alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
216 La. 190

#### NASH v. CURETTE et al.

No. 39313.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 7, 1949.

*263Vincent Moseley, Opelousas, for appellant.

Seth Lewis, Opelousas, for appellees.

MOISE, Justice.

Plaintiff filed a petitory action against the defendants seeking the ownership of the property involved. There is cumulated-in this action a demand for damages for alleged malicious prosecution by one of the defendants growing out of a dispute over the property. The district court rendered judgment rejecting the plaintiff’s demands and he appealed. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal and after considering this motion, we remanded the case to the district court for proof of the facts and circumstances concerning the taking of the appeal and a determination of. our appellate jurisdiction. 215 La. 109, 39 So.2d 840, 842. On the trial of the rule, the district court found that appellant was entitled to appeal devolutively from the judgment.

There is before us now a second motion to have the appeal dismissed. In this motion defendants have reiterated the grounds previously urged in the first motion: That the value of the land sought to be recovered is only $50; that the allegation of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff is unsupported by the evidence and should not be considered in estimating the amount in -controversy to give this court jurisdiction; and that the objection of defendants to allow the cumulation in one suit of a petitory action against co-owners with a suit for damages for malicious prosecution was sustained and no evidence was admitted to show any injury or damage.

In remanding this case on the first motion to dismiss, we gave potent reasons therefor. These reasons are reiterated here, because they likewise apply with the same force to our disposal of the second motion to dismiss: “Referring now to the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction, we would be obliged not to dismiss the appeal for that cause, but to transfer the case to the court of appeal if the cause,were well founded. So far as the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition go, the amount in contest appears to be far above the- minimum amount of our appellate jurisdiction. If, after hearing the case .on its merits, we have a doubt as to whether the amount in dispute is exaggerated, we will decide then whether the case should be transferred to the court of appeal or should be decided finally by this court.”

The motion to dismiss is denied.
<PAGE> 1

                     [Letterhead of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP]

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1



                          Independent Auditors' Report
                          


The Board of Directors
Payless Cashways, Inc.:


We have reviewed the accompanying  condensed balance sheets of Payless Cashways,
Inc. as of  August 29, 1998  and August 30, 1997  and  the   related   condensed
statements  of  operations and cash flows for the thirteen and  thirty-nine week
periods   then   ended.    These   condensed   financial   statements   are  the
responsibility  of the Company's management.

We  conducted  our  reviews in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A  review  of  interim
financial  information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the  expression  of an opinion  regarding the  financial  statements  taken as a
whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying condensed  financial statements for  them to  be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the balance sheet of Payless Cashways,  Inc. as of November 29, 1997
and the related  statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity and cash flows
for the fiscal year then ended (not presented  herein);  and in our report dated
January  19,  1998,  we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion on those  financial
statements. As discussed in note A to the financial statements, the November 29,
1997  balance sheet  reflects the  application  of fresh-start  reporting  as of
that date and, therefore, is not comparable  in  all  respects  to  the  balance
sheets  of  the  Company  prior  to   November 29, 1997.   In  our  opinion, the
information   set forth   in  the  accompanying  condensed  balance  sheet as of
November  29, 1997 is fairly presented,  in all material respects,  in  relation
to  the  balance sheet  from which it has been derived.     


s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
September 16, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6223 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6223

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to require any officer or employee 
      of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to receive a COVID-19 
                  vaccination, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

 Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas (for himself, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
Katko, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Bice of Oklahoma, Mr. 
  McKinley, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. Norman, Mr. Mast, Mrs. Miller-
Meeks, Mr. Jacobs of New York, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. 
Guthrie, Mrs. Hinson, and Mr. Feenstra) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to require any officer or employee 
      of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to receive a COVID-19 
                  vaccination, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDING.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Border Agents Stay 
Employed Act'' or the ``BASE Act''.
    (b) Finding.--Congress finds that allowing for alternatives to the 
COVID-19 vaccination, such as regular testing and the wearing of masks, 
would allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to retain more of its 
critical workforce.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MANDATING CBP EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE COVID-19 
              VACCINE.

    Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, including 
Executive Order 14043 (86 Fed. Reg. 50989; relating to requiring 
coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination for Federal employees), during 
fiscal year 2022 and each fiscal year thereafter, no Federal funds may 
be obligated or expended to require any officer or employee of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
                                 <all>
```
FILEDOCT012021BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofrvlontanaINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAOP21-0498SHANECLARKJOHNSON,Petitioner,v.12thDISTRICTCOURT,HILLCOUNTY,HONORABLEJudgeMatthewCuffe,Respondent.Respondent.GRANTOFMOTIONTOPROCEEDWITHOUTPAYMENTOFFILINGFEEMotiontoproceedwithoutpaymentofthefilingfeeinthismatterisGRANTED.DATED:October1,2021.BOWENGREENWOODClerkoftheSupremeCourt10/01/2021Case Number: OP 21-0498
Exhibit 32.1
------------


                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report of Petrie Stores Liquidating Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Stephanie R. Joseph, as Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, and H. Bartlett
Brown, as Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of her or his knowledge, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
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
Trust.



/s/ Stephanie R. Joseph
-------------------------
Stephanie R. Joseph
Chief Executive Officer
February 6, 2005



/s/ H. Bartlett Brown
-------------------------
H. Bartlett Brown
Chief Financial Officer
February 6, 2005


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Trust for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Florida, plaintiff, v. Henry TRAFFICANTE, defendant.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

June 8, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

The answer to the Certified Question herein is denied on authority of Schwob Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782.

ROBERTS,. C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32(a)****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Peter J. Burlage, President and Chief Executive Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co. (the “Company”),certify, that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code:(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedMarch 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in theReport.       /s/ Peter J. Burlage Peter J. Burlage    President and Chief Executive Officer    Date: May 7, 2007  *The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.*
#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. CAMPBELL et al.

No. 31726.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

May 13, 1935.

E. R. Holmes, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Logan & Barbee, of Hernando, for appel-lees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

The appellant instituted a proceeding in the court of a justice of the peace under section 1480 et seq., Code 1930, for the condemnation of land owned by the appellees, for use as part of a public highway. The judgment rendered awarded the appellees damages in the sum of $2,500, from which the appellant appealed to the circuit court. A motion by the appellees to dismiss the appeal was sustained. The ground of this motion is that, after the rendition of the eminent domain judgment, the appellant accepted the benefit thereof by entering upon and appropriating the land, thereby waiving its right to appeal. In support of its claim that this motion should have been overruled, the appellant says, first, that it had the right to enter upon and appropriate the land for highway purposes without first compensating the appellees therefor; and. second, although at the time the motion was sustained it was in possession of the land, and using it for highway purposes, that it entered upon and appropriated the land prior to the commencement of the eminent domain proceeding.

The first of these contentions will be left out of view, and no opinion expressed thereon, for the reason that the judgment of the court below sustaining the motion to dismiss the appeal must be reversed on the appellant’s second ground therefor. The evidence *462discloses that prior to the commencement of the eminent domain proceeding the appellant had entered upon the land, and had done everything necessary towards the construction of the highway thereon, except laying concrete, although, according to the appellees, this was done without their consent. We are not here concerned with the right of the appellant to enter upon and appropriate the land prior to compensating the appellees therefor, and express no opinion thereon. Assuming merely for the purpose of the argument that this appropriation of the land was wrongful, nevertheless the appellant was not deprived thereby of exercising its right to condemn the land for highway purposes; and it did nothing after the eminent domain judgment was rendered that it was not doing prior to the institution of the proceeding therefor.

The motion to dismiss the appeal should have been overruled.

Reversed and remanded.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Giraldo German PATT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21152.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

The attorney appointed to represent Giraldo German Patt on appeal has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Patt has received a copy of counsel’s motion and has filed a letter in response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is dismissed.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Miguel HINOJOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nfn KING, Sergeant of Correctional Officers; Nfn Campos, Correctional Officer III; Nfn Haskins, Correctional Officer III; Nfn Acosta, Sergeant of Correctional Officers; Nfn Tomson, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-10146.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2003.

