Marietta Echeverria

HED: Seyed Tadayon, Linda Taylor, Pete Savoia, Mike Metzger

RD: Gene Benbow

BEAD: John Faulkner Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Jeff Slade, Rebecca Neeley, Michael Fodale, Bob Adair Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) : Dale Burkett United States Geological Survey (USGS): Terry Hubert, Mark Gaikowski

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Paul Sullivan, Brian Stephens

Summary :

The purpose of the meeting was for members of EPA’s Pesticide Re

- Evaluation Division (PRD), Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), Health Effects Division (HED), Registration Division (RD), and Biological and Economics Analysis Division (BEAD) to meet with the technical registrants of niclosamide and TFM, this case is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

, t o discuss general information on the two chemicals and provide background on

how and where they are applied in the environment. EP A asked FWS for a general overview of the use pattern, the ecological effects, environmental fate and associated risks, and human health risks of niclosamide and TFM. FWS and USGS provided several PowerPoint presentations with this general information.
19726

#### State v. Quitog

Affirmed
# C_2018161EN.01006101.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/61

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-164/18)

(2018/C 161/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

Amisi Kumba

Council

---
# C_2020077EN.01004901.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/49

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Daimler v Commission

(Case T-751/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of certified CO2 savings - Eco-innovations scheme - Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 77/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Wimmer, C. Arhold and G. Ollinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Becker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission letter Ares(2018) 5413709 of 22 October 2018 notifying the withdrawal of CO2 savings achieved by eco-innovations attributed to Daimler AG vehicles fitted with Bosch HED EL 7-150 and 175 plus high efficient alternators.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Daimler AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daimler AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---