alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22564

#### Ronald BARKER, Appellant v. Bill SAULS, d/b/a Bill Sauls Insurance Agency, Respondent.

(345 S. E. (2d) 244)

Supreme Court

*Mike Kelly*and *John Boswell,*both of *Ken Suggs*— *Mike Kelly, Lawyers, P.A.,*Columbia, *for appellant.*

*122
      *Julian M. Sellers,*Columbia, *for respondent*

Heard April 21, 1986.

Decided June 9, 1986.

Ness, Chief Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the trial judge sustaining a demurrer to two causes of action. We reverse in part.

Appellant Barker is an officer and employee of Midlands Electrical, Inc. Barker sustained an injury and filed a worker’s compensation claim with General Accident Group. General denied the claim, asserting it had no policy for worker’s compensation with Midlands Electrical.

Barker brought this action against respondent Sauls, the insurance agent with whom Midlands Electrical had contracted, alleging negligence and fraud. The trial judge sustained demurrers to both causes of action, finding Barker had no capacity to sue since Sauls’ contractual relationship was with Midlands Electrical, not Barker.

A tort-feasor may be subjected to tort liability for injury to a third party arising out of the tort-feasor’s contractual relationship with another, despite the absence of privity between the tort-feasor and the third party. *Terlinde v. Neely,*275 S. C. 395, 271 S. E. (2d) 768 (1980). The tort-feasor’s liability exists independently of contract, and rests upon the tort-feasor’s duty to exercise due care. *Edward's of Byrnes Downs v. Charleston Sheet Metal Co., Inc.,*253 S. C. 537, 172 S. E. (2d) 120 (1970).

The key inquiry is what duty, if any, is owed by the tort-feasor to the third party. It is essential to liability for negligence that the parties have some relationship recognized by law to support the duty owed by the tort-feasor. 57 Am. Jur. (2d), *Negligence,*Section 36. This duty may be derived from the tort-feasor’s contractual relationship with another. See, *Ateyeh v. Volkswagen of Florence, Inc.,*341 S. E. (2d) 378 (S. C. 1986). In his negligence action, Barker alleged the contractual relationship between Sauls and Midlands Electrical as the basis of Sauls’ duty to Barker. Therefore, the demurrer to the negligence action should have been overruled.

*123While we reverse the demurrer to the negligence cause of action, we affirm the trial judge’s ruling on the cause of action for fraud. The Court may affirm on any ground appearing in the record. Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 8. Barker failed to plead all nine elements of fraud, and his complaint therefore failed to state a cause of action. *Carver v. Blanford,*342 S. E. (2d) 406 (S. C. 1986). We affirm the trial judge’s ruling on this issue.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of RADVision Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tsipi Kagan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Tsipi Kagan*
---------------
Tsipi Kagan
Chief Financial Officer

November 8, 2004

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,884,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,891,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,792)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,998,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,987,094
<PP&E>                                       8,406,762
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,468,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,684,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,140,620
<BONDS>                                      2,350,155
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,750
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,185,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,684,503
<SALES>                                      7,618,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,618,473
<CGS>                                        6,169,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,169,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,514,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,597,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,083
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,679,211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,679,211)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.70)
        


</TABLE>
Indiana Air Guardsmen Help Car Accident Victims
 
  By 2nd Lt. Jonathan Padish and Master Sgt. Roland Sturm,
  TERRE HAUTE, Ind. – Two Indiana National Guard Airmen from the 181st Intelligence Wing provided critical care following a rollover vehicle incident that resulted in two people being trapped upside-down in their truck. Staff Sgt. Marlena Hargraves and Senior Airman Janelle Bonitati were traveling home at the end of the duty day Dec. 3 when they saw smoke rising from the incident scene and rushed to assist. Hargraves, a civilian cardiopulmonary technician and member of the medical element of Indiana’s 19th Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Package, arrived at the scene and saw the driver and passenger were trapped inside the vehicle. Hargraves and another bystander broke the driver-side window, entered the vehicle and cut the seatbelts for both people inside the truck. She extracted the driver from the vehicle and returned to rest the passenger down flat inside the vehicle. Meanwhile, Bonitati, a civilian paramedic and member of the 113th Air Support Operations Squadron, arrived and noticed the passenger’s hand was seriously injured. Bonitati helped wrap the passenger’s hand in a towel and applied pressure to control bleeding. Once first responders arrived, she brought extraction blankets to the vehicle and applied cervical collars to the driver and passenger. Hargraves and Bonitati helped the first responders extract the passenger from the vehicle and remained at the scene for more than half an hour until the first responders loaded the passenger into a medical helicopter. Despite the hectic scene, the Airmen relied on their training and civilian experience to render aid. “What I really know about stopping bleeding was from the military,” said Hargraves. “I felt like there were a few people standing around, but nobody had done anything to help. I’m one of those people who want to help.” The Airmen also credited the 181st IW with instilling a sense of willingness to respond to a crisis. “We did something that anybody in this unit would do,” said Hargraves. “That’s key, because I think if anyone [from the 181st IW] was out there they would have done the exact same thing.” Still, the Airmen were recognized for their efforts. “It takes a lot of courage to stop in the first place,” said Lt. Col. Laura Flood, the 19th CERFP Detachment 1 medical element commander and nurse with the 181st Medical Group. “[Hargraves and Bonitati] didn’t really know each other, but they came together like a team. It’s very heroic.”
**Exihibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OLXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Brian K. Harrington,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

