alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Usrey *v.*Yarnell.

Opinion delivered May 19, 1930.

*Gooley <& Adams,*for appellant.

*Miller & Tingling,*for appellee.

Smith, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to that portion of appellant’s complaint which made J. Pitts Yarnell, as sheriff of *White*County, a party defendant. The suit was against (both Yarnell, as sheriff, and H. P. Pollett, and the complaint alleged the following facts as constituting a cause of action. Pollett, while specially deputized and acting as the agent and deputy of Yarnell, as sheriff of White 'County, and while armed with process for the arrest of prisoners who had escaped from White County, was en route, by the shortest and most direct route, to Leachville, Mississippi County, where said escaped prisoners were supposed to *he,*for the purpose of arresting them, and, while so engaged, he negligently ran *805his automobile into that of the plaintiff. Judgment was prayed to compensate the damages resulting’ from the collision.

The statute (§ 9152, C. & M. Digest) provides that “Bach sheriff may appoint one or more deputies, for whose official conduct he shall be responsible,” and in the case of *Edgin*v. *Talley,*169 Ark. 667, 276 S. *W.*591, we said: ‘ ‘ The general rule is that for all civil purposes the acts of a deputy sheriff or constable are those of his principal. Hence, a sheriff or constable is liable for the act, default, tort, or other misconduct done or committed by his deputy *colore officii*

The question for decision is, therefore, whether the negligence of Pollett, in colliding with plaintiff’s car, under the circumstances alleged, was done *colore officii,*or was official conduct for the consequences of which his chief should be held liable.

There is here no relation of master and servant, and the complaint alleges only that Pollett was traveling to a place where, upon his arrival, he was to perform an official act, that is, arrest prisoners who had escaped. He was not acting under color of his office while driving his automobile, and he was not engaged in any official conduct ait the time he collided with plaintiff’s automobile. He was driving at his own volition to a place where, upon his arrival, he expected to perform an official act, but the collision occurred before his arrival there.

The note to the annotated case of *Alabama*v. *Kolb,*1 A. L. R. 218, 218 Ala. 439, 78 So. 817, contains an extended review of cases dealing with the liability of officers for the acts of deputies and assistants; but we do not review any of these cases for the reason that, in our opinion, there is no allegation in the complaint that Pol-lett was acting officially, or by virtue of his deputy ship, when he collided with the plaintiff’s car. Therefore no cause of action was alleged against • Yarnell, as sheriff, and the demurrer was properly sustained as to him. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 39

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   require that the Supreme Court be composed of not more than nine 
                               justices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2021

  Mr. Gallagher (for himself, Mr. Jacobs of New York, Mr. Brooks, Mr. 
  Budd, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Buck, and Mr. Rouzer) submitted the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   require that the Supreme Court be composed of not more than nine 
                               justices.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of not more than 
nine justices.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 82 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 82

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version of the House 
     document entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2022

Ms. Lofgren (for herself, Mr. Jeffries, and Mr. Butterfield) submitted 
    the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version of the House 
     document entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989''.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ``BLACK AMERICANS IN 
              CONGRESS, 1870-1989''.

    (a) In General.--An updated version of House Document 101-117, 
entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989'' (as revised by the 
Library of Congress), shall be printed as a House document by the 
Director of the Government Publishing Office, with illustrations and 
suitable binding, under the direction of the Committee on House 
Administration of the House of Representatives.
    (b) Number of Copies.--In addition to the usual number, there shall 
be printed such number of copies of the document referred to in 
subsection (a) as does not exceed a total production and printing cost 
of $500,000, of which--
            (1) 80 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 
        House Administration of the House of Representatives; and
            (2) 20 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 
        Rules and Administration of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
| (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 December 31, 2005 and for the periods then ended. |
|-----|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                      April 21, 2006 |   | /s/                    Robert C.                    Ogden                                         |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |     Robert                  C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer                  and    Principal                    Financial and Accounting Officer                                                                                                               |

----
#### Pennington et al. vs. Ware & Miller.

Tlie application to fils additional pleas, or amend pleadings, after the return term, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court; which will not be controlled, unless there bo a palpable abuse.

In no case should a party, upon leave, be permitted to file an insufficient plea.

*Appeal from Bradley Oiromt Court.*

Hon. Tueodorio F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.

Tell, for appellants.

PiKE & CuMMiNS, contra.

Mr. Justice "Walkee

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case came before us at the January term, 1851, (6 *Eng.*745,) and it was then held, that the defence set up of a failure of *121consideration, was insufficient, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

TJpon the return of the case to the court below, an amended plea of failure of consideration was filed, to which a demurrer was interposed and sustained. But the demurrer of the plaintiffs to the defendant’s third plea, was overruled, and the plaintiffs electing to rest upon their demurrer, judgment was rendered against them upon that plea. From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed ; and, on the consideration of the case, (5 *Ark. Rep.)*it was held, that the plea was insufficient; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court erred in overruling the demurrer to it.

