alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 28, 2008*

#### WILLIAM J. CRAGO VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-08-031)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 2003 Cadillac struck a hole in the road while he was traveling north on Route 2 in Weirton, Hancock County. Route 2 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 4:30 p.m. on December 24,2007. Route 2 in this area is a three-lane road, with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. The posted speed limit is forty-five miles per hour. As claimant was driving in the northbound lane at approximately forty to forty-three miles per hour, his vehicle struck a hole in the road. Claimant testified that he travels on this road every day and noticed that there are a series of holes in this area. He lives in the area close to where the holes are located. Although claimant is familiar with this location *118and usually tries to avoid the holes, he could not avoid the subject hole on this occasion. As a result, the vehicle’s left front tire and rim sustained damage in the amount of $424.43. Claimant’s insurance deductible is $500.00.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Route 2 at the site of the claimant’s accident. Samuel DeCapio, Highway Administrator for respondent in Hancock County, stated that respondent was engaged in snow removal and ice control on the day in question. Although he states that there were a series of holes in this location, he explained that snow removal and ice control are respondent’s highest priority.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins vs. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*vs. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent had at least constructive notice of the hole which claimant’s vehicle struck and that the hole presented a hazard to the traveling public.. Even though respondent was engaged in snow removal and ice control, Mr. DeCapio stated that he was aware that there were a series of holes in the road at this location. However, the Court is also of the opinion that claimant had notice of the condition of the road on Route 2. Therefore, the Court concludes that claimant was ten percent (10%) comparatively negligent for this incident which caused the damages to his vehicle.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to the claimant in this claim in the amount of $3 81.99.

Award of $3 81.99.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1924 

To authorize 2 additional district judgeships for the district of Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2017 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. GARDNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize 2 additional district judgeships for the district 

of Colorado. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS FOR THE 

4 DISTRICT OF COLORADO. 

5 (a) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS.—The Presi6 dent shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent 

7 of the Senate, 2 additional district judges for the district 

8 of Colorado. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

10 In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of title 

11 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the numVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:08 Oct 07, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1924.IS S1924

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1924 IS

1 ber of judgeships authorized by subsection (a), the item 

2 relating to Colorado in such table is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘9’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Record of Conversation

On September 19, 2011, ARM Analy st spoke to Shelli Oliver to follow up from previous conversation in regards to withdrawing peti tion due to duplicate request. Ms. Oliver stated that she submitted withdrawal letter to regulations.go v two weeks prio . Analy st explained the letter had not been received. This letter serves as the withdrawal letter on behalf of Falwell dba Freedom Aviation. Ty neka Thomas Transportation Industry

Analy st
DAVAN DEWAYNE DICKEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2913

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County

. William L. Wright , Judge

.

William Mallory Kent

, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11



                STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            1996        1995
                                            ----        ----   
<S>                                      <C>         <C>
Primary Earnings Per Share

Net Income                               ($953,684)  ($512,716)

Shares:
Weighted Average Common
Shares Outstanding                       2,983,620   2,364,983

Effect of Shares Issuable Upon Exercise
of Warrants                                      0      16,998

Effect of Shares Issuable Upon Exercise
of Options                                       0     456,000

Adjusted Common Shares and Equivalents   2,983,620   2,837,981

Earnings Per Share - Primary                ($0.32)     ($0.13)

Fully Diluted Earnings per Share:

Net Income                               ($953,684)  ($512,716)

Shares:
Weighted Average Common
Shares Outstanding                       2,983,620   2,364,983

Effect of Shares Issuable Upon
Exercise of Warrants                             0      16,998

Effect of Shares Issuable Upon Exercise
of Options                                       0     456,000

Adjusted Common Shares and Equivalents   2,983,620   2,837,981

Earnings Per Share - Fully Diluted          ($0.32)     ($0.13)

</TABLE>
#### MIERS v. STATE.

No. 20269.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

Adkins & Adkins, of Brady, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

..KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for possession of liquor in dry area for purposes of sale; punishment is assessed at a fine of $250.

This record shows that two inspectors for the Texas Liquor Control Board and a deputy constable went to the home of appellant to make a search for liquor. They knocked on the front dóor and when appellant’s wife came to the door and asked them what they wanted, they told her they were officers and wanted to search the house for liquor. She told them all right, but to wait until she got back in bed and then go ahead. Appellant was asleep in the hallway when the officers got into the house. They told him the object of their visit and he told *them to go*ahead and search. His wife testified that she did not give her consent, merely asked them to wait until she got into bed to make the search. There was testimony from one of the searching officers that while they had a search warrant, they did not tell either appellant or his wife that they had it. As a result of the search, some twenty-two half-pints of whisky were found. Appellant timely objected to testimony by the officers as to what they found as a result of the search on the grounds that the officers did not exhibit a search warrant and searched said premises without the consent of the defendants. The search warrant in question, if any, is not included in the record.

Whether or not the officers had a legal warrant to search appellant’s premises is of no moment, since they had obtained permission to make the search. If the officers had *informed*appellant or his wife that they had a search warrant, when in fact they had none, or if they had had an illegal warrant, and by reason thereof had obtained permission to make the search, a different question would have been present. See Balch v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 327, 115 S.W.2d 676.

