alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Trinity Universal Ins. Co., Appellee, *v.*General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., Appellant, et al.

(No. 28196

Decided July 23, 1941.)

*490
      *Mr. William M. Byrnes, Mr. William A. Kane*and *Mr. Frank J. Kus,*for appellee.

*Messrs, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter $ Stewart*and *Mr. C. M. Korn,*for appellant.

By the Court.

Although the presentation of this case has resulted in extended discussion and the citation of numerous authorities, the question is clear and uninvolved when reduced to its lowest terms. Then too, the decision must be limited to the circumstances peculiar to this particular controversy.

This is not a dispute between the insured and the two insuring companies. The latter concede the full coverage in the total sum of $30,000 — $20,000 on one policy and $10,000 on the other. They agree further that if either policy constituted the only coverage it then would be the obligation of that company to defend the insured and pay the entire amount of any judgment not in excess of the amount of the policy. The dispute arises solely by reason of the existence of the two policies. Is each company liable for its proportionate share of the total coverage for any judgment rendered? Or is the defendant company’s liability limited to any excess above the $10,000 named in the policy issued by the plaintiff company?

First it must be observed that the coverage provided by the policy of the defendant company is general while that named in the policy issued by the plaintiff is specific. The latter is limited strictly to liability for bodily injury or death accidentally arising from operation of the truck. The former covers liability for *491
      *any*accidental bodily injury, including death, occurring anywhere on the premises of the insured. Hence, under the general rule the specific insurer is primarily liable.

The second thing of importance to be noted is that the policy issued by the defendant company is the only one mentioning excess insurance. Although the policy covers generally all bodily injuries occurring ¡accidentally anywhere on the premises of the insured, it excludes any such injuries if caused by the truck on the premises at a time when there is other coverage on the truck. In that event liability is expressly limited to any excess above the maximum provided in the other policy. There is no contractual relation between the two insurance companies, and the defendant company was within its rights in issuing to the insured a policy containing this limitation. It is not contended that the plantiff company could not have ascertained this information when it later issued its policy.

The judgment pf the Court of Appeals must be reversed and that of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS W. SMITH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71966

Tax Ct. Nos. 10907-08

 21318-08

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges.

Carlos W. Smith appeals pro se from the tax court’s order following a bench

trial upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s deficiencies and penalties

for tax years 2005 and 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). 

FILED

MAR 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71966

We review de novo the tax court’s legal conclusions, and for clear error its factual

findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The tax court properly upheld Smith’s tax deficiencies because he did not

substantiate his claimed deductions with any evidence despite being given

numerous opportunities to do so. See Norgaard v. Comm’r, 939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th

Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of establishing entitlement to a

deduction). 

The tax court properly upheld Smith’s penalties because he failed to meet

his burden of showing that the underpayment was not a result of negligence. See

26 U.S.C. § 6662(a); Pahl v. Comm’r, 150 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998).

Smith’s contentions that he was retaliated against are unavailing. See Karme

v. Comm’r, 673 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts will look behind the

deficiency notice to determine the Commissioner’s motives only in extremely rare

cases involving unconstitutional conduct).

Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2977

___________ Neil L. Griswold, * * Appellant, * * v. * * New Madrid County Group Practice, * Inc., also known as Southeast * Appeal from the United States Missouri Health Network, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Jimmy Cravens; Ralph Barnwell, Jr.; * Dianne Compton; Bill Glaus; Mike * Barnes, Dr.; Roseann Whittemore; * Tracye Harris; Angel Castro; Murray * Wallace; Ben Petit; Linda Marroquin, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: February 27, 199 8 Filed: March 2, 199 8

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.-2-

Neil Griswold sued N ew Madrid County Group Practice, Inc. (Grou p Practice), claiming that it refused to renew his employment contract in violation of the AgeThe HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. -3- Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq . , 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the state constitution

. Grou p Practice moved for summary judgment, arguing tha t Griswold f ailed to state a constitutional violation, and that --assuming Griswold had made a prima facie case o f discrimination--his failure to obtain admittin g privileges at the local hospital constituted a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for nonrenewal, which Griswol d could not demonstrate was pretextual. The district court 1 granted summary judgment, holding that Group Practice was not a s tate actor under section 1983, and that Griswol d failed to provide any evidence to rebut Group Practice & s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for nonre newal of his cont ract. Griswold appeals, arguing only that th e district court should have granted him a continuance t o engage in discovery.

After careful review of the parties & briefs an d appendi x, we conclude that the district court did no t abus e its discretion by ruling on the summary judgmen t mo tion without granting Griswold a continuance fo r discovery: although Griswold filed an affidavi t attesting that he needed to engage in discovery to prove pretext, he did not identify what discovery w as necessary or what facts he hoped to discover. See Dulany v

. Carn ahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (8th Cir. 1997)

. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.-4- Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00391- CV

Edw ard Heard, Stephani e Hear d, M. Anderson Heard, and/ or All Occupants of 1206 Walnu t Stre et, Bastr op, Texas, App ellants

v. VRM ( Vendor Resourc e Managem ent), Duly Authorize d Agent for the Secre tary of Vet erans Aff airs, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F B ASTROP CO UNTY, NO. 15- 1716 5, H ONO RAB LE B ENTON ES KEW , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
T h e cl erk’s rec ord i n this appea l was due for filing i n this Court on Septemb er 2 3 , 2015. The cler

k of this Court subsequently notified the appellants that the cler k’s rec ord h ad n ot been f iled due to their fa ilure to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the county court c lerk’s f

ees f or prepa ring the cler

k’s rec ord. The notice reque sted that the appellants m ak e arr ang ements for the cler k’s rec ord an d s u b m i t a status repor t reg arding this appea l by October 9, 2015. Fur ther, the notice advised the appellants that their failure to comply with this reque st could result in the dismiss al of this appea l for want of prosec ution. To date, the appellants have not filed a status repor t or otherw ise responde d to this C ourt’s notice, a nd the cler

k’s re cord ha s not been filed. I f the trial c ourt cler

k fails to file the cle rk’s re cord due to the appellants’ f ailure to pay or make arr ang ements to pay for the cler k’s fee for prepa

ring the rec ord, the appellate court mayd ismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution unless the appellants wer e entitled to proceed wi t h o u t

pay ment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). I n this case , the appellants have not established that they
are entitled to proce ed without pay ment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing proce dure for establishing indige nce on appea l). Be cause the appellants have failed to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the cler

k’s fee for prepa

ring the cler

k’s rec ord, this app eal is dismiss ed for want of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 23, 2015

2
Exhibit 10.4: Engagement Letter - Raven Kopelman.






Exhibit 10.4 

Raven Kopelman

2980 152A St.

Surrey, BC

V4P 1G7

June 12, 2008



InsightfulMind Learning, Inc.

#300 – 1055 W. Hastings St.

Vancouver, BC

V6E 2E9



Re: Letter of Engagement for Fiscal 2009



Dear Board of Directors:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of the terms and objectives of my engagement as Chief Programmer of InsightfulMind Learning, Inc. (the “Corporation”).

Since the Corporation’s inception, as Chief Programmer I have been responsible for implementing and maintaining the course platform including interfacing with contractors as necessary. I shall continue with this responsibility. Additionally, since inception, I have been responsible for overall Information Technology (IT) decisions for the Corporation, and I shall continue with this responsibility as well.

I report directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and submit to him, for review and approval, designs and plans covering all aspects of the Corporation’s IT infrastructure development, as well as its administration.

As Chief Programmer, I dedicate approximately 2 hours per month to the maintenance of the existing IT infrastructure including the corporate and course platform websites, and shall continue to do so. My hours are increased as needed when enhancements or emergency repairs are required. As part of the Corporation’s recently adopted Internal Control Plan, on a biweekly basis, I submit to the CEO, for his review and approval, summaries and details of the time I spend performing my duties.