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

(2)           the information contained in thereport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Brian K. Harrington               |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian K. Harrington, Senior Vice      |
| President and Chief Financial Officer |
| September 20, 2007                    |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30256

Summary Calendar

 

PAUL PETER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-949)

___________________________

September 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Peter has appealed the district court’s affirmance of

the Social Security Commissioner’s decision which denied him

disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income.

The judgment of the district court is supported by substantial

evidence in the record and proper legal standards were used in
2

evaluating the evidence. We affirm essentially for the reasons

stated in the magistrate judge’s report, which the district court

adopted. See Peter v. Chater, No. 95-CV-37-949 (S.D. Tex. Feb.

27, 1996).

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
# Soldier Earns Ranger Tab, Airborne Wings, Air Assault Badge

/ Published Dec. 19, 2022

BOISE, Idaho – Pfc. Cooper Hayes has only served in the Idaho Army National Guard for 14 months, but he has already compiled a career’s worth of accomplishments. Over the past 11 months, the 20-year-old has completed the U.S. Army’s Ranger, Airborne and Air Assault schools.

“It’s been a long year,” Hayes said.

Hayes moved from Bothell, Washington, to Boise to attend Boise State University and enlisted into the Idaho Army National Guard in October 2021 to help pay for college, where he is a business student.

He took a semester off from school to attend the Army’s 11B infantry school at Fort Benning and was planning on being home in time to resume classes in August, but was offered the chance to attend Ranger School.

“I wanted to challenge myself and be the best Soldier I can be,” he said. “So I decided to take another semester off and go to Ranger School. It sucked in the moment, but it’s the most rewarding thing I’ve done in my life.”

On average, less than 50 percent of Soldiers complete the first phase of the three-phase course, making it one of the Army’s most challenging courses. The course is 61 days and tests Soldiers’ physical stamina, mental toughness and tactical fundamentals.

After earning his Ranger tab, Hayes completed the Basic Airborne Course to earn his jump wings. Earlier this month, he completed the Army’s Air Assault School. Air Assault School has close to a 55 percent fail rate, including a washout rate of 15 percent on the first day.

“Airborne and air assault were great experiences,” Hayes said. “They are both another thing to add to my resume.”

Hayes is assigned to C Company, 2-116th Combined Arms Battalion, Idaho’s only infantry company. He plans to commission through the Boise State University Army ROTC program.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

___________________________________ 

) 

HABTAMU DANIEL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 12-1816 (ESH) 

) 

USCIS, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The USCIS filed a motion to dismiss [Dkt. #3] on November 15, 2012. Because a ruling 

on the motion to dismiss potentially could dispose of this case as against the USCIS, in its 

November 16, 2012 Order, the Court advised the plaintiff, among other things, of his obligation 

to file an opposition or other response to the motion. Further, the Order expressly warned the 

plaintiff that, if he failed to file his opposition by December 14, 2012, the Court would treat the 

motion as conceded. To date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor requested 

additional time to do so. The Court will treat the USCIS’s motion as conceded. 

The complaint is subject to dismissal as to all the defendants because it fails to state 

cognizable claims upon which relief can be granted. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

require that a complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is 

and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Further, a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
2 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially 

plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556). The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint and concludes that it lacks a 

facially plausible claim. Accordingly, because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted, the Court will dismiss this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 

1915A(b)(1). 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ 

 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE 

 United States District Judge 

Date: December 21, 2012
# TSA expands Precheck air travel program to U.S. military members

/ Published Dec. 20, 2013

WASHINGTON - The Transportation Security Administration today extends its Precheck expedited screening benefits to all U.S. service members including members of the U.S. Coast Guard, according to a Defense Department news release.

