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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3436 

To expand the eligible premium refund opportunities for persons who, as 

a result of new mapping data do not reside in a special flood hazard area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2008 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To expand the eligible premium refund opportunities for 

persons who, as a result of new mapping data do not 

reside in a special flood hazard area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flood Insurance Re5 fund Adjustment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREMIUM REFUNDS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

9 Federal Emergency Management Agency shall modify its 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 3436 IS

1 regulations under section 1304 of the National Flood In2 surance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1304) and the NFIP 

3 Flood Insurance Manual related to premium refunds so 

4 that a Standard Flood Insurance Policyholder whose prop5 erty has been determined not to be in a special flood haz6 ard area, as a result of a flood map revision or a Letter 

7 of Map Amendment under part 70 of title 44, Code of 

8 Federal Regulations, has 1 year to submit a policy adjust9 ment claim for the following: 

10 (1) Policy cancellation and a refund in the 

11 amount not to exceed 1 year of premiums paid 

12 under such policy. 

13 (2) Policy cancellation and a refund of the dif14 ference between an A-zone or Z-zone Flood Insur15 ance Policy and a preferred-risk policy for a period 

16 not to exceed 2 years. 

17 (3) A policy adjustment from an A-zone or Z18 zone Flood Insurance Policy to a preferred-risk pol19 icy, with a refund of the difference between the 2 

20 policies for a period not to exceed 3 years. 

21 (b) NONAPPLICABILITY.—If a flood claim under a 

22 policy described under subsection (a) has been paid or is 

23 pending, the policy is not applicable for a policy adjustmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 3436 IS

1 ment under either paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 

2 (a). 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
_____________ No. 96-2295NE

_____________ Rosee Torres; Elisa R. Torres, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District School District No. 2 of * of Nebraska. Madison County, Nebraska, * commonly known as the Norfolk * [UNPUBLISHED] School District, a political * subdivision of the State of * Nebraska; Daniel D. Jewell, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: February 10, 1997 Filed: February 21, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Rosee Torres and Elisa R. Torres app eal the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in their lawsuit over competing claims to real estate in Madison County, Nebraska. We review agrant of summary judgment undera well-established standard. We also review de novo questions o f state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied Nebraska law and the record suppor ts the district court's ruling. We also conclude that a comprehensive opinion would lack precedential value. We thus affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.01**CERTIFICATION**I, Bruce L. Cleland, Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the managing operator ofThe Campbell Fund Trust. (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland          Bruce L. Cleland    Chief Executive Officer    March 31, 2006  
E 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-03-1998
<CASH>                                         59,374
<SECURITIES>                                   11,767         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                      188
<INVENTORY>                                     1,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               83,699 
<PP&E>                                        910,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                184,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                864,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          91,702
<BONDS>                                       710,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           63
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  864,986
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              160,763
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  60,402 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               76,441
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (891)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (370)
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,336)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                   -------------------------------------------

I, Douglas A. Lindgren, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UST Private Equity
Investors Fund, Inc.;

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 statements
made, 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 financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act 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 that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
     annual report) 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(s) 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 of the registrant'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 to adversely 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
     over financial reporting.

Date: March 16, 2004


/s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
--------------------------------------
Douglas A. Lindgren, Co-Chief
Executive Officer
#### Maria Maracallo, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel Maracallo, Deceased, Respondent, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 23]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2004, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of her deceased son and against defendant-appellant Board of Education, as apportioned and reduced by stipulation to the amount of $1 million for pain and suffering, and in favor of plaintiff individually and against defendant-appellant in the amount of $575,000 for her emotional distress claims, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting defendant-appellant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff individually and granting judgment in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiffs individual claims, and directing a new trial on the issue of pain and suffering only as it relates to the estate’s claims unless, within 30 days of service upon it of a copy of this order, with notice of entry, defendant stipulates to increase the award, as previously apportioned, for pain and suffering in favor of plaintiff as administratrix of the estate to *319$1,250,000, with interest from June 27, 2002, plus costs and disbursements, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. In the event defendant so stipulates, the Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

Given the undisputed facts, plaintiff’s individual claims of emotional distress, caused by the lapse of time in the discovery of her son’s body at the bottom of a swimming pool where he drowned while on a school outing, along with other actions by defendant in the aftermath of the accident, fail to state a cause of action in that she does not allege contemporaneous or consequential physical injury *(see Johnson v State of New York,*37 NY2d 378, 381 [1975]), or that she was within the zone of danger and that her emotional injuries resulted from contemporaneous observation of serious injury or death caused by defendant’s negligence *(Johnson v Jamaica Hosp.,*62 NY2d 523, 526 [1984]).

Given the tragic circumstances of the decedent’s death, we find the court’s reduction of the jury’s award for his pain and suffering appropriate only to the extent indicated (CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.
ODOM v. CLARK.

No. COA07-775.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVS18159).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,748
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,537
<INVENTORY>                                     41,092
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,956
<PP&E>                                          72,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,702
<BONDS>                                         58,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,545
<SALES>                                         36,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,867
<CGS>                                           26,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,679
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,356)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,627)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES  2 AND 3 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM  10-Q  FOR THE  YEAR-TO-DATE,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000930550                  
<NAME>                         Flores & Rucks, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         18,983
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               44,158
<PP&E>                                        532,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                162,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                434,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          58,618
<BONDS>                                       284,264
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          196
<OTHER-SE>                                     89,827    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  434,285
<SALES>                                       116,671  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              116,671 
<CGS>                                          33,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  92,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (173)
     

        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 333-46939,
effective February 26, 1998 and 333-50767, effective April 23, 1998 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 15, 2005, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Star Buffet, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2005 and January 26, 2004 and the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows
for the fiscal years ended January 31, 2005, January 26, 2004 and January 27, 2003 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 31, 2005. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent to January 31, 2005, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the
date of our report.

/s/
MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.

Salt
Lake City, Utah
April 15, 2005

---



QuickLinks
GRANT v. HEALTH SYSTEM.

No. 474PA05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2008.

Joseph P. Booth, III, Greensboro, for High Point Regional Health Sys.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, for Betty L. Grant.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of May 2008 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Betty L. Grant) shall have up to and including the 24th day of June 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of May 2008."
MIDSOUTH GOLF, LLC v. FAIRFIELD HARBOURSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Fairfield Harbourside II Condominium Association, Inc., The Fairways Condominium Property Owners Association, Inc., Sand Castle Cove Condominium Association, Inc., Sand Castle Village Condominium Association, Inc., Sand Castle Village II Condominium Association, Inc., Waterwood Townhouses Property Owners Association, Inc., Windjammer Villas Association, Inc., and Windjammer Villas Ii Condominium Property Owners Association, Inc.

No. 589P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Eric J. Remington, New Bern, for Midsouth Golf, LLC.

Gary S. Parsons, Gavin B. Parsons, D. Martin Warf, Raleigh, Craig D. Justus, Asheville, for Fairfield Harbourside, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 652 S.E.2d 378.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of December 2007 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the alternative petition filed by Plaintiff on the 11th day of December 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 19th day of December 2007 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE v. Jose Gomez LOPEZ.

No. 175P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of June 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Rehearing of Denial of Petition for Writ of certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00348

- CR

Jaime Ramirez, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1352281D )

October 23, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM