alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DAVIDSON v. GRADY et al.

No. 9101.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 1939.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

For prior opinion, see 105 F.2d 405.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In connection with the Motion for Rehearing is a motion to send up an exhibit to the answer in the court below of the Appellant Davidson. This exhibit is the record of a suit begun in 1904 by- A. H. Cox against Mrs. Grace Gould Grady to recover compensation from her for making the settlement of 1903 with Mrs. Emma Gould which is sought to be set aside in the present case. The record contains the testimony of Cox as to how the settlement was reached. It appears that one of the things Cox was instructed to look into was whether Mrs. Emma Gould had remarried, but there is no account of what he found out about it. This exhibit to the answer was not offered in evidence in the court below, and it is doubtful if Cox’s evidence in a contest with his client would be admissible in this case. If so, it would not alter the conclusion reached in this case. Cox had nothing to do with the matter after 1903; and the suspicions, knowledge, and inaction of the appellees in 1905 and since are the controlling matters. His testimony throws no light on these. Assuming'that both for actual concealment, and for failure of Mrs. Gould who was in a confidential relationship to disclose, the settlement of 1903 was voidable for fraud, still in 1905, and since, her remarriage was fully known, and it was suspected that it occurred in 1902, and she had .refused to say when it occurred. There was no reason why she should not state the date if it was after 1903, and her refusal, coupled with her defiant statement, “You will never find out”, was very strong circumstantial evidence that it occurred before, so as to affect the settlement. She did npt .then carry on the concealment by false statements as to the marriage. She not only refused to tell the date, but put them on notice of its importance and on inquiry as to it by her defiant attitude. The appellees had evidence sufficient to form a belief to that effect, and to justify a charge and a proceeding for discovery on the point. The express ratification under these circumstances, in 1905 of the settlement of 1903, and the failure for thirty years to take effectual steps to learn the truth by discovery from Mrs. Gould, and by taking the deposition of Davidson, both of whom were well known to know the truth and to be deliberately withholding if, are sufficient in themselves to require the application of the doctrine of laches after the death of Mrs. Gould.

Because it would do no good the motion to supplement the record is denied, and because neither judge who concurred in the judgment of reversal desires a rehearing, the motion for rehearing is denied.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge, dissents.
#### Ida LONG, Plaintiff in Error, v. Duffy WELCH, Defendant in Error.

No. 37136.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March *20,*1956.

E. E. Thompson, Poteau, for plaintiff in error.

Rex W. Perkins and E. J. Ball, Fayette-ville, Ark., for defendant in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

As the parties to this appeal appear in the, same order as they appeared in the trial court, they will be referred to by their trial court designations.

Plaintiff instituted the present action to recover damages from the defendant for the death of her son, Junior Long, which was alleged to have occurred when his automobile collided with a pickup truck driven by defendant, at a road intersec*286tion north of Watts, Oklahoma. The jury-returned a verdict for defendant and judgment was entered accordingly.

Plaintiff has lodged the present appeal by transcript only, urging as the sole ground for reversal, the alleged error of the trial court in instructing the jury on the subject of “unavoidable accident." Her counsel argues that since the pleadings in the case nowhere alleged that the collision was an unavoidable accident, it was error to give that instruction, because the question of whether or not the collision was such an accident was not an issue in the case.

Since no casemade or record of the evidence has been filed, we do not know whether the collision was proved to have been the result of the deceased’s negligence or the defendant’s negligence, or a combination of the two, or whether it was proved to have been an unavoidable accident. Without such a record before us we are without that aid in determining whether or not the jury was misled to plaintiff’s prejudice by the giving of the allegedly erroneous instruction. In this connection see Pankey v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Okl., 288 P.2d 373, and the cases therein referred to. However, we must assume, in accord with the presumption accompanying jury verdicts on appeal, that the evidence showed either that the collision was an unavoidable accident or that it was proximately caused by contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Plaintiff’s argument is based upon the premise that the question of whether or not the collision was an unavoidable accident, was not an issue in the case solely because it was not expressly pleaded as such. This premise is incorrect, and was so determined in Rowton v. Kemp, 190 Okl. 558, 125 P.2d 1003. Mount v. Nichols, 198 Okl. 282, 177 P.2d 1013, which is the only case cited by plaintiff’s counsel, is no authority to the contrary. Though not specifically reflected in this court’s opinion therein, our statement there that: “Unavoidable accident was not plead by either party” was not the sole basis for our stated conclusion that: “It was not an issue in the case.” The principal basis for said conclusion was the fact (conceded by the defendant in error therein) that the evidence in that case created no such issue.