The release reads as follows:

As the result of the ongoing partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will officially extend (today) TSA Precheck expedited screening benefits to all U.S. service members.

Service members, including those serving in the U.S. Coast Guard, reserves and National Guard will be able to enjoy the benefits of this expedited screening program at more than 100 participating airports when flying on nine major U.S. airlines.

If a service member has entered their DoD identification number correctly in a flight reservation, they will be permitted access to TSA Precheck lanes. The expedited screening will allow service members to keep their footwear on as well as light outerwear, laptop in its case and their 3-1-1 compliant liquids/gels bag in a carry on in select screening lanes.

More than 30 million passengers have experienced TSA Precheck since it launched in October 2011.

DoD has worked closely with service members worldwide to inform them of the process of updating current and/or future reservations along with their airline profiles to include their DoD identification number. That ID number will be used as their Known Traveler Number, and enables TSA to expand the program to all airports offering TSA Precheck.

Previously, members of the U.S. Armed Forces could utilize TSA Precheck lanes at 10 domestic airports by presenting their Common Access Card (CAC).

"Expanding the TSA Precheck screening benefits is great news for our service members, and is a tangible sign of this nation's gratitude for the men and women who serve this nation bravely each and every day," said Mary Snavely-Dixon, director, Defense Manpower Data Center. "We will continue to work with the Transportation Security Administration to help expand this program further."

"TSA is grateful to the brave men and women in uniform who continue to serve our nation with honor and distinction," said TSA Deputy Administrator John W. Halinski, a 25-year Marine Corps veteran.

"Providing TSA Precheck expedited screening while on travel is the least we can do for the members of our military."

TSA will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures throughout the airport. No individual will be guaranteed expedited screening. Travelers can check the TSA Precheck Participating Airports page for information on locations of active TSA Precheck lanes.
#### De Brahm and others *vs.*Executors of Fenwick.

CASE XIII.

Reg. p. 55.book,

Eldest sons’ estates chargeable with daughters’ portions.

One of the son’s estate ordered to be sold, without allowance to the purchaser from the Son.

The court on considering the master’s report in this cause, ordered and decreed, *“*that the three eldest sons’ estates, (devised to them by their father the testator,) should each be chargeable with one of the three eldest daughters’portions: That the remainder of the defendant Thomas’s real estates houid be sold by the master, giving week’s notice: That the lot on the bay devised to Thomas Fenwick, be sold, *without any allowance being made to the purchaser of the*lot, Jonathan Simpson, for the buildings, which were put up contrary to the express notification of the executor, who gave Mr. Simpson notice that Thomas had no right to dispose of the samc.†

†

 The testator had devised and bequeathed large estates real and personal to his sons, charging them with legacies to his daughters, which had not been raised. During the confusion of the war, and the occupation of the country by the enemy, Thomas and Edward, two of *115the sons, had possessed themselves of great part of the estates without consent of the executors, carried off part of the negroes, and sold part of the lands; Thomas sold this lot to Mr. Simpson.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1)

Submitted: July 10, 2024 Decided: July 25, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6733 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United 

States v. McClam, No. 4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1 (D.S.C. June 23, 2023). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6733 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
*

Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by

designation. 

HAVOCO OF AMERICA, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Elmer C. HILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-2277.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

July 5, 2001.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (No. 95-30585-CV-RV);

Roger Vinson, Judge.

Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*

, District Judge.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

In Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.1999), we certified the following question

to the Supreme Court of Florida:

Does Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution exempt a Florida homestead, where the debtor

acquired the homestead using non-exempt funds with the specific intent of hindering, delaying, or

defrauding creditors in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105 or Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30?

Id. at 1144. After a thorough review of the question, the Supreme Court of Florida issued the following

opinion:

[W]e conclude that we must answer the certified question in the affirmative. The transfer of

nonexempt assets into an exempt homestead with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is

not one of the three exceptions to the homestead exemption provided in article X, section 4. Nor can

we reasonably extend our equitable lien jurisprudence to except such conduct from the exemption's

protection. We have invoked equitable principles to reach beyond the literal language of the excepts

only where funds obtained through fraud or egregious conduct were used to invest in, purchase, or

improve the homestead.

Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. June 21, 2001).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's holding that Hill's purchase of a home with non-exempt

funds, made with the intent to hinder creditors, does not overcome the Florida homestead exception.
Order entered March 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00405-CR

SRIHARI AVULA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-80285-2012

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE