alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LENA HARRINGTON v. LEE WALTER TAYLOR.

(Filed 27 November, 1946.)

Negligence § 9—

Evidence that plaintiff interposed herself between defendant and his assailant in a fight, and was injured by the blow intended for defendant, is insufficient to take the case to the jury on the issue of negligence since defendant could not have reasonably foreseen or anticipated the injury.

Appeal, by plaintiff from *Stevens, J.,*at May Term, 1946, of RICHMOND.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.

On 8 January, 1945, defendant went to the home of the plaintiff to get his wife who had gone there for protection. The defendant and his wife fell to fighting in the plaintiff’s house. The defendant’s wife had floored him with an axe and had it raised to strike him again when the plaintiff intervened and saved his life, but received a severe cut on the hand when she “got the lick which was intended for him.”

From judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, she appeals, assigning errors.

*770
      *George S. Steele, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Fred W. Bynum for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe action is against the defendant and not his wife who inflicted the injury. The plaintiff first sued on contract — defendant’s promise to pay damages — reported in 225 N. C., 690, 36 S. E. (2d), 227. She now sues in tort.

The evidence is wanting in sufficiency to carry the case to the jury. The injury is not one which the defendant could have reasonably foreseen or anticipated. *Butner v. Spease,*217 N. C., 82, 6 S. E. (2d), 808. The judgment of nonsuit will be upheld.

Affirmed.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00076
- CR ANTHONY J. SWEIGART , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010
- 39
- C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals from a ple a - bargained judgment of conviction and state

- jail sentence of two years, after which he was placed on five

- years’ probation (community supervision), which was revoked. The Clerk of this Court warned Appellant that
because the trial court noted on the cert ification of defendant’s right of appeal that he had no right of appeal and Appellant had signed a waiver of his right to appeal, the Court might dismiss the appeal unless, within 21 days, we receive d a certification stating that Appellant has a right to a ppeal or a response was filed showing grounds forSweigart v. State Page 2

continuing the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Appellant has responded, but his response does not overcome his waiver of his right to appea l, nor has the trial court issued a new certification that permits Appellant to appeal. This appeal is dismissed. See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680 ; Davis v. State, 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.).

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justi ce Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 27, 2011 Do n ot p ublish [C R25]
#### STATE v. DAVID STEPHENSON

(Filed 27 November, 1957)

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, S. J.,*and a jury, at August, 1957, Criminal Term of Harnett.

*E. R. Temple for defendant appellant.*

*Attorney General Patton and Assistant Attorney General Bru-ton for the State.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant stands convicted, as charged in the bill of indictment, of the larceny of an automobile of the value of more than $100, the property of Auto Sales & Service Co., Inc. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, he appeals.

The record on appeal contains neither a statement of the evidence nor a copy of the charge. We have examined carefully the record and find it free of reversible or prejudicial error. The defendant’s exceptions are without merit. The trial and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of OASDI Contribution and Benefit Base | Description of Proposed Provision:      Raise the taxable maximum amount (the contribution and benefit base) to include 90 percent of total OASDI covered earnings.  Phase in this increase gradually between 2010 and 2015.  Benefit computations would reflect all earnings up to the new taxable maximum. |
|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Anna E. Gluskin, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company"), and
Rose C. Perri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that, to the best of her knowledge:





1.           The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (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 at the end of
the period covered by the Report.





DATE:
      December 9, 2008
                                By:
                                /s/ Anna E.
GluskinAnna
      E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)DATE:
      December 9, 2008
                                By:
                                /s/ Rose C. PerriRose
      C. Perri, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
[No. 24717.

Department Two.

February 16, 1934.]

#### Hans Thor Jensen, Respondent, v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *Appellant.**1*

*The Attorney General, Browder Brown, ' Assistant,*and *Borothee Scarbrough,*for appellant.

*Vanderveer & Bassett,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 29 P. (2d) 743.

Tot,man, J.