The compensation I receive to serve as Chief Programmer is a rate of CDN $25 per hour.

Sincerely,

	By:  RAVEN KOPELMAN
	       Raven Kopelman  
	       Chief Programmer  


 



 

1






InsightfulMind Learning, Inc.

ACCEPTED by the Board of Directors of InsightfulMind Learning, Inc., June 12, 2008:

 

 

	By: JEFF THACHUK	
By: RAVEN KOPELMAN


	
      Jeff Thachuk  

	
      Raven Kopelman  


		
 

 

 


	By: KEN BOGAS	
By: DAVE HOLMES


	      Ken Bogas  	      Dave Holmes  


 

 

 

 



 

2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

----

 

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endedSeptember 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Colin W. Stewart, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, and Nancy C. Broadbent, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                               | /s/ Colin W. Stewart |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Dated: November  9, 2006 | Colin W. Stewart          |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer   |
|                               |                      |
|                          |                      |
|                          | /s/ Nancy C. Broadbent    |
| Dated: November  9, 2006 | Nancy C. Broadbent        |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
#### HUNTER v. STATE.

No. 15266.

Count of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1932.

A. B. Geppert, -of Teague, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

*450The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Georgison, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered on March 5, 1987, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the first degree and violation of probation and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *ll/i*to 15 years with the violation of probation charge to be covered by the imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having re*384ceived the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur — Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
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, 2008 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 13,
2008 [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.] 26
Exhibit 12.1

NeighborCare, Inc.  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                   |                                                                           | Successor |        | Predecessor |       
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------ | ----------- | ------
|
|
|Earnings                           |                                                                           |           |        |             |       
|                                   | Income from continuing operations before income taxes and equity earnings |           | (2,717 | )           | 1,908 
|                                   | Equity in earnings of >50% owned affiliates                               |           | 503    |             | 360   
|                                   | Adjusted pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations                 |           | (3,220 | )           | 1,548 
|                                   | Fixed charges                                                             |           | 19,018 |             | 14,358
|                                   | Earnings from continuing operations before fixed charges                  |           | 15,798 |             | 15,906
|Fixed charges                      |                                                                           |           |        |             |       
|                                   | Interest expense                                                          |           | 19,018 |             | 14,358
|                                   | Total fixed charges                                                       |           | 19,018 |             | 14,358
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |                                                                           | *         |        | 1.11        |       

Note:The Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in this Form 10-K.

---



QuickLinks
Bexar County, Texas, The 

City of San Antonio, Texas 

and Northeast Independent 

School 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 11, 2013

No. 04-12-00820-CV and 04-12-00871-CV

WATERS AT NORTHERN HILLS, LLC and Lynn Communities, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, The City of San Antonio, Texas

and Northeast Independent School District,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-07543 and 2012-CI-18564

Honorable Fred Shannon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Appellant's reply brief is deemed filed as of June 7, 2013.

It is so ORDERED on June 11, 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
June 20, 2014

MEMORANDUM

From: Mary Johnson

 EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Subject: Meeting with Golden Spread Electric Cooperative on June 17, 2014

 Rulemaking for GHG Emissions from New EGUs

Participants

Golden Spread:

Michael Wise

George Hess

Thomas Burke

Ruth Valle

Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

Lanny Nickell

NRECA:

Rae Cronmiller

EPA:

Kevin Culligan, OAR

Bob Wayland, OAR

Nick Hutson, OAR

Mary Johnson, OAR

Discussion

Representatives of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative presented a summary of their comments 

regarding the impacts of EPA’s Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

New Stationary Sources on natural gas-fired combustion turbines. Golden Spread provided the attached 

materials.

Attachment
CERTIFICATIONS



I, James B. Hovis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Phlo Corporation and
Subsidiaries;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 5, 2005




/s/ James B. Hovis
-------------------------------------------
James B. Hovis
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer