alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*The Hon. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth

Circuit, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 98-1438EA, 98-1886EA 

___________

Todd E. Rooney, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* On Appeal from the 

v. * United States District Court

* for the Eastern District of

* Arkansas.

George Williamson, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 1998

Filed: February 10, 1999

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL,* Circuit Judges.

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

This case arises under the Arkansas Securities Act, Ark. Code Ann. §23-42-

501(1) (1994), which requires that securities sold in Arkansas be registered. Todd

Rooney bought all the stock in an automobile dealership in Blytheville, Arkansas,

from George Williamson. The stock was not registered. After a bench trial, the
1The Hon. Stephen Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

District Court,1 ordered that the sale be rescinded. Under the court's decree, Rooney

is to return the stock to Williamson, and Williamson is to pay Rooney a total of

$232,150. 

We find no error of law in the District Court's reasoning in this state-law case,

and believe no sufficient purpose would be served by an extended opinion. In

particular, we believe that the District Court has appropriately exercised its discretion

in adjusting the equities between the parties, and in offsetting against plaintiff's

recovery the sum of $86,000 which plaintiff received, during his ownership of the

stock, as a credit against a loan he took out to buy the stock. See Todd E. Rooney v.

George Williamson, No. J-C-95-323, slip op. 6 n.2 (E.D. Ark. January 27, 1998). 

We also see nothing unreasonable in the District Court's award of attorneys'

fees and expenses, which is the subject of the appeal in No. 98-1886. 

There is one respect, however, in which we believe the judgment should be

modified. As we have noted above, the District Court offset plaintiff's recovery by

the amount of $86,000. We think this offset should have been taken into account in

calculating the amount of prejudgment interest. According to the defendant's reply

brief, page 10, the interest reduction, through January 29, 1998, should be

$11,154.08. We have no reason to doubt this calculation, but believe the better

course is to remand this matter to the District Court for re-computation of the amount

of interest owed, taking into account the fact that no interest should be charged on the

$86,000 from and after the date on which the plaintiff received a credit on his loan

for this amount. 

Accordingly, the judgment is, in the main, affirmed, and the cause is remanded

to the District Court for a further calculation in accordance with this opinion. 
-3-

It is so ordered. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

SHERRI MCCAIN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-402 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #12), to whom this case was originally 

referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed and 

that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, this Court 

hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendations filed on April 2, 2019 (Doc. 

#12) is ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability finding is vacated; 

3. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Sherri McCain was 

under a “disability” within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act; 

4. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security 

Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for 

further consideration consistent with the Report and 

Recommendations and this Decision and Entry; and 
2

5. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 17, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
CERTIFICATION OF
                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Transcendent, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, I, Thomas Phanco,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Transcendent, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2004, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Transcendent, Inc.

Dated:    November 22, 2004

Transcendent, Inc.


By:  /s/ Thomas Phanco
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4514 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2010 

Received 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study to determine the suitability and 

feasibility of designating the Colonel Charles Young 

Home in Xenia, Ohio as a unit of the National Park 

System, and for other purposes. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4514 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Colonel Charles Young 

3 Home Study Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred 

6 to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’), in consultation with 

7 the Secretary of the Army, shall conduct a special resource 

8 study of the Colonel Charles Young Home, a National His9 toric Landmark in Xenia, Ohio (referred to in this Act 

10 as the ‘‘Home’’). 

11 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub12 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

13 (1) evaluate any architectural and archeological 

14 resources of the Home; 

15 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

16 designating the Home as a unit of the National 

17 Park System; 

18 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

19 protection, and interpretation of the Home by Fed20 eral, State, or local governmental entities or private 

21 and nonprofit organizations, including the use of 

22 shared management agreements with the Dayton 

23 Aviation Heritage National Historical Park or spe24 cific units of that Park, such as the Paul Laurence 

25 Dunbar Home; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4514 RFS

1 (4) consult with the Ohio Historical Society, 

2 Central State University, Wilberforce University, 

3 and other interested Federal, State, or local govern4 mental entities, private and nonprofit organizations, 

5 or individuals; and 

6 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal ac7 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and 

8 maintenance associated with the alternatives consid9 ered under the study. 

