alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Williams *v.*Ludwig Floral Co., Appellant.

*Negligence*— Automobiles—Scope *of employee’s authority*— Busi*ness of employer*— Case *for jury.*

In an action against a corporation to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by being struck by defendant’s automobile, a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto based on the contention that plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant’s employee was operating the automobile in connection with its business at the time of the accident, was properly refused where it appeared that the name of the defendant was on the car, that the secretary of the company was operating it, and that though the accident occurred on Sunday the evidence showed that the defendant’s store was open for business during that day, and that the ear *141was coming from the direction of the street on which the store was located.

Argued October 21, 1915.

Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., July Term, 1913, No. 1318, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Dixie Williams v. Ludwig Floral Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Davis, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff for |2,250.00 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in refusing defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.

*Charles F.*Patterson_, for appellant.

*W. E. Walsh,*for appellee.

January 3, 1916:

Per Curiam,

The main contention of the appellant is that the appellee failed to prove as part of her case that appellant’s employee, at the time of the accident, was operating its automobile delivery wagon in connection with its business, and therefore the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto should have been allowed. The name of the defendant company was on the wagon; at the time of the accident the secretary of the company was operating it; though the accident occurred on Sunday, the evidence showed the defendant’s store was open for business during that day and that the wagon was coming from the direction of the street on which the store was located. From these facts a fair inference for the jury was that the wagon was being operated in connection *142with appellant’s business at tbe time of tbe collision. Whether tbe presumption that it was being so operated, bad been overcome by tbe testimony of tbe witnesses called by tbe appellant was for tbe jury, its exclusive province having been to pass upon their credibility. Tbe amendment of plaintiff’s statement not having been necessary, no error was committed in allowing it.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28932]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-18-005]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 6. Iroquois requests that 
the Commission approve the tariff sheet effective November 1, 2000.
    Iroquois states that the revised tariff sheets reflect a negotiated 
rate between Iroquois and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC for 
transportation under Rate Schedule RTS beginning on November 1, 2000 
through April 1, 2001.
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and 
all parties to the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28932 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DOT has previously decided not to enforce a regulation . But in prior cases, the decision no t to

enforce was grounded in the principle that “ nobody is getting hurt ” because of DOT i naction.

This time

, however, consumers are being hurt by fees that are clearly unreasonable. Havi ng to cancel and reschedule a trip already entail s the financial penalty of paying higher fares for replacement bookings, in addi tion to whatever unexpected and stressful situa tion re q uired cancellation of the trip. To add to consumers ’ burden with outrageous change fees is clearly contrary to the public interest. DOT should act on this petition.

Ed Perkins Retired Founding Editor, Consumer Reports Travel Letter
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited Company (the“Company”) for the period ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: December 9, 2005 /s/ Charles E. Moran         Charles E. MoranPresident and Chief Executive Officer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0726 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. BRANDON MICHAEL BECKMAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 9 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0726
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 206 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 206

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 10 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Thursday, February 10, 
1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994, to Tuesday, February 22, 1994 
and an adjournment or recess of the Senate from Thursday, February 10, 
1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994, to Tuesday, February 22, 1994.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 10, 1994, Friday, 
February 11, 1994, Saturday, February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 
1994, Monday, February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Wednesday, 
February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or Friday, February 18, 
1994, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, 
it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
business on Thursday, February 10, 1994, Friday, February 11, 1994, 
Saturday, February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 1994, Monday, 
February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Wednesday, February 16, 
1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or Friday, February 18, 1994, 
pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, in 
accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or at such time as may be specified 
by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 10, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. 

2014-GL-70-0239 

Judge Not Assigned 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

RECEIVED 

JUL 2 8 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States Department of 

Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.204(b), that it shall be 

represented in the above-stated action by the following attomey: 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, lllinois 6001 8 

P: 847/294-7652 

f: 847/294-7498 

All communications, notices, pleadings or documents are respectfully requested to be forwarded as follows: 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, lllinois 60018 

p: 847/294-7652 

f: 847/294-7498 

Respectfi.J!ly submitted, 

Brian K. Khan 

Attomey 

Dated: 1-/7... t J 2.-0 \ I 

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this day a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance was sent Overnight 

Mail as follows: 

Overnight Mail 

(one copy) 

Mr. Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. 

Roth Blair 

I 00 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

Attorney for Respondent 

I hereby certifY that on this day copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were sent via 

Overnight Mail as follows: 

Overnight Mail 

(Original and one Copy) 

Date: 

I /, '7 ; .'}, '7 n 

r I 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

Tan1my dner 

Legal Technician 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

7
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 22799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1944.

J. Shirley Cook, of Vernon, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, punishment assessed being a fine of $50.

*694No statement of facts or bills of exception are in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED 

 v. 

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY 

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD 

CIRCUIT 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 6 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Certification of Law 

submitted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is GRANTED. 

This Court shall consider the following issue: 

May an insurer use methods not specifically identified in Pennsylvania’s 

Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. §§1701 et seq., to 

calculate the “usual and customary” charge for devices and services not 

listed on the Medicare Fee Schedule for purposes of determining the 

amount to be paid to providers of those devices and services? 

