alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MATTHEW WOLTERS,

Appellant,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2897

[November 13, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Florence T. Barner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-6958 CACE 

(11).

Samantha Neides of Loan Lawyers, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Donald A. Mihokovich of Adams and Reese LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
BEN SHELLY RFSIDFNT 

REX LEE JIM /1( F. PRESIDI:NT 

August 11, 2014 

Mr. Fred Leutner 

Office of Science & Technology (Mail Code 4305T) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460 

E-mail Lcutner.Fred@epa.gov 

RE: Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Provisions regarding Treatment 

in a Similar Manner to States (T AS) 

Dear Mr. Leutner: 

It has come to the Navajo Nation's attention that the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is considering a reinterpretation of the rules governing the burden placed on 

Tribes applying for TAS under the CWA for Section 303(c), Water Quality Standards. 

Currently, Tribes must demonstrate inherent regulatory authority over tribal lands, which is 

challenging and resource intensive. This requirement has already placed a significant burden on 

the Navajo Nation in terms of both time and funds, and is likely to create additional burdens in 

the future. The potential reinterpretation, which would eliminate the "Montana Test" 

requirement and replace the requirement with a statement that "CW A Section 518 is a delegation 

by Congress to eligible Tribes to administer CW A regulatory programs over their entire 

reservations regardless of land ownership," will allow Tribes to exercise their sovereignty based 

on their ability and willingness to accept this delegation. 

The Navajo Nation applied to EPA for TAS for water quality standards under the CWA many 

years ago. It took us 5 years and $225,000 dollars before we finally received TAS, on January 

20, 2006. 

The Navajo Nation believes EPA's reinterpretation will clarify and strengthen the inherent 

regulatory authority of sovereign tribes to implement EPA statutes within reservations regardless 

of land ownership. Reinterpretation would validate the legal basis for tribal assertion of 

regulatory jurisdiction under the CW A and decrease the administrative burden of case-by-case 

assessments of tribal authority. 

As the Navajo Nation's Vice-President, I support EPA's efforts to reinterpret provisions of the 

CW A regarding the T AS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this 

potential rule change. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ronnie Ben, Environmental 

'· 
Department Director for the Surface and Ground Water Protection Department at (928) 871 -

7701 . 

Respectfully, 

/ '?~· \ =-

Rex ee Jim, Vice Presidi 

Navajo Nation 

Window Rock, AZ 86515
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3598 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to permit insurers 

to offer catastrophic coverage plans to anyone, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. FORTENBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to permit insurers to offer catastrophic coverage plans 

to anyone, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING INSURERS TO OFFER CATA4 STROPHIC COVERAGE PLANS TO ANYONE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1302(e) of the Patient 

6 Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022(e)) 

7 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(e) CATASTROPHIC PLAN.—A health plan not pro9 viding a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3598 IH

1 shall be treated as meeting the requirements of subsection 

2 (d) with respect to any plan year if the plan provides— 

3 ‘‘(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), the 

4 essential health benefits determined under sub5 section (b), except that the plan provides no benefits 

6 for any plan year until the individual has incurred 

7 cost-sharing expenses in an amount equal to the an8 nual limitation in effect under subsection (c)(1) for 

9 the plan year (except as provided for in section 

10 2713); and 

11 ‘‘(2) coverage for at least three primary care 

12 visits.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

14 1312(d)(3)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

15 Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(C)) is amended by strik16 ing ‘‘, except that’’ and all that follows through ‘‘section 

17 1302(e)’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall be effective as if included in the enact20 ment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST JOSEPH FRANCESCHI, Jr.,

Attorney,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a

Delaware corporation; HARRAH’S

OPERATING COMPANY, INC., a

Nevada corporation,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15272

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00205-RLH-RJJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 19, 2012

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ernest Joseph Franceschi, Jr., appeals the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of his complaint without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

MAR 28 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

 At oral argument, counsel was unable to cite to any page of the brief

challenging this ruling. Our own review of the brief confirms this. To the extent

Franceschi challenges the district court’s determination that he is a “sophisticated

card counter who could not possibly be deceived and therefore could not have

relied on Defendants’ advertising materials,” he is clearly addressing the district

court’s fraud ruling, rather than its CLRA/UCL ruling.

