alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KILDAY v. JAHNCKE DRY DOCK & SHIP REPAIR CO., Inc., et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 1922.)

No. 3855.

Master and servant 101, 102(5)—Master’s duty inapplicable to simple tools.1

The general rule that it is the duty of the master to supply the servant with safe tools and appliances does not apply to simple tools and appliances, such as a chisel, and no different rule obtains in Louisiana.

!@=3-For other oases see same topic *&*¿EY-NÜMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge.

Libel in admiralty by Thomas F. Kilday against the Jahncke Dry Dock & Ship Repair Company, Inc., and another. From a decree sustaining an exception to the libel, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Paul W. Maloney, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Gordon Boswell, Jos. M. Rault, and George H. Terriberry, all of New Orleans, La. (Terriberry, Rice & Young, of New Orleans, La., of counsel), for appellees.

Before WALKER, BRYAN and KING, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing appellant’s libel. The libel seeks to recover damages for personal injuries, and alleges that appellant, a boiler maker by trade, was employed in that capacity by the appellee Jahncke Dry Dock & Ship Repair Company to do some repair work on the boiler of the steamship Chalmette, owned by the appellee the Southern Pacific Company; that, while appellant in the course of his employment was engaged in cutting rivets, a piece of the cutting edge of a chisel which he was using broke off and struck him in the eye; that the chisel was defective, “because it broke”; and that the defect was latent. The negligence charged was the failure to test the chisel. The court sustained an exception to the libel.

The general rule that it is the duty of the master to supply the servant with safe tools and appliances is subject to a well-established exception in case of common and simple tools and appliances. Upon the theory and for the reason that the servant has as good opportunity for ascertaining defects in simple tools, such as a chisel, as the master has, the law relieves the master of the duty which it imposes upon him, where he furnishes complicated tools or machinery for the use of his servant. We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the court below was correct. The cases will be found collected in notes appearing in 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 668 and 676, and in 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 832. See, also, 18 R. C. L. 563.

It is contended by appellant that a different rule obtains in Louisiana, but the cases cited by him fail, in our opinion, to sustain that contention.

The decree is affirmed.
Richard SKINNER, petitioner, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, et al.

No. 16-558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

*648Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Margaret Grant, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 347]—

Kavanagh, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered June 29, 2007, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree and waived her right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years and issued an order of protection in favor of the victim. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Although defendant’s contention that her plea was not voluntarily entered survives her waiver of the right to appeal, it was not preserved for our review as she failed to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see *People v Nunez,*56 AD3d 897, 898 [2008], *lv denied 11*NY3d 928 [2009]; *People v Jeske,*55 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 898 [2008]). Moreover, the exception to the preserva*1203tion rule does not apply here as she did not make any statement during the plea that cast doubt on her guilt or negated an element of the crime *(see People v*Ramirez, 45 AD3d 1108, 1108 [2007]; *People v Eiffe,*34 AD3d 985, 985 [2006]). Defendant admitted during the plea allocution that she attempted, with the requisite intent, to injure the victim with a knife *(see*Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the lack of an admission by her that the victim suffered a physical injury as the result of her conduct does not negate an essential element of the crime of attempted assault *(see*Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]; *People v Munck,*190 AD2d 963, 964 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 974 [1993]).

Defendant’s challenge to the validity of her waiver of the right to appeal is also unavailing. Inasmuch as County Court adequately explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by her guilty plea and defendant affirmed her understanding and executed a counseled written waiver, defendant’s waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent *(see People v Stokely,*49 AD3d 966, 967-968 [2008]; *People v Bunce,*45 AD3d 982, 984 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 809 [2008]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
| Dec. 30, 2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Retail | Fidelity Emerging Markets Discovery Fund                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| **Supplement to the Fidelity® Emerging Markets Discovery Fund and Fidelity Total Emerging Markets Fund December 30, 2014 Prospectus**Effective October 1, 2015, Fidelity® Emerging Markets Discovery Fund changed its classification from a non-diversified fund to a diversified fund. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fit_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**fit_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=fit_RetailClassMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=fit_S000034264Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: EDWARD WEITMAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 175 

DATE: JUNE 7, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 175 

Name: Edward Weitman 

Effective June 7, 1971 

a. The respondent, Edward Weitman, shall cease and desist from placing or 

causing to be placed in any customer's account, any commodity futures 

transactions, without the prior knowledge and consent of such customers. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

MAY 26 1971 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Order entered April 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00191-CV

BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant

V.

JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09275

ORDER

The Court has before it the parties’ April 9, 2013 agreed motion for extension of time to 

file appellant’s and appellees’ briefs. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant 

to file his brief by May 16, 2013. The Court further ORDERS appellees to file their briefs 

within fifty days of the date appellant files his brief.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of the Application of 

Nodal Clear, LLC 

For Registration as a Derivatives Clearing Organization 

ORDER OF REGISTRATION 

Nodal Clear, LLC ("Nodal Clear") has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the "Commission"), pursuant to Section 5b of the Commodity Exchange Act (the 

"Act"), 7 U.S.C. § 7a-l, an application for registration as a derivatives clearing organization 

("DCO"). 

The Commission has reviewed the application and finds that Nodal Clear has 

demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the Act and applicable Commission 

regulations thereunder. 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5b of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 7a-l, that Nodal Clear is granted registration as a DCO, subject to the terms and 

conditions specified herein: 

(1) Contracts Traded on Nodal Exchange, LLC. Nodal Clear shall limit its activity as 

a registered DCO to clearing contracts executed on or through its affiliated designated contract 

market, Nodal Exchange, LLC. 

(2) Cleared Products. Nodal Clear is permitted to clear, in its capacity as a DCO, 

financially settled futures and options on futures. 

(3) Compliance with the Act and Commission Regulations. Nodal Clear shall 

comply, and shall demonstrate compliance as requested by the Commission, with applicable 

provisions of the Act, including the Core Principles, and Commission regulations, as may be 

1 
amended or adopted from time to time. Nodal Clear shall fulfill each of the representations it has 

made to the Commission relating to compliance with the Core Principles and Commission 

regulations. 

(4) Self-Regulatory Function. Nodal Clear shall ensure the performance of all selfregulatory functions required of it as a registered DCO under the Act and Commission 

regulations, including, without limitation: monitoring and enforcing clearing member 

compliance with Nodal Clear admission and continuing eligibility standards; and enforcing 

clearing member compliance with the terms of all Nodal Clear rules, regulations, and procedures. 

(5) New Regulations. Should the Commission promulgate a regulation addressing or 

otherwise affecting any aspect of this Order, then such regulation will apply and supersede the 

applicable terms in this Order. 

(6) Reservation of Rights. This Order is based upon the representations made and 

supporting material provided to the Commission by Nodal Clear. In the event of any changes to 

or omissions in the material facts or circumstances pursuant to which this Order is issued, or for 

any reason in its own discretion, the Commission may condition, modify, suspend, terminate, or 

otherwise restrict the terms of this Order, as appropriate and as permitted by law, on its own 

motion. 

Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 24th day of September, 2015. 

By the Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission 

2
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.6

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

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Capital Corp. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  August 14, 2002

                                       /s/  JAMES H. TATE
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       James H. Tate
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer of the
                                       Company
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: August 11, 2006

/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Keith Anthony KIEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6592.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Laura Avila BARRAZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 16-666.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit32**

 

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

 

The undersigned, M. Dendy Young, Chairman andChief Executive Officer of GTSI Corp. (“the Company”) and Thomas A. Mutryn, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 filed byGTSI Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of GTSI Corp.

 

Date:       May6, 2005

 

 
| /s/ M. DENDY YOUNG                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| M. Dendy Young                                     |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer              |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ THOMAS A. MUTRYN                               |   |
| Thomas A. Mutryn                                   |   |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
Joanne ANDERSON, et al., petitioners, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al.

No. 16-335.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Maurice EVANS, petitioner, v. Stephanie DORETHY, Warden.

No. 16-6910.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,408,476
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,797,063
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 32,167,697
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,084,361
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,079,178
<LOANS>                                    118,905,611
<ALLOWANCE>                                    289,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,468,852
<DEPOSITS>                                 119,979,379
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,214,786
<LONG-TERM>                                 27,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,237
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,248,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             181,468,852
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,795,291
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,446,042
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               307,977
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,549,310
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,601,870
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,612,335
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,936,975
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   81,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,742)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,584,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,283,623
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,283,623
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   830,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.74
<LOANS-NON>                                    841,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               225,862
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   17,166
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              289,696
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           255,696
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         34,000
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                             CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                              (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Conversion Services International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), Mitchell Peipert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), 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/ Mitchell Peipert
-----------------------------
Mitchell Peipert
Chief Financial Officer
July 25, 2005