— The respondent was injured on November 17, 1931, while engaged in extrahazardous employment. The department, after paying time loss up to July 8, 1932, closed his claim with an award of ten degrees, or three hundred dollars, for permanent partial disability. The claimant appealed to the joint board. Evidence was received, including that of a physician who fixed the claimant’s permanent partial disability at thirty degrees. A further physical examination of the claimant was ordered by the board, and thereafter the joint board approved the order of the supervisor. The claimant thereupon appealed to the superior court, and on the trial there the depart*435ment presented á medical witness who had treated the claimant and was familiar with the entire history of the case, whose testimony tended to support the action of the department.

In rebuttal, respondent called a physician who had examined him at a time subsequent to the hearing before the joint board, who gave testimony to the effect that the respondent was, by reason of his injuries, totally disabled except for walking, though he did not testify that the total disability was permanent. Respondent also testified upon rebuttal.

Thus we have the sworn testimony of three physicians in the record. Of these, the testimony of one fully supports the order of the department. One whose testimony was taken by the joint board wholly supports the results arrived at by the trial court, and the third testified to a total disability, but did not say whether it was temporary or permanent.

The trial court saw and heard two of these physicians testify, one on each side, and also saw-and heard the respondent. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the court was wrong in finding that the respondent had fully met the burden which the statute places upon him to overcome the *prima facie*presumption of the correctness of the departmental decision.

Questions of fact only are raised here, and since we cannot say that the testimony in any wise preponderates against the facts found by the trial court, the judgment must be, and it is, affirmed.

Beals, O. J., Blake, Geraghty, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1824

GHL International, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Gera.ldC.Mann 

Attorney General 

Honorable Homer P. Rainey, President 

The University of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Rainey Opinion No. O-3799 

Re: Matter of the oath required of 

teachers, instructors, visiting instructors, or other employees of tax-supported schools, 

colleges, university, or other 

tax-supported institutions of 

learning in Texas, under S. B. 

No. 38, Regular Session, 47th 

Legislature. 

Answering your inquiry of July 19, 1941, concerning the interpretation of S. B. No. 38 of the Regular Session of the 47th Legislature, we beg to advise: 

The oath of office required by S. B. No. 39 of a 

"teacher, instructor, visiting instructor, or other employee 

in, for, or connected with any tax-supported school, college, 

university, or tax-supported institution of learning in this 

state, ' should be taken by such teacher, or other person designated by the Act by subscribing his name to a printed or written oath of office, as prescribed by Article XVI, Section 1, 

of the Constitution, as amended November 8, 1938, before an 

officer authorized to administer oaths in this state, such as 

a judge or clerk of a court of record, a justice of the peace, 

or a notary public, duly authenticated by such officer's certificate. 

It probably is true, that an oral oath of office administered to such person by a competent authority would meet 

the requirement of the statute, but for administrative purposes, it is infinitely better that the oath when taken should 

be subscribed as above indicated, to the end that such subscribed 

oath may be filed with the governing body of the school, 

college, university, or institution of learning by whom 

the subscribing teacher, or other employee, is employed. 

For your convenience we are attaching hereto a copy 

of such oath of office. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED JUL 25, 1941 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

/s/ Grover Sellers BY: /s/ Ocie Steen, ASSISTANT 

FIRSTASST. AIlQPNEYGENERAL 

OS-MR APPROVED: OpinionCcnmittee 

BY: BNB,Cha.irman
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 on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 28, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Jerry C. YoungJerry C. YoungChief Financial OfficerMarch 25, 2008
#### O. H. ORR v. T. A. ENGLISH.

(Filed 13 May, 1931.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harwood, Special Judge,*at December Term, 1930, of TbaNSVlvania. No error.

Controversy for the recovery of land, in which upon pleadings filed, the following verdict was returned:

1. Was the name of Mrs. Gracie E. Jordan appearing on the paper-writing purporting to be a deed of trust, and introduced in evidence, a forgery as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.

2. Is the plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of the land described in the complaint? Answer: No.

3. Is the defendant in the wrongful possession of the land as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.

Judgment for defendant, appeal by plaintiff u^on error assigned.

*Ralph II. Ramsey, Jr., for plaintiff.*

*Pat Eimzey for defendant.*

Peb Cubiam.