However, we think this case comes within the rule announced by this court in the cases of Cass v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 208, 61 S.W.2d 500; Ennox v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 94 S.W.2d 473.

The search of appellant’s premises under these circumstances was not an unreasonable search, and the testimony of the officers concerning the whisky found as a result of said search was admissible in evidence, since consent had been obtained therefor.

The judgment 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.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Report of USCorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dultz, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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




/s/ Robert DultzRobert
      Dultz, PresidentChief
      Executive Officer and
                    Acting
      Chief Financial
Officer




Date:
January 12, 2010
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-250/251-LR; ASLBP No. 01-786-03-LR] 

                    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , 37 FR 28710 (1972), and Sections 2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721, and 2.772(j) of the Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                 

Florida Power and Light Company 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4 

                    This Board is being established pursuant to a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 60693 (Oct. 12, 2000)) and the Commission's November 28, 2000 order referring intervention petitions for a hearing (CLI-00-23, 52 NRC —— (Nov. 28, 2000)). The proceeding involves an application by the Florida Power and Light Company to renew the operating licenses for its Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR part 54. The renewed licenses, if granted, would authorize the applicant to operate those units for an additional twenty-year period.                 

The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: 

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. 

Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. 

Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 

All correspondence, documents and other materials shall be filed with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR § 2.701. 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 2000. 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 00-30905  Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No. 13-4144

__________

TOBIAS BERMUDEZ CHAVEZ, et al.,

v.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00697)

____

JULIO ABREGO ABREGO, et al.,

v.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00698)

_____

ALVARADO ALFARO MIGUEL FRANCISCO, et al.,

v.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00699)

_____

JORGE LUIS AGUILAR MORA, et al.,

v.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00700)

_____

EDWIN AGUERO JIMENEZ, et al.,

v.

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00701)

_____

GONZALEZ ARAYA FRANKLIN, et al.,

v. 

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et al.

(D. Del. No. 1-12-cv-00702)
TOBIAS BERMUDEZ CHAVEZ, et al.,

Appellants

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Nos. 1-12-cv-00697, 1-12-cv-00698, 1-12-cv-00699, 

1-12-cv-00700, 1-12-cv-00701, and 1-12-cv-00702)

District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, 

CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, 

SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and NYGAARD1, Circuit Judges

ORDER

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above 

captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of 

this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The 

opinion and judgment entered on August 11, 2015 are hereby vacated.

By the Court,

s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Chief Circuit Judge

Dated: September 22, 2015

JK/cc: All Counsel of Record

 

1 As to panel rehearing only; will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant 

to 3d. Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





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





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





No purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.




/s/ Jack BravermanJack BravermanChief Financial OfficerTRIMOL GROUP, INC.




November 12, 2010




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Trimol Group, Inc. and will be retained by Trimol Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         160,919
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  300,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         490,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 970,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          259,838
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,890
<OTHER-SE>                                     601,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   970,354
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             34,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (288,122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (288,122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (288,122)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Executive Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 of AirNet Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated: May 11, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bruce D. ParkerPrinted Name: Bruce D. ParkerTitle: Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and President
 26
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1


     

    Innovative
Food Holdings Extends Supplier Agreement With Multi-Billion Dollar Broadline
Foodservice Distributor

     

     

    Tuesday November 4, 10:26 am
ET

     

    NAPLES,
FL--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 4, 2008 -- Today, Innovative Food Holdings, Inc. (OTC
BB:IVFH.OB -
News) announced
that its wholly owned subsidiary, Food Innovations, Inc., has extended its
existing supplier agreement with one of the largest broadline food distributors
in the United States.

     

    As part
of this extension, which runs through September 2009, Food Innovations will
continue to supply professional chef's nationwide with over 3,000 perishable and
non-perishable gourmet and specialty food products.

     

    Mr.
Justin Wiernasz, President of Innovative Food Holdings, Inc., stated, "We are
pleased to continue to grow our business relationship with our largest customer.
The extension of this agreement is a positive reflection on our new marketing
programs, additional product offerings and our improved sales efforts. Our
current sales remain positive and we look forward to expanding what we believe
is a uniquely positioned, value-adding partnership with one of the largest
foodservice providers in the United States."

     

    Food
Innovations' supplier agreement is with one the largest national broadline
foodservice distributors. This distributor supplies products to over 250,000
customers across the United States.

     

    Innovative
Food Holdings, Inc. provides the highest quality gourmet food products to
professional chefs throughout the United States. To learn more, visit Food
Innovations Inc. website at www.foodinno.com.

     

    This
release contains certain forward-looking statements and information relating to
Innovative Food Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") that are based on the beliefs of
the company's management, as well as assumptions made by and information
currently available to the Company. Such statements reflect the current views of
the Company with respect to future events and are subject to certain
assumptions, including those described in this release. Should one or more of
these underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially
from those described herein as anticipated, believed, looking forward, or
expected. The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking
statements.

     

    


    Contact:

         Contact:

         Sam
Klepfish

         Innovative
Food Holdings, Inc.

         (239)
449-3235

         sklepfish@foodinno.com