As we have determined that plaintiff’s argument, and the transcript herein, establishes no error in the trial court’s judgment, said judgment is hereby affirmed.
================================================================================
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  Quarterly  Report of Hybrid  Technologies,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended October 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Holly Roseberry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge:  (1) The Report fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.

                                          /s/ Holly Roseberry
                                          -------------------------
                                          Holly Roseberry
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                          Financial Officer

December 15, 2005
log Fish BCF = 2.37 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.85 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = mo Sorption to soils/sediments = strong Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 6 hr via OH radical Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 160 hr via ozone PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is moderate all routes based on analogs. There is concern for mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental, liver, and kidney toxicity, sensitization, and irritation from the acrylate. Low moderate concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.769 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.811 green algal 96-h EC50 0.162 fish

_ chronic value 0.001 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.027

algal

_ chronic value 0.061
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = ; liquid with unknown mp (P); log Kow = 4.1 (P); S = 13.4 mg/L at 20 C (M); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 1SARs SAR Class N ew Chemcial Category /

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair:
**Exhibit 21**

 

Subsidiaries of Registrant

 

The followingsubsidiaries are direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Company:

 

AffinityAdvertising, LP, a Minnesota limited partnership

Affinity Brokerage, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

Affinity Guest Services, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

Affinity Road and TravelClub, Inc., a Texas corporation

AGI Productions, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

ARU, Inc., aMinnesota corporation

Camp Coast to Coast, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

Camping Realty, Inc.,a Kentucky corporation

Camping World CardServices, Inc., an Ohio corporation

Camping World, Inc.,a Kentucky corporation

Camping World InsuranceServices of Kentucky, Inc., a Kentucky corporation

Camping World InsuranceServices of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation

Camping World InsuranceServices of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation

Coast Marketing Group, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

CWFR Capital Corp., aDelaware corporation

CWI, Inc., aKentucky corporation

CW Michigan, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Ehlert Publishing Group, Inc.,a Minnesota corporation

Golf Card InternationalCorp., a Delaware corporation

Golf Card Resort Services, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

GSS Enterprises, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

PowerSports Media, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

TL Enterprises, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

VBIInc., a Delaware corporation

 

----
Exhibit 23(b)


Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8, File No: 333-50389, pertaining to the Financial Consultation
Agreement dated as of January 19, 1998 and the Registration Statement on Form
S-8, File No: 333-62733, pertaining to the LifePoint, Inc. 1997 Stock Option
Plan of our report dated May 26, 1995 with respect to the financial statements
of LifePoint, Inc., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

				Wolinetz, Gottlieb & Lafazan, P.C.

Rockville Centre, New York
June 27, 2000
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4684 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

identify or facilitate the development of best practices 

for operating recovery housing, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4684 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Access to 

3 Quality Sober Living Act of 2018’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL RECOVERY HOUSING BEST PRACTICES. 

5 Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 399V–7. NATIONAL RECOVERY HOUSING BEST PRAC8 TICES. 

9 ‘‘(a) BEST PRACTICES.—The Secretary of Health 

10 and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary 

11 for Housing and Urban Development, patients with a his12 tory of opioid use disorder, and other stakeholders, which 

13 may include State accrediting entities and reputable pro14 viders, analysts, and stakeholders of recovery housing 

15 services, such as the National Alliance for Recovery Resi16 dences, shall identify or facilitate the development of best 

17 practices, which may include model laws for implementing 

18 suggested minimum standards, for operating recovery 

19 housing. 

20 ‘‘(b) DISSEMINATION.—The Secretary shall dissemi21 nate the best practices identified or developed under sub22 section (a) to— 

23 ‘‘(1) State agencies, which may include the pro24 vision of technical assistance to State agencies seek25 ing to adopt or implement such best practices; 

26 ‘‘(2) recovery housing entities; and 
3 

•HR 4684 EH

1 ‘‘(3) the public, as appropriate. 

2 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

3 ‘‘(1) The term ‘recovery housing’ means a 

4 shared living environment free from alcohol and il5 licit drug use and centered on peer support and con6 nection to services, including medication-assisted 

7 treatment services, that promote sustained recovery 

8 from substance use disorders. 

9 ‘‘(2) The term ‘State’ includes any of the sev10 eral States, the District of Columbia, each Indian 

11 tribe or tribal organization (as those terms are de12 fined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination 

13 and Education Assistance Act), and any territory or 

14 possession of the United States. 

15 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To 

16 carry out this section, there is authorized to be appro17 priated $3,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2019 

18 through 2021.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4684 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human 

and for other purposes. of best practices for operating recovery housing, Services to identify or facilitate the development
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           LET'S GET TO WORK

  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on this day, as on every day, we should be 
working toward a better future for America. Yet, by almost any measure, 
days in session, committee markups held, bills voted on or signed into 
law, this is one of the least productive Congresses in more than half a 
century, by design.
  Everyone knew last year times would be tough, but despite that, the 
House Republicans who control the schedule scheduled a year of 
congressional inaction. Their ideology dictates that Congress can and 
should do nothing.
  There is work to be done. Where is the jobs agenda?
  With just days left in this congressional session, let's get to work.

                          ____________________
```
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, January 24, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to January 24, 2024, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 8, 2023, FR Doc. No. 2023-24705, 88 FR 77102.                          ( print page 1578)    

                    This Notice is being amended to change the meeting start time from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The location remains the same. This hybrid meeting will also be accessible remotely at                     *https://videocast.nih.gov/​watch=​53783.*                     The meeting is open to the public.                

Dated: January 4, 2024.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-00288 Filed 1-9-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. STE. GENEVIEVE LIME AND QUARRY COMPANY.

No. 431 Orig.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 7, 1939.

Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Bryan, Williams, Cave & McPheeters, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from doing certain things and to take certain affirmative action, on petition for enforcement of order of Labor Board.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. William W. LILLARD.

No. 1995.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct 24, 1939.

Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl.

Benjamin E. Cook, of Ponca City, Okl., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. POMPEO:
       H.R. 6442.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1: The Congress shall have 
     Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 
     to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 
     general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts 
     and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
```
**Exhibit32.2**

**WRITTENSTATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

Solely forthe purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefFinancial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies (the “Company”), herebycertifies, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (AmendmentNo. 1) of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Young Ham                      |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Young Ham, Chief Financial Officer |
| July 20, 2006                      |

 

----
**Exhibit24.1**

**POWER OFATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that AFFINITY GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),and each of the undersigned directors of the Company, hereby constitutes andappoints Stephen Adams, Michael Schneider and Thomas F. Wolfe, and each of them(with full power to each of them to act alone), its/his true and lawfulattorney-in-fact and agent, for it/him and on its/his behalf in its/his name,place and stead, in any and all capacities to sign, execute, affix its/his sealthereto and file the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,including any amendment or amendments thereto, with all exhibits and any alldocuments required to be filed with respect thereto with any regulatoryauthority.

There is hereby grantedto said attorneys, and each of the, full power and authority to do and performeach and every act and thing, requisite and necessary to be done in respect ofthe foregoing as fully as it/he or itself/himself might or could do ifpersonally present, thereby ratifying and confirming all that saidattorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to bedone by virtue hereof.

This Power of Attorneymay be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be anoriginal, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the sameinstrument and any of the undersigned directors may execute this Power ofAttorney by signing any such counterpart.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,AFFINITY GROUP, INC. has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed in itsname by its President and Chief Executive Officer as of the 20th day of March 2007.

 
|        | AFFINITY GROUP, INC. |                                  |   |
|--------|----------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:                  |    /s/ Michael A. Schneider |   |   |
|   |                 | Michael A. Schneider, President and   |   |   |
|   |                 | Chief Executive Officer               |   |   |

 

101

----

The undersigned directors of AFFINITY GROUP, INC., a Delawarecorporation, have hereunto set their hands as of the 20th day of March 2007.

 
| /s/ Stephen Adams         |   | /s/ David  Frith-Smith |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------|
| Stephen Adams             |   | David  Frith-Smith     |
|                      |   |                   |
|                      |   |                   |
| /s/ Michael A.  Schneider |   | /s/ J. Kevin  Gleason  |
| Michael A.  Schneider     |   | J. Kevin Gleason       |
|                      |   |                   |
|                      |   |                   |
| /s/ Andris A.  Baltins    |   | /s/ George  Pransky    |
| Andris A.  Baltins        |   | George Pransky         |

 

 

102

----
# C_2021035EN.01000502.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Repsol Petróleo SA v Administracíon General del Estado

(Case C-44/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 21(3) - Absence of chargeable event giving rise to taxation - Consumption of energy products within the curtilage of an establishment in which they were produced for the production of final energy products from which non-energy products are also inevitably produced)

(2021/C 35/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Repsol Petróleo SA

Defendant: Administracíon General del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/93/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that, where an establishment producing energy products intended for use as motor fuel or as heating fuel consumes energy products which it has itself produced and that, by that process, also inevitably obtains non-energy products from which economic value is derived, the portion of the consumption leading to the production of such non-energy products does not fall within the exemption concerning the chargeable event giving rise to the taxation of energy products provided for in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---