U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Franceschi’s claims under the California

Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and the California Unfair Competition

Law (“UCL”) for two reasons: (1) Nevada law specifically allows the allegedly

unfair practices; and (2) Franceschi could not meet the “reasonable” or “ordinary”

consumer test under California law because he is, by his own admission, a

sophisticated consumer and not an average one. On appeal, Franceschi does not

address or acknowledge the district court’s second rationale, so he has waived his

challenge to the district court’s dismissal of the California statutory claims.1

Likewise, the district court dismissed Franceschi’s fraud claim for two reasons: (1)

he failed to allege facts sufficient to show the existence of a “special relationship”

between the parties that would give rise to a duty on defendants’ part to

affirmatively disclose certain facts; and (2) he likely could not prove justifiable

reliance. On appeal, Franceschi addresses only the reliance holding, so he has not

preserved his challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his common law fraud

claim. Cf. Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to
address each of the district court’s alternative holdings on appeal results in

waiver); Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2001) (issues not

supported by argument or citations to authorities and supporting documents in the

record are waived). We therefore do not reach the merits of this case.

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10558

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Armani Morris, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CR-296-1

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Armani Morris has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Morris has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10558 Document: 00517050687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 23-10558

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10558 Document: 00517050687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
DEI'ARTMENT OF TRANSI'ORTATION 14910-13-1'] 

### J.
:<.lNC\JllJW>JCCS QlJHl<GSYMllOl Fedeui Aviation Administration 14 CFR I'a<l 39 [Docket No. FAA-2009-0418; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-020-AD; Amendme 

## 11:>2.00- 'i2010V'{~Ol l'-/odtli7Wd'0 39-*****'AIl2ij99 **_H] dPl01 

## I(p 

## 20 I 2-010 

## -0'-1-0& IUN 2J20-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira deAeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Mo ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products list above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) origmated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: NITIAlSiSl(}

~OUTI.'G ,YMBOl 

# ANM-7 iTlAlS'S,G ATIO 10

## 17-'1'7 

# '~~TI4-

ROIJrrNG SYMBOL

The unsafe condition is cracking and deformation ofwing spar andrib flanges, which During routine inspection procedures on thewing assembly line itwas identified the possibility ofcracks and deformation developing during assembly on the internal wing spars andrib flanges, causing asafe[ty) margin reduction. 

## * * * * * * 

## * T'ALS'SlG

~OUT!NG SYMOOL 

# -100 LNlTl 

# 's,oJ
OA E '},; {O could result in loss ofstructural integrity ofthe wing. We are issuing this AD to require ot !NOS DOL actions to COITCCt the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective [insert date 35 days after date ofpublication inth
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Annual Report of Flutter Entertainment plc (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Jackson, 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 my knowledge: 

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

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 
Date: March 26, 2024  /s/ Peter Jackson  Peter Jackson  Chief Executive Officer  *(Principal Executive Officer)***
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2634

___________ Claryce D. Graham, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Rosemount, Inc.; HealthPartners, Inc.; * HealthPartners Administrators, Inc.; * Choice Plus, a Self-Insured Employee * [UNPUBLISHED] Benefits Plan, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 15, 2000 Filed: July 12, 2000

___________ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Claryce Graham brought suit against Rosemount, Inc.; HealthPartners, Inc.; HealthPartners Administrators; and ChoicePlus alleging violations of the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Minnesota1 The Honorable DavidS. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. -2- Human Rights Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to all the defendants on all causes of action. Graham appeals the district court's grant

of summary judgment as to her ADA, ADEA, and ERISA claims. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7445

ADI SUPREME GOD ALLAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HUGHES, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; YVONNE BLANDSAW, Grievance Coordinator

at Lee Correctional Institution, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-2921-2-11AJ)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 9, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adi Supreme God Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Stephen Pauley,

LIDE, MONTGOMERY, POTTS, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Allah v. Hughes, No. CA-97-2921-2-11AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 1998). We

deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
# FY20 FOIA Appeals

&"Arial,Regular"&10 Page &"-,Regular"&P &"-,Regular"of &"-,Regular"&N 	&"Arial,Regular"&10 10/4/2020 3:33:03 PM

# Holiday
Exhibit 4(h)


		  CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
		    THE CODE OF REGULATIONS
			      OF
		   OHIO CASUALTY CORPORATION


I, Howard L. Sloneker III, Senior Vice President and Secretary of Ohio
Casualty Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the amendment set
forth in the resolutions below was duly adopted at the annual meeting of
shareholders held on April 26, 2000 by the affirmative vote of holders of
shares entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power of
the Company:


	RESOLVED, that Section 10 of Article I of the Code of
	Regulations of the Company be, and the same hereby is,
	amended by deleting in its entirety, and by adopting and
	substituting in its place a new Section 10, which shall
	provide as follows:

	Section 10.  Proxies.  At meetings of the shareholders,
	any shareholder of record entitled to vote may be represented
	and may vote by proxy or proxies appointed by an instrument in
	writing signed by such shareholder or appointed in any manner
	permitted by Ohio law.  Any such instrument in writing or
	record of any such appointment shall be filed with or received
	by the secretary of the meeting before the person holding such
	proxy shall be allowed to vote thereunder.  No appointment of
	a proxy is valid after the expiration of eleven months after
	it is made unless the writing or other comunication which
	appoints such proxy specifies the date on which it is to expire
	or the length of time it is to continue in force.


IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 31st day of
July, 2000.



					   /s/ Howard L. Sloneker III
					   --------------------------
					   Howard L. Sloneker III
					   Sr. Vice President and Secretary
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|U.S. Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Truck (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|U.S. Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Truck (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 97,918 | 83,702  | 89,196  | 97,068  | 80,075  | 74,761  | 68,209  | 68,107  | 68,607 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 64,697 | 67,198 | 71,928  | 76,850  | 70,124  | NA      | 69,492  | NA      | 67,192  | 57,840 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 50,619 | 45,300 | 51,052  | 53,518  | 48,811  | 54,618  | 57,793  | 65,769  | 69,285  | 67,784 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 72,240 | 95,230 | 131,252 | 145,408 | 152,455 | 176,653 | 164,278 | 110,866 | 111,096 | 106,845
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 89,531 | 90,757 | 96,982  | 95,147  |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Case 3:22-cr-00125-X Document 21 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 37
#### Ex parte HAMLIN.

No. 21671.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1941.

Chas. G. Lyman and John L. Pichinson, both of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The State’s Attorney before this court has prepared a brief in this cause which we think properly disposes of the matters herein made the basis of the request for a discharge of relator. It is herein set forth and adopted as .the opinion of the court:

“The relator, N. C. Hamlin, stands charged by indictment with the offense of murder with malice, it being alleged that on or about January 22, 1940, he killed one Eddie Bruening in Nueces County. Venue was changed to Caldwell County where this proceeding commenced. The application seeks discharge because of a previous acquittal based on a jury finding that the accused was insane. The facts agreed to reflect that relator shot and killed one Arthur Kretzschman and about 7 minutes later shot and killed Eddie Bruening. The murder charge alleging the death of Arthur Kretzschman was tried in Nueces County and an acquittal resulted, the jury finding that relator was insane at the time he killed Kretzschman and at the time of trial. Relator was committed to the State Hospital at San Antonio. Later he was released upon being found sane by a jury in the county court.

“The basis of this proceeding is the allegation that the acquittal in the first case, based as it was upon a finding that the accused was insane at the time of the killing of Kretzschman, is an adjudication of not guilty by reason of insanity in the prosecution for the death of Eddie Bruening.

*335“The relator has pursued the wrong remedy. Habeas corpus is not available to establish jeopardy. The remedy is through the assertion of such facts as a defense in trial on the merits. This was decided in Ex parte Spanell, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 304, 212 S.W. 172, a case in which all of the authorities in this state and many in other states were reviewed. The last pronouncement on this question, which follows the Spanell case is Ex parte Hunt, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 163, 40 S.W.2d *134.”*

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
27 August 2010

Thomas J. Gardner

Office of Science and Technology (Mail Code 4305T)

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Subject: Water Quality Standards Revisions now underway

HORIBA offers the following comments concerning the ongoing Water Quality Standards revision:

First, a disclaimer:  We manufacture and sell laser diffraction instruments for particle sizing in water.  

Our instruments are used worldwide for these types of applications.  Our Comments are:

1. Water Quality Standards should require particle size distribution information (PSD). PSD is of

fundamental importance in predicting the processes of transport of particles by flows and

against settling;  

2. PSD is central to pollutant transport due to the attachment of toxic materials to particle

surfaces;

3. It is time to abandon the nephelometric standards for monitoring particulate content.

Dozens of scientific papers attest to the fundamental errors in relating nephelometric

turbidity to suspended particle concentration.  Only laser diffraction technology offers

correct estimates of suspended particle size distribution and concentration, rooted in the

first principles of Mie of light scattering.

4. Laser diffraction technology has been used extensively in many industries for over 3

decades.

5. The technology is documented by ISO as standard no. ISO 13320:2009; and by the Amer.  

Water Works Assoc. as standard no.  2560D.

6. PSD information can also predict the presence of specific pollutant species for purposes of

monitoring public health safety.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Pohl

Vice President