10 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

11 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with sec12 tion 8 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5). 

13 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

14 on which funds are first made available for the study 

15 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the 

16 Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep17 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

18 Resources of the Senate a report that contains— 

19 (1) the results of the study under subsection 

20 (a); and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 4514 RFS

1 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

2 Secretary. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2:17-cv-998

Travis and Julie Abbott

v.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

and

2:18-cv-136

Angela and Teddy Swartz

v. 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Jury Trial Day 25

Monday, March 2, 2020

before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiffs: F. Jerome Tapley, Jon Conlin, Mitchell Theodore and Nina Herring

For Defendant: D. Patrick Long, Damond Mace, Aneca Lasley, Robert Fehrenbacher 

and John Burlingame

Court Reporter: Darla Coulter, Allison Kimmel, Lahana DuFour and Shawna Evans

Courtroom Deputy: Christin Werner

9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Jury deliberations continue. A series of questions were asked and 

answered by the Court. 

2:00 p.m. Jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs’ in the case of Travis and Julie Abbott vs. 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and indicated dead locked in the case of Angela and 

Teddy Swartz vs. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 03/03/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 6875
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B. 

SE01986A1
#### Ronald WENGER *v.*Maurice KIECH

81-124

616 S.W. 2d 714

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 13, 1981

*Ponder & Jarboe,*for appellant.

*Frierson, Walker, Snellgrove & Laser,*by: *G. D. Walker,*for appellee.

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

Appellant Ronald Wen-ger, a farm employee, brought this tort action against his employer, Maurice Kiech, for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Appellant and another employee rode on a large tractor to check fences and make repairs where needed. Neither employee had a right of supervision over the other. When they began work, appellant was standing beside the driver on the axle of the tractor and was holding onto the fender. This was the customary and established place for the second person to ride. After several stops appellant Wenger climbed atop a slightly elevated *370grader blade which was at the rear of the tractor and was turned backwards. While riding on the blade appellant was injured when a limb flipped up from the ground and struck him on the leg. The appellant admitted that the accident would not have happened if he had been riding in the customary place. He also admitted that neither appellee Kiech, nor Kiech’s foreman, knew about appellant Wenger riding on the blade. There was no evidence tending to prove that appellee had any reason to anticipate that appellant would ride on the blade. At the conclusion of the appellant’s testimony, the trial court granted a directed verdict.

The employer owes an affirmative duty to furnish a safe place for an employee to work. *Mississippi Valley Power Co.*v. *Hubbard,*181 Ark. 487, 26 S.W. 2d 118 (1930). However, when an employee selects an unsafe place for work, contrary to the place selected by the employer, and the employer could not reasonably anticipate the employee’s action, then the employer owes no duty to make that position safe, and his failure to do so is not actionable negligence. *St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.*v. *Schultz,*115 Ark. 350, 171 S.W. 876 (1914). In this case the customary position was to ride on the axle of the tractor holding onto the fender. The employer had no reason to anticipate that any other place on the tractor would be occupied. If the employee had remained in the usual place he would not have been injured.

To determine the propriety of a directed verdict we take that view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff to see if there is any substantial evidence upon which the jury could have based a finding of negligence. *Jackson*v. *McCuiston,*247 Ark. 862, 448 S.W. 2d 33 (1969). Taking that view of the evidence most favorable to the appellant, we can find no substantial evidence upon which a jury could have based a finding of negligence as the employer did not know, nor could he anticipate, that the employee would choose to ride on the grader blade.

Affirmed.

Hickman, J., concurs.

Darrell Hickman, Justice,

concurring. The appellant *371did not argue that his employer was negligent in requiring him to ride on the axle of the tractor. He apparently assumed it was not improper for two people to be on a tractor. I agree with the result reached.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4454 

To amend the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 to require 

the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to make a preliminary report 

no later than June 15, 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 

to require the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to 

make a preliminary report no later than June 15, 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. 

