alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOSEPH R. WILSON and BEULAH WILSON, His Wife, Appellants, *v.*WALTER F. PAYNE and THEO PAYNE, His Wife, Also Known as MRS. WALTER F. PAYNE, Doing Business as MARUE BEAUTY AND SLENDERIZING STUDIO, Respondents.

No. 4003

October 2, 1958.

330 P.2d 120.

*313
      *Woodburn, Forman, Wedge, Blakey, and Thompson,*of Reno, for Appellants.

*Vargas, Dillon and Bartlett,*of Reno, for Respondents.

OPINION

By the Court,

Eather, J.:

Plaintiffs appeal from involuntary dismissal of this action ordered by the trial court under Rule 41(b) NRCP. The order was entered after plaintiffs had completed presentation of their evidence upon trial. It was based upon the ground that plaintiffs had failed to prove a sufficient case for the jury. The sole question upon appeal is whether, upon the evidence presented, dismissal upon this ground was proper.

The action is for personal injuries sustained by Beulah Wilson due to the alleged negligence of defendants. The injuries were sustained at the beauty parlor operated by defendants.

Mrs. Wilson was dressed for treatment in the uniform provided by defendants, including wool socks. In stocking feet she slipped on the floor and fell. The alleged negligence lay in the fact that the floor was waxed or polished. Evidence was presented from which it would appear or could be inferred that defendant Theo Payne knew or should have known that the floor was waxed *314and that she had been warned by an employee that a waxed floor was dangerous to her customers wearing wool socks.

Upon this appeal defendants support the action of the trial court upon the basis that the waxing and polishing of floors has become such a standardized manner of maintenance that it cannot be held to constitute negligence in the absence of proof that faulty materials were used or that the materials were negligently applied.

This cannot be said to be true in every case, however. It must depend, among other factors, upon the use to which the floors are to be put. In this case it was available to the jury to determine that the waxing or polishing of floors which are to be used by persons in stocking feet is unsafe and, under the circumstances, might constitute negligence.

Defendants also assert that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Upon the record, however, this also remained a question for the jury as a proposition upon which reasonable minds might well differ.

We conclude that a sufficient case for the jury had been made by the plaintiffs and that involuntary dismissal was error.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Badt, C. J., and Merrill, J., concur.
----

----

I Rättsakter vilkas publicering är obligatorisk

----

KOMMISSIONENS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 945/2004

av den 4 maj 2004

om fastställande av schablonvärden vid import för bestämning av ingångspriset för vissa frukter och grönsaker

EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING

med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen,

med beaktande av kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 3223/94 av den 21 december 1994 om tillämpningsföreskrifter för importordningen för frukt och grönsaker (1), särskilt artikel 4.1 i denna, och

av följande skäl:

HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.

Artikel 1

De schablonvärden vid import som avses i artikel 4 i förordning (EG) nr 3223/94 skall fastställas enligt tabellen i bilagan.

Artikel 2

Denna förordning träder i kraft den 5 maj 2004.

Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater.

Utfärdad i Bryssel den 4 maj 2004.

På kommissionens vägnar

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Generaldirektör för jordbruk

----

(1)EGT L 337, 24.12.1994, s. 66. Förordningen senast ändrad genom förordning (EG) nr 1947/2002 (EGT L 299, 1.11.2002, s. 17).

----

BILAGA

till kommissionens förordning av den 4 maj 2004 om fastställande av schablonvärden vid import för bestämning av ingångspriset för vissa frukter och grönsaker

----

(1)  Landsbeteckningar som fastställs i kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2081/2003 (EGT L 313, 28.11.2003, s. 11). Koden ”999” betecknar ”övriga ursprung”.

----

----

MEDDELANDE TILL LÄSARNA

En specialutgåva av Europeiska unionens officiella tidning med texter till de rättsakter som institutionerna och Europeiska centralbanken har antagit före anslutningen kommer att offentliggöras på estniska, lettiska, litauiska, maltesiska, polska, slovakiska, slovenska, tjeckiska och ungerska. Volymerna i denna utgåva kommer att ges ut efter hand mellan den 1 maj och slutet av 2004.

I väntan på utgivningen av dessa volymer finns texterna därför tillgängliga på EUR-Lex i elektronisk form.

Adressen till webbplatsen är: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/sv/accession.html

----
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45256

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WALLACE ALEXANDER BUNDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 385

Filed: March 7, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of three years, for two counts of lewd conduct with a 

minor under sixteen, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Wallace Alexander Bundy pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor 

under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. For each count, the district court imposed a unified 

fifteen-year sentence, with three years determinate, with the sentences to run concurrently. 

Bundy appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Bundy’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Dallas, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0776

Issued: May 25, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 24, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an April 15, 2020 nonmerit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0776.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the April 15, 2020 decision was October 12, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until March 24, 2021, more than 180 days after the April 15,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0776 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0776 is dismissed.

Issued: May 25, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY v. GODWIN BUILDING SUPPLY CO., INC.

No. 7511SC767

(Filed 21 April 1976)

1. Trial § 42— verdict not inconsistent

Jury’s verdict was not inconsistent in finding that defendant was indebted to plaintiff for goods and services and that defendant was entitled to recover damages for plaintiff’s breach of a marketing agreement.