*364Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Miguel Hinojosa, a Texas prisoner (# 840997), appeals from the district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)©, following a hearing pursuant to *Spears v. McCotter,*766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985). Hinojosa asserted that Sergeant King caused a cellmate to physically assault him by making it physically impossible for him, Hinojosa, to comply with lockdown rules that required the inmates to kneel before receiving their sack lunches. He asserted that other defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in the aftermath of the assault.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a prison inmate’s *in forma pauperis*complaint. *Taylor v. Johnson,*257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir.2001) (citing *Harper v. Showers,*174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir.1999)). A district court shall dismiss an IFP complaint at any time it determines that the complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is “frivolous” if it lacks “ ‘an arguable basis in law or fact.’ ” *Berry v. Brady,*192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting *Talib v. Gilley,*138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.1998)).

Hinojosa failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Sergeant King was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that there was a “substantial risk” that the cellmate would assault Hinojosa. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Newton v. Black,*133 F.3d 301, 308 (5th Cir.1998). Similarly, Hinojosa has not demonstrated that defendant Officers Campos and Haskins and Sergeant Acosta were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs following the assault. *See Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 104-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); *Farmer,*511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970.

Hinojosa has abandoned his claims against Warden Tomson, Major Cross, and an assistant warden, by failing to brief those claims on appeal. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hinojosa’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, as he has not demonstrated that “exceptional *365circumstances” exist. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 679 

To amend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 

of 1998 to direct the Office of National Drug Control Policy to publish 

a list of drug control grant programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. TRONE (for himself and Mr. BURCHETT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and in 

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 to direct the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy to publish a list of drug control 

grant programs, 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 ‘‘Effective Drug Control 

5 Strategy Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 679 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIVITIES. 

2 (a) PUBLICATION OF LIST.— 

3 (1) AMENDMENT.—Section 705(f) of the Office 

4 of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 

5 of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1704(f)) is amended by inserting 

6 at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(5) PUBLICATION OF LIST.—The Director 

8 shall publish online a complete list of all drug con9 trol program grant programs and any other relevant 

10 information included in the information tracked pur11 suant to paragraph (1).’’. 

12 (2) DEADLINE AND FREQUENCY.—Not later 

13 than one year after the date of the enactment of this 

14 Act, and annually thereafter, the Director of Na15 tional Drug Control Policy shall publish the list re16 quired under section 705(f)(5) of the National Drug 

17 Control Act of 1998, as added by paragraph (1). 

18 (b) NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.—Section 

19 706(c)(1) of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

20 Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1705(c)(1)) is 

21 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara22 graph: 

23 ‘‘(O) A review of all federally funded de24 mand reduction activities, including an evalua25 tion of— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 679 IH

1 ‘‘(i) the effectiveness of those activi2 ties; 

3 ‘‘(ii) the contribution of those activi4 ties to demand reduction activities funded 

5 by State, local, and Tribal governments; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(iii) whether any duplication or inef8 ficiency in federally funded demand reduc9 tion activities needs to be addressed.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health  

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.  

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee J—Population and Patient-Oriented Training.                      

*Date:*                         October 29, 2008.                      

*Time:*                         7:45 a.m. to 6 p.m.                      

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                      

*Place:*                         Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.                      

*Contact Person:*                         Ilda M. Mckenna, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Research Training Review Branch,  Division of Extramural Activities,  National Cancer Institute,  6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8111,  Bethesda, MD 20892,  301-496-7481,                         *mckennai@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and  Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research;  93.396,  Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 25, 2008.  

Jennifer Spaeth,  

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20321 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]  

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P