This is an action to recover the possession of land, the parties claiming from a common source. The plaintiff claims title under a sheriff’s deed made pursuant to an execution issued on a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against Gracie E. Jordan and others, *807docketed in Transylvania County on 25 March, 1929. The defendant claims under a deed of trust executed by Gracie E. Jordan on 14 September, 1928, filed for registration 17 September, 1928, and a conveyance to himself from the trustee. The plaintiff admitted in open court that if the deed of trust, which constitutes a link in the defendant’s chain of title, is not a forgery, then the defendant has the superior title of record. As appears from the verdict the issue relating to forgery was answered in favor of the defendant. This was the crucial point of controversy.

We have examined all the exceptions of the appellant, but find no error in the record which entitles the plaintiff to a new trial.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5715]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-182-000]


ANR Pipeline Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1995, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, proposed to be 
effective April 1, 1995:

Original Sheet No. 75A
Original Sheet No. 75B
Original Sheet No. 75C
Original Sheet No. 75D
Original Sheet No. 75E
Original Sheet No. 75F
Second Revised Sheet No. 155
Second Revised Sheet No. 156
Second Revised Sheet No. 159
Second Revised Sheet No. 160
Original Sheet No. 160A
Third Revised Sheet No. 161

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
to streamline ANR's capacity release program. Specifically, ANR 
proposes (a) to reduce the time for submitting and posting bids and for 
making awards for released capacity; (b) to change the time for closing 
the bidding period to accommodate better ANR's nomination process; (c) 
to allow one service agreement to cover multiple release transactions; 
(d) to provide shippers the maximum feasible time to execute an 
agreement once capacity has been awarded; (e) to make conforming tariff 
changes; and (f) to treat releases that do not exceed thirty-one days 
or one calendar month as short-term releases.
    ANR states that all of its Volume No. 1 customers and interested 
State Commissions have been mailed a copy of this filing.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must 
be filed on or before March 10, 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. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5715 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                   
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF KMC TELECOM  HOLDINGS,  INC. AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          32,290,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,259,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (170,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,392,000
<PP&E>                                         164,693,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,237,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,091,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,728,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           71,064,000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (77,064,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,091,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,588,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,577,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27,093,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,621,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,703,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,703,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,703,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (81.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (81.94)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.29

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Second  Amendment to Employment  Agreement (this "Second  Amendment"),
dated as of October 29, 1999,  is entered into by and between  Apria  Healthcare
Group Inc. (the "Company") and Philip L. Carter (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Executive  have entered  into an  Employment
Agreement dated as of May 5, 1998 and an Amendment to Employment Agreement dated
as of January 1, 1999 (as so amended, the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  Company,  with the approval of its Board of  Directors,  now
desires  to further  amend the  Employment  Agreement  by  changing  the term of
employment and increasing the Executive's compensation, and both parties wish to
evidence  and  confirm  such  changes by  amending  the terms of the  Employment
Agreement as set forth below in this Second Amendment;

     NOW, THEREFORE, THIS SECOND AMENDMENT WITNESSETH:

1.   Section I of the Employment  Agreement is hereby  amended,  effective as of
     October 29, 1999, to read in its entirety as follows:

          "The Company  hereby  employs the Executive  and the Executive  hereby
          accepts such employment upon the terms and conditions  hereinafter set
          forth.  The term of the  employment  will continue until the Executive
          resigns or is terminated under Section IV of this Agreement."

2.   The first sentence of Section III A of the  Employment  Agreement is hereby
     amended to read as follows:

          "The Company will pay to the  Executive a base salary at  the  rate of
          $600,000 per year through December 31, 1999 and, commencing on January
          1, 2000, at the rate of $650,000 per year."

3.   Except as amended  above,  the  Employment  Agreement  shall remain in full
     force and effect and, as so amended,  is hereby  ratified and  confirmed in
     all respects.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment
as of the date first above written.

     APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.                 THE EXECUTIVE



By:
   ------------------------------                -------------------------------
   Ralph V. Whitworth,                           Philip L. Carter
   Chairman