The decision of the Circuit Court was reversed, and the cause remanded. When the case came up for hearing, upon the mandate of this court, the defendants moved the court to permit them to file an additional plea, but the Circuit Court denied the defendants permission to file such plea, and thereupon the defendants withdrew the pleas then on file, and final judgment was rendered for plaintiffs; from which the defendants appealed.

The plea, offered to be filed, is made part of the record by bill of exceptions, and upon examination of which, it is found to be substantially, if not literally, the same plea heretofore interposed, and upon demurrer, held to be insufficient.

An application for permission to file additional pleas, or to amend pleadings, after the return term, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court below, and as we have repeatedly held, it is only where there has been a palpable abuse of such discretion, that this court would entertain error to limit or control it. Bnt, in this case, the discretion was properly exercised. In no case should a party, upon leave, be permitted to file an insufficient plea: the tendency would only be to delay the time of the court, and impose additional labor and costs upon the litigants. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Absent, Mr. Justice Scott.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 85

   Expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the United 
States should consider the potential impacts to the workforce, economy, 
  and energy security of Pennsylvania and the greater national energy 
   industry when pursuing domestic and international energy policy, 
 including the purchase of energy resources from foreign adversaries, 
the approval of pipelines, and the consideration of permits for energy 
                       and minerals development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 7, 2022

Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Kelly 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, Mr. Meuser, and 
 Mr. Smucker) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the United 
States should consider the potential impacts to the workforce, economy, 
  and energy security of Pennsylvania and the greater national energy 
   industry when pursuing domestic and international energy policy, 
 including the purchase of energy resources from foreign adversaries, 
the approval of pipelines, and the consideration of permits for energy 
                       and minerals development.

Whereas the Energy Information Administration finds that Pennsylvania--

    (1) is the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States;

    (2) has the most underground gas storage sites in the Nation, at 49 
sites;

    (3) is the third largest net exporter of natural gas to other States;

    (4) is the third largest coal-producing State in the Nation;

    (5) is the second largest exporter of coal to foreign markets;

    (6) is ranked third in total electricity generation;

    (7) is ranked second in nuclear power electricity generation;

    (8) is the largest net exporter of electricity to other States;

    (9) is the third largest net supplier of total energy to other States; 
and

    (10) is home to the site of the first commercial oil well and has a 
robust history of providing energy to people in the United States: Now, 
therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the President of the United 
States should consider the potential impacts to the workforce, economy, 
and energy security of Pennsylvania and the greater national energy 
industry when pursuing domestic and international energy policy, 
including the purchase of energy resources from foreign adversaries, 
the approval of pipelines, and the consideration of permits for energy 
and minerals development.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
STANLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.
ARTICLE 5
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1995
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,157
<INVENTORY>                                     40,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,052
<PP&E>                                          78,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            94
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,551
<SALES>                                        174,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,179
<CGS>                                          137,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,384
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          63,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  436,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               593,718
<PP&E>                                         388,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,892,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,552
<BONDS>                                        554,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       774,222
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,892,346
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               699,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**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 Annual Report of Enigma Software Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alvin
      Estevez ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
      of my knowledge:




(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.




/s/ Alvin
      Estevez


Chief
      Executive Officer


April
      10,
      2006
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01862]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11638]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Being 
Imported for Conservation, Scientific Research, and Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object, entitled ``Hercules and 
Omphale'' by Artemisia Gentileschi, being imported from abroad pursuant 
to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary 
conservation, scientific research, and exhibition or display at The J. 
Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of 
cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary conservation, 
scientific research, and exhibition or display within the United States 
as aforementioned are in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17647274637e78792523222e57646376637239707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25564046514c4a4b1711101c6556514451400b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-01862 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Barbara BASAGIC, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-1348

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Aethlon Medical, Inc., Inc.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
Hall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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.

                         /S/ EDWARD C. HALL
                         ------------------
                         EDWARD C. HALL
                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         NOVEMBER 19, 2002
# DronePro	LLC
33300	Egypt	Lane	Suite	G300 | 832

- 447

- 1239 | joeypjohnston@gmail.com

November	30,	2015 U.S.	Department	of Transportation Doc ket M anagement System 1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,	SE Washington,	DC	20590

Revision	to	docket	submission Document	ID: FAA - 2015 - 4481 - 0001

Dear	Sir	or	Madam, In	addition	to	our	previous	submissio n	of	drone platfor ms	we	respectfully	ask	for the	Lockheed	Martin	Indago	to	be added	into	our	exeption.
Please	see	the attached	information to	add	the	Lockheed	Martin	Indago	to	our	list	of	drone	platforms.

Sincerely,

DronePro	LLC Joey	Johnston