4 Section 5 of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery 

5 Act of 2009 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ‘‘a report’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘the reports required’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (h)— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4454 IH

1 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), 

2 and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respec3 tively; 

4 (B) by amending the heading of paragraph 

5 (1) to read as follows: ‘‘FINAL REPORT’’; and 

6 (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

7 following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(2) PRELIMINARY REPORT.—Not later than 

9 June 15, 2010, the Commission shall submit to the 

10 President and to the Congress a report containing 

11 the preliminary findings and conclusions of the Com12 mission on the causes of the current financial and 

13 economic crisis in the United States.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
INDEX OF ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT

1. Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Hawaiian Master Executive Council 

2. Hawaii County Council 

3. Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce 

4. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce 

5. Hawaii Business Roundtable, Executive Committee Member Dee Jay Mailer 

6. Bank of Hawaii 

7. Hawaii National Bank 

8. The Gas Company LLC 

9. Outrigger Enterprises Group 

Docket OST-2010-0018
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00695

- CV

Soledad Gonzales v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. CL

- 14

- 3213

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Mar ch 19, 2015
#### People v Richey,

No. 90868;

Court of Appeals No. 116889.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

p0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

144029

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144029 COA: 299068 Genesee CC: 08-088902-CZ PARKER’S PROPAN E GAS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

and

STALEY PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 27, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings or dered by the Court of Appeals.
#### Walter J. SARDIN *v.*E. W. ROBERTS

5-4490

424 S. W. 2d 889

Opinion delivered March 11, 1968

*W. M. Herndon,*for appellant.

*Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen,*for appellee.

Paul Ward, Justice.

Walter J. Sardin (appellant) sued E. W. Roberts (appellee) to recover for personal *313injuries, allegedly caused by the negligence of appellee in an automobile collision. The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of appellee.

Appellant was driving a Cadillac automobile across Broadway bridge toward North Little Rock and appellee was following in a Volkswagen. When appellant reached the end of the bridge he turned to his right and appellee followed in the same lane a short distance behind, both cars traveling approximately fifteen miles per hour. Shortly after the turn was made the left front fender of appellee’s car collided with the right back bumper of appellant’s car.

On appeal appellant seeks a reversal on the sole ground that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury verdict.

Appellant and appellee were the only eye witnesses who testified as to what caused the collision. In substance, appellant stated: It had snowed the night before and I didn’t know whether the streets were still slick or not so when I came off the bridge I slowed down to go around the curve when appellee’s car struck my ear from the rear; by the time I set my brakes “my car stopped some thirty feet or so from where I was struck”; I was moving very slowly at the time my car was struck; my car didn’t appear to be damaged at all.

A city policeman, who arrived at the scene shortly after the collision, testified: I found the two cars entangled; it did not appear that appellant’s vehicle had moved any substantial distance after the impact; it appeared to have stopped on impact. He further stated that appellee appeared to be drunk at the time but later learned this was not true, and that he had been taking medicine for an ailment.

Appellee, in substance, testified: The turn at the end of the bridge had been completed but before we got *314leveled out appellant stopped Ms ear and I couldn’t stop, so I swerved to the right to avoid hitting him hut my left front fender caught his right hack humper; appellant gave no signal that he was going to stop; his car was not knocked forward, hut stayed right where they hit and they stayed there until the policeman arrived; both cars were traveling between twelve and fifteen miles per hour.

The above conflicting testimony presented a question of fact for the jury to resolve. On appeal we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the jury verdict”, as stated in *Whiteside*v. *Tyner,*238 Ark. 985 (p. 987), 386 S. W. 2d 239. Therefore, in view of the above, we are unwilling to say there was no substantial evidence to support the jury verdict in this case.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

- CE

- 03 1

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 8.0 $ 680.00 $0 $ 680.00 

### 773 $525,640.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in co mpliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $525,640 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Cond**  **ition Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replace with serviceable elevator spar 16.0 $1,360.00 $1,000 $2,360.00 

### Replace with new elevator spar 16.0 $1,360.00 $1,250 $2,610.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedur es:**  Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alask a:**  This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry
Fong, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
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 presented in the Report.


                                         /s/ Henry Fong
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Henry Fong
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         September 20, 2005


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO INHIBITON THERAPEUTICS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY INHIBITON
THERAPEUTICS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.