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

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 31, 1952.

Howell W. Vincent, G. J. Schaefer, Cov-ington, for appellants.

Wm. E. Wehrman, Robert O. Lukowsky, Covington, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

The question involved on this appeal is whether the purchasers of a television set waived their right to rescind the sales contract. The 'appeal is from a judgment on a verdict in favor of the appellees, purchasers of the set.

The appellees' purchased the television set from the appellants, an Ohio concern, in 1948. A down payment of $100 was made on the $1,750 purchase price. The set was installed in the appellees’ place of business in Bromley, early in January, 1949. The appellants made several service calls the first week the set was in operation. Subsequently, the appellees refused to pay the balance of the purchase price, claiming that the set was defective. The appellants instituted this action in. July, 1949, seeking -to recover the balance, due on, the set. *421By way of answer .and counterclaim the ap-pellees pleaded breach of warranty and of- . fered to return the set. They set out also that the appellants had refused to accept the returned set.

Although the action was filed in July, 1949, it was not tried until November, 1950. As we have noted, several service calls were made on the set shortly after its installation in January, 1949. Other calls were made in April and May. Clearly, the institution of the action put the appellees on notice that their offer to rescind the contract by the return of the set had been rejected. The appellees purchased another television set in January, 1950. However, several witnesses, who were regular patrons of the appellees’ place of business, testified that the old set had not been used for eight or nine months prior to the time of the trial. One of the appellees testified that the set in dispute was serviced in January, 1950. This evidence shows that the set was used as much as six months after the institution of the action.

Under the Uniform Sales Act, KRS 361.690(1) (d), the buyer, upon a breach of warranty, may rescind the sales contract either by a return or an offer to return the goods. Tihe notice of' rescission must be explicit and must be made within a reasonable time. Moreover, the buyer may lose this right if he uses the property as if it were his own. 46 Am.Jur., Sales, section 765, p. 895; Gargotto v. Sherman, 297 Ky. 597, 180 S.W.2d 565. Furthermore, the continued personal use of the goods by the buyer after the seller has refused the buyer’s tender of them in an attempted rescission will defeat the, attempted rescission. 46 Am.Jur., Sales, section 765, p. 896. Thomas Brothers v. Puffer Mfg. Co., 211 ICy. 695, 277 S.W. 1022. We think the Thomas case is controlling here because the continued use of the television set by the appellees after the institution of this action constituted a waiver-of their attempted rescission. Under the circumstances, the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the appellants.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent :w.ith this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000937252
<NAME>                        CAREADVANTAGE, INC.


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2,907,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,295,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,513,000
<PP&E>                                         1,045,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,348,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,159,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                          82,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,878,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,348,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,011,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,577,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (17,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (549,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (549,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.01)




</TABLE>
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

★▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS DARRELL MACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-97-40, CA-01-973-7) Submitted: August 6, 2003 Decided: August 25, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Darrell Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Darrell Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under §28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order n a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7177
JAMES EARL BENDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-887-2) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Earl Bender, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Earl Bender appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Bender has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Bender v. Angelone , No. CA-01-887-2 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF U.S. AUTOMOBILE ACCEPTANCE 1995-1, INC.,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH MARCH 31, 1999 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,118,369
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,118,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,118,369
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,898,131)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (746,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Berthel Growth & Income Trust I (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas J. Berthel, Chief Executive Officer of Berthel Fisher & Company Planning,
Inc., the Trust Advisor of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Company's Report fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


November 9, 2004                            /s/  Thomas J. Berthel
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas J. Berthel
                                                 President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Berthel Fisher & Company
                                                 Planning, Inc.
                                                 Trust Advisor
                                                 Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3548 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3548

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
   To amend title XII of the Public Health Service Act to expand the 
     definition of trauma to include thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                radioactive, and other extrinsic agents.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. TRAUMA DEFINITION.
    (a) Revised Definition Under Trauma Systems Grants Programs.--
Paragraph (4) of section 1231 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300d-31) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(4) Trauma.--The term `trauma' means an injury resulting from 
    exposure to--
            ``(A) a mechanical force; or
            ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an extrinsic agent 
        that is thermal, electrical, chemical, or radioactive.''.
    (b) Revised Definition Under Interagency Program for Trauma 
Research.--Paragraph (3) of section 1261(h) of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-61(h)) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(3) The term `trauma' means an injury resulting from exposure 
    to--
            ``(A) a mechanical force; or
            ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an extrinsic agent 
        that is thermal, electrical, chemical, or radioactive.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of
the Corporation, certifies that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation.

/s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN
--------------------------------------
Thomas E. Noonan
Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chairman of the Board
March 28, 2003


                                       7
Take notice that on January 27, 2000, Overthrust Pipeline Company tendered for filing a refund report. Overthrust states that the report documents refunds of amounts pertaining to and detailing the Deferred Income Tax (DIT) refund payments for the year 1999.

Overthrust states that it is filing the refund report pursuant to a Commission order dated May 21, 1991, “Order Approving Settlement with Modifications” in Docket Nos. RP85-60-000 and -002. Overthrust explains the Article V of the settlement, as modified, requires Overthrust to file an annual report 60 days after making the actual DIT refunds.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before February 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2785 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1 CEO CertificationI, David Teckman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Sutura, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 6, 2006   /s/ David Teckman    David Teckman  Chief Executive Officer
HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 46396 1990
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 344 

To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business 

of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2013 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to 

the business of health insurance to protect competition 

and consumers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Competitive Health 

5 Insurance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST 

7 LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS. 

8 (a) AMENDMENT TO MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT.— 

9 Section 3 of the Act of March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 344 IH

1 commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is 

2 amended by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, im4 pair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust 

5 laws with respect to the business of health insurance. For 

6 purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘antitrust 

7 laws’ has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the 

8 first section of the Clayton Act, except that such term in9 cludes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to 

10 the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods 

11 of competition.’’. 

12 (b) RELATED PROVISION.—For purposes of section 

13 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) 

14 to the extent such section applies to unfair methods of 

15 competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act 

16 shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 

17 without regard to whether such business is carried on for 

18 profit, notwithstanding the definition of ‘‘Corporation’’ 

19 contained in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission 

20 Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with