2. Contracts § 29— breach of contract — loss of future profits

The trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider loss of future profits in determining the amount of damages for breach of a marketing contract since there was no evidence to support a finding of loss of future profits.

*236Appeal by plaintiff from *Hall, Judge.*Judgment entered 8 April 1975 in Superior Court, Harnett County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 January 1976.

Plaintiff started this action to recover for goods sold and services rendered by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant then counterclaimed and alleged that plaintiff had breached a marketing contract into which the parties had entered. Defendant sought to recover a substantial sum it alleged as damages resulting from plaintiff’s breach of that contract.

In the issues submitted, the jury found that defendant was indebted to plaintiff for the goods and services, that plaintiff had breached its contract with defendant and that defendant was entitled to recover $100,000 as damages.

*Edgar R. Bain; Hutchins, Romanet & Thompson, by Bob Hutchins, attorneys for plaintiff appellant.*

*Johnson and Johnson, by W. A. Johnson, for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff’s first three arguments question the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury on defendant’s counterclaim. When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to defendant we find it sufficient to take the case to the jury.

[1] Plaintiff’s fourth argument, that the verdict should be set aside because it is inconsistent, is without merit. It was not inconsistent for the jury to find that defendant was indebted to plaintiff for the goods and services and also find that plaintiff had breached the marketing agreement.

Plaintiff’s sixth argument, directed to the court’s charge, does not appear to be supported by a proper exception.

[2] All of plaintiff’s remaining assignments of error go to the question of damages. There were errors in the judge’s charge on that issue. Among other things, it was improper to allow the jury to consider loss of future profits because there was no evidence to support a finding of loss of future profits.

We find no error in the trial other than on the question of what damages, if any, defendant sustained by reason of plaintiff’s breach of the contract. On that issue there must be a new trial.

*237The ease is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.

Remanded.

Judges Martin and Clark concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Carl M. Mills, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conexant Systems, Inc.; and

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.



/s/ CARL M. MILLSCarl M. MillsChief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


Dated: January 30, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties II Ltd. Partnership 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319723
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES II LTD. PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       19
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          24,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,224
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       258
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.27<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# L_2007095EN.01002401.xml

| 5.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 95/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 95/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 29 January 2007

amending Decision 2004/677/EC with regard to a minimal period of secondment of national experts and military staff seconded to the European Defence Agency

(2007/216/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Council Decision 2004/677/EC of 24 September 2004 concerning the Rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the European Defence Agency (1), and in particular Article 33, second subparagraph, thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Steering Board of the European Defence Agency,

Whereas:

Article 11(3)(3.2.) of the Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of the European Defence Agency (2) provides that the European Defence Agency's staff consists of national experts seconded by participating Member States either to posts within the Agency organisational structure or for specific tasks and projects. Since a minimum period of six months of secondment appears to be longer than that necessary in the case of national experts seconded for specific tasks and projects, Council Decision 2004/677/EC should be amended with a view to providing the necessary flexibility regarding the minimum length of secondment,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Article 2(1) of Decision 2004/677/EC shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.   The period of secondment may not be less than two months nor exceed three years and may be renewed successively up to a total period not exceeding four years.’

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 January 2007.

For the Council

The President

Horst SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 310, 7.10.2004, p. 64.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 245, 17.7.2004, p. 17.

2

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mount Vernon United Methodist Church v. Harris County, Texas, et al

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 01114

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 29708

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s motion en banc reconsideration is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3. Any

pending matters are dismissed as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

Acting for the Court

En banc panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman,

Landau, and Countiss.

Date: __ February 20, 2020

____
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


             [Letterhead of R. T. Garcia & Co., Inc. appears here]


                                 March 5, 1998

    We do hereby grant consent to Bellwether Exploration Company for the 
reference to, or the inclusion of, our Reserve Report for Associated Gas 
Resources, Inc. for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1995, in the Bellwether 
Exploration Company Form 10-K annual report.


                                  R. T. GARCIA & CO., INC.

                                  /s/ Raymond T. Garcia
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Raymond T. Garcia, P.E.
                                  President


               [Address of R.T. Garcia & Co. Inc. appears here]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, 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 period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |              |  |  |  |                                                         
|----- |  | ------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 12, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                                   
|      |  |              |  |  |  | Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer
|      |  |              |  |  |  | (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the annual report of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David C. Choi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, 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 operating results of the Company. /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiExecutive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerMarch 21, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21177]



[[Page 61444]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panels (SEP): Centers for Excellence To Promote a Healthier 
Workforce, Request for Application OH-05-006

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Centers for Excellence to Promote a 
Healthier Workforce, Request for Application OH-05-006.
    Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-5 p.m., November 10, 2005 (Closed).
    Place: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE MS E-74, Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone 
Number 404.498.2556.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to: 
Centers for Excellence to Promote a Healthier Workforce, Request for 
Application OH-05-006.
    Contact Person For More Information: Pamela J. Wilkerson, MPA, 
Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-74, 
Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone Number 404.498.2556.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: October 17, 2005.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-21177 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P