 The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to establish a briefing schedule and list this 

matter for oral argument.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

WASHINGTON

January 22, 1960

My dear Mr. Secretary:

Ihave just come into the possession of a book by
Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury from May 4, 1801,
to February 9, 1814, which I believe should be in the library
or files of the Treasury Department. It was printed by William
A. Davis, No. 438 Pearl Street, New York, in 1796, and the
title is 'Sketch of the Finances of the United States",

This book was given to me by my friend and former
associate at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Lyon
Boston. He has sketched the ownership of the book from the
time of its publication as follows:

‘It was given by Albert Gallatin to Alexander Hamilton,
presumably at the time of publication. When Alexander Hamilton
died, his son, Colonel Alexander Hamilton, inherited his father's
library. Colonel Hamilton was a law partner of my great grand-
father, Seymour Edward Lyon. When Colonel Hamilton died, he
left his law library, including this book, to my great grandfather,
Then it was left by my great grandfather to one of his daughters,
Sinclaire Lyon, my great aunt, who in turn left it to me."

Mr. Lyon was generous in giving me the book with the i
thought that it should come into the ownership and possession of i
the Treasury Department. I take pleasure in placing it in your
hands,

Respectfull urs,

Honorable Robert B, Anderson Ray M. Gidney
The Secretary of the Treasury

Washington, D. C.
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
Case 4:22-cv-00439-P Document 1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC STUDWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:04-cr-00056-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted: October 26, 2012 Decided: November 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Studwell, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Studwell appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for reduction of 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See United States v. Studwell, No. 4:04-cr00056-RBS-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 29, 2011; entered Nov. 30, 

2011). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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
Case 2:22-cr-00033-Z-BR Document 33 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 88
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129273 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129273 

 COA: 259913 
 Wayne CC: 98-005750

RICHARD HODGSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
#### CHILDERS v. STATE.

No. 21890.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1942.

Albert Baskin, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

. KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Fruit of the Loom, Ltd.
Registration Statements and related Prospectuses as follows: Post-Effective
Amendment No. 4 to Form S-8, Registration No. 33-18250 pertaining to the Fruit
of the Loom, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form
S-8, Registration No. 33-50499 pertaining to the Fruit of the Loom, Inc.
Directors' Stock Option Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-38953 pertaining to the Fruit of the Loom Inc. 1995
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan As Amended and Restated and the Fruit of
the Loom, Inc. 1996 Incentive Compensation Plan As Amended and Restated (the
"1996 Incentive Compensation Plan"), Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8,
Registration No. 33-59551 pertaining to the Fruit of the Loom, Inc. Executive
Incentive Compensation Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8,
Registration No.333-09203 pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Compensation Plan,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8, Registration No. 33-39625 pertaining
to the Fruit of the Loom, Inc. 1989 Stock Grant Plan and the Fruit of the Loom,
Inc. Long-Term Bonus Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-00039 pertaining to the Fruit of the Loom, Inc. 1995
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan and the Fruit of the Loom, Inc. 1995
Non-Employee Director's Stock Plan, Form S-8, Registration No. 333-74077
pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Compensation Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No.
2 to Form S-3, Registration No. 33-52023 pertaining to the registration of
2,178,178 Class A Ordinary Shares, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3
Registration No. 33-52779 pertaining to the registration of 2,178,178 Class A
Ordinary Shares and Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4 Registration No. 333-79195
pertaining to the registration of $250,000,000 in 8 7/8% Senior Notes due April
15, 2006 of our report dated February 13, 2001 except for the "Reorganization
Cases" note and the "Long-Term Debt" note as to which the date is March 15,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Fruit of the Loom, Ltd. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 30, 2000.



                                     Ernst & Young LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 2001
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 27 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM LORD PUNCHARD, King, Royal Democratic State of Continental Africa Government (Edmound Right, Royal Consul; Michel Contreres, Royal Consul), Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO; GARRY JOHNSON, Governor; 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEW MEXICO; 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEW MEXICO; NEW MEXICO STATE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; DEMING CITY MAGISTRATE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-2275 D.C. No. CIV-02-780 BB/KBM (D. New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeKELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. William Punchard, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of federal jurisdiction. Inhis filings before the district court, Punchard alleged that he is the head-of-stat e of a non-existent country and that two diplomats employed by his “country” are be ing illegally incarcerated in New Mexico state prison; Punchard requested habeas relief on behalf of these two individuals. Punchard further alleged that he was being harassed by the Deming, New Mexico “City Magistrate Court,” which is allege dly mailing “Harassing Court Summons” to his “Royal Embassy.” In dismissi ng this action, the district court concluded that Punchard’s allegations were so fanciful and delusional that they failed to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction. This court has thoroughly reviewed all of the numer ous documents filed by Punchard in this appeal and has reviewed de novo the district court’s order of dismissal and the entire record on appeal. That re view demonstrates that the district court’s resolution of the case was substantially correct. Accordingly, this-3-

court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set out in the dis trict court’s order of dismissal dated September 3, 2002. All pe nding motions are hereby
DENIED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM