alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HARRIS v. VATTER (CