alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHNNIE ANDER RICHARDSON, by and through his Next Friend, LARCIE RICHARDSON v. CECIL RANDOLPH GRAYSON.

(Filed 4 May, 1960.)

Negligence §§ 7, 28—

An instruction on the issue of negligence which places the burden upon ¡plaintiff to prove that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries held prejudicial, since the issue of negligence must be answered in the affirmative if defendant’s negligence is a proximate cause of the injuries.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Olive, J.,*at January Term, 1960, of WlLKES.

Civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile collision which occurred on the Traphill Road in Wilkes County, North Carolina, on 3 August, 1958. Automobiles operated by plaintiff and defendant respectively were proceeding in the same direction. At the time of the collision plaintiff was in the act of passing defendant, and defendant was in the act of turning to his left from the road into a private driveway.

The pleadings and evidence raised five issues which were submitted to the jury in the usual order as to: (1) Negligence of defendant, (2) Contributory negligence of plaintiff, (3) Damages to plaintiff, (4) Negligence of plaintiff, and (5) Damage to defendant. The jury answered the first issue (as to defendant’s negligence) in the negative, and the fourth issue as to plaintiff’s negligence in the affirmative.

To judgment in accordance therewith in favor of defendant, plaintiff excepts and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*McElwee, Ferree ■& Hall for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Hudson, Ferrell, Carter, Petree & Stockton, Whicker & Whicker, for defendant, appellee.*

WinboRNE, C. J.

Of the many assignments of error, based upon exceptions to matters occurring in the course of the trial, and in the charge of the court to the jury, plaintiff groups, in his brief, and assigns as error several portions of the charge as to proximate cause on the first issue. Throughout the charge on this issue the court placed upon the plaintiff the burden of showing that defendant’s negligence was *the*proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. This constitutes prejudicial error within the rulings in *Price v. Gray,*246 N.C. 162, 97 S.E. 2d 844, and *Pugh v. Smith,*247 N.C. 264, 100 S.E. 2d *477503. Hence on authority of the the holding of the opinions of this Court in these two cases, there must be a new trial.

Therefore it is deemed unnecessary to expressly consider other assignments of error. They may not recur upon another trial.

For error pointed out, let there be a New trial.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56-57]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31553]



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

[[Page 57]]



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the Military Health Care Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Military Health Care Advisory Committee.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 20, 1995, the Military Health Care Advisory 
Committee announced the third meeting of the committee (60 FR 65638). 
The purpose of this notice is to announce a change in the time for the 
scheduled business sessions. Business sessions are now scheduled 
between 8:30 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., Thursday, January 11, 1996, and 
between 8:00 a.m. and 12 Noon on Friday, January 12, 1996. All other 
information remains the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gary A. Christopherson, Senior Advisor, or Commander Sid Rodgers, 
Special Assistant to PDASD, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Health Affairs), 1200 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E346, 
Washington, DC 20301-1200; telephone (703) 697-2111.

    Dated: December 27, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-31553 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-01-M
#### D. J. EVERETT v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE FAIR ASSOCIATION.

(Filed 26 October, 1932.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Devin, J.,*at February Term, 1932, of Wake.

Proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act to determine liability of defendant, as self-insurer, to plaintiff for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

*850There was an award which was subsequently reduced, and from this subsequent ruling, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, where the judgment of the Commission was affirmed. Plaintiff appeals.

*Nimocles & Nimocks for pilaintiff.*

*Attorney-General Brummüt and Assistant Attorney-General Siler for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The appeal was dismissed at the Spring Term, 202 N. C., 838, but reinstated on motion of plaintiff.

We find no error upon the merits of the appeal, hence the judgment will be upheld.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40044

Summary Calendar

NORRIS HICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE

OF TEXAS; COUNTY OF BEE; JOANN

DAVIS; LESLIE WOODS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-95

- - - - - - - - - - August 6, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Norris Hicks, Texas pr isoner #505593, appeals the 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. The

dismissal followed remand after Hicks’ first appeal.

Hicks contends that the court abu sed its discretion in not

addressing his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim. On the

contrary, the court addressed the claim prior to the first appeal,** Ruiz v. Estelle , 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), rev’d

in part

, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), v acated in part

, 688 F.2d 266

(5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).

- 2 - and this court affirmed its dismissal. H icks v. United States

, No.

94-60677 (5th Cir. April 3, 1995)(unpublished).

Hicks maintains that the district court abused its discretion

in no t addressing his pendent state law claim and his claim that

appellees violated the Ruiz ** consent decree. But, the district

court has discretion whether to r eview pendent state law claims,

Gregory v. Mit chell , 634 F.2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1981); and, the

Ruiz consent decree claim is not cognizable under § 1983, see Green

v. McKaskle , 788 F.2d 1116, 1117-18 (5th Cir. 1986).

Hicks also asserts that the district court abused its

dis cretion in dismissing his claims regarding his placement in

lockdown and solitary confinement and his claim that the conditions

during the lockdown constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no abuse of discretion. S ee Denton v. Hernandez

, 504 U.S. 25, 31-

32 (1992). S ee also Sandin v. Conner

,

__ U.S.

__, 115 S. Ct. 2293

(1995).

Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal lack s merit for

essentially the reasons given by the district court. H icks v.

United States

, No. C-94-95 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 1995). In that this- 3 -

appeal is without arguable merit it is frivolous. H oward v. King

,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is

DISMISSED

. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We note that, in an unrelated

appeal, our court warned Hicks recently that sanctions will result

from future frivolous appeals. H icks v. United States

, No. 96-

40001 (5th Cir. May 15, 1996)(unpublish ed). Because the instant

appeal was filed and briefed before that warning, we impose no

sanctions at this time. The prior warning, however, retains its

force.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING REPEATED
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0440

_______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH FRANCIS SILVA

Defendant and Appellant

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

include September 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file and serve, Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2021

08/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0440
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8222-8223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3452]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology Issues

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology 
Issues will meet in closed session on March 2-3, 1995 at the Pentagon, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will work with the JCS Chairman and Vice Chairman in support of 
the Expanded JROC activities. The Task Force should place special 
emphasis on the application of technology to enhance the effectiveness 
of the evolving force structure within tight fiscal constraints and 
should also place a special focus on issues dealing with operations 
other than war.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly 
[[Page 8223]] this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: February 7, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-3452 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

     I, Michael A. Aviles, as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Cooperative Computing, Inc. (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, 2003
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, 2003

                             /s/ MICHAEL A. AVILES
                             --------------------------
                             Michael A. Aviles
                             Chairman of the Board,
                             President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3651 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 

extend the authorization of appropriations for the Lead Exposure Registry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2022 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation Act to extend the authorization of appropriations 

for the Lead Exposure Registry, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flint Registry Reau5 thorization Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3651 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR LEAD 

2 EXPOSURE REGISTRY. 

3 Section 2203(d) of the Water Infrastructure Im4 provements for the Nation Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–27(d)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

7 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indent8 ing appropriately; 

9 (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) 

10 (as so redesignated), by striking ‘‘There’’ and insert11 ing the following: 

12 ‘‘(1) FISCAL YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2021.— 

13 There’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(2) FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH 2033.— 

16 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

17 subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

18 2023 through 2033.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1








Certification
of CEO pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Lisa
Y. Roskens, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the General
Partner of America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. (the “Company”), certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:





(1)
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
and





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








Date:  November
6,
2009 /s/ Lisa Y.
Roskens


Lisa Y.
Roskens


Chief
Executive Officer


Burlington
Capital Group LLC, acting in its capacity as general partner of the General
Partner of America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P.








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and will be retained by
America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000880052
<NAME> TOWNE FINANCIAL CORP./OH
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,031
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,576
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,249
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,215
<LOANS>                                         70,395
<ALLOWANCE>                                        278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,767
<DEPOSITS>                                      94,174
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,289
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           222
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 117,767
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,998
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,217
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   273
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,488
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,799
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,538
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,950
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       31
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  34
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,331
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         938
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       938
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.67
<LOANS-NON>                                         95
<LOANS-PAST>                                       157
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   264
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       17
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  278
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                18
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            260


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3571]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-7-003]


Mississippi River Transmission Corp.; Compliance Filing

February 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 3, 1995, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT), submitted for filing the following 
tariff sheets listed below to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 
No. 1:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed effective 
                                                            date        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 127.....  November 1, 1994.   
Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 213.....  November 1, 1994.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MRT states that the purpose of the filing is to comply with the 
Commission's January 19, 1995, order by revising the tariff language on 
Sheet Nos. 127 and 224 to conform with the tariff language originally 
proposed by MRT in its October 7, 1994, filing in this proceeding.
    MRT states that a copy of the filing has been mailed to each of its 
customers and the State Commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before February 15, 1995. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3571 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### Proposed Provision: B6.7. Starting in January 2030, provide an addition to monthly benefits for all beneficiaries who have been eligible for at least 20 years, with the following specifications:  (1) Augment benefits (not the PIA) for those of qualifying age and eligibility duration with a MAGI below about $29,400 if single and $58,800 if married. MAGI is set to equal the IRMAA definition (AGI plus tax-exempt interest income). Index these thresholds after 2030 by the increase in the C-CPI-U; (2) The full additional amount is applicable for those born 1963 and later, once 24 years elapse from initial eligibility. The basic additional amount is calculated as 5 percent of the PIA for a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the AWI each year; (3) For those born prior to 1963, the full additional amount is multiplied by the number of years they have been affected by the C-CPI-U, divided by 24; (4) Beneficiaries will receive 20 percent of their additional amount in their 20th year after initial eligibility, 40 percent in their 21st year after initial eligibility,..., and 100 percent of their additional amount in their 24th and later years after benefit eligibility; (5) Retired and disabled worker beneficiaries, dually entitled spouse beneficiaries, and all survivor beneficiaries received their addition as described above. Spousal beneficiaries (aged or with child in care) and child beneficiaries of a living retired or disabled worker receive 50 percent of the additional amount described above. Other beneficiary types (such as parents of deceased workers) will receive the percentage of the flat benefit that equals the percentage of the insured worker's PIA that they receive; (6) The AWI used is for the second year prior to the beneficiary's initial eligibility year, with applicable COLAs applied up to the age when the addition is received; and (7) The additional amount is added to the monthly benefit after reductions for early claiming or increases for delayed claiming have been applied.

back
Exhibit 99.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
officer of Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (the "Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.

|                         |  | By: |  | /s/ROYCE J. HOLLANDName: Royce J. Holland
Title:Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  |     |  |                                                                                     

---

QuickLinks
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Taxation of Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						H7: Replace the current-law thresholds for federal income taxation of OASDI benefits with a single set of thresholds at $50,000 for single filers and $100,000 for joint filers for taxation of up to 85 percent of OASDI benefits, effective for tax year 2025.  These thresholds would be fixed and not indexed to price inflation or average wage increase. Reallocate a portion of revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits to the HI Trust Fund such that the HI Trust Fund would be in the same position as if the current-law computation (in the absence of this provision) applied.  The net amount of revenue from taxing OASDI benefits, after the allocation to HI, would be allocated to the combined Social Security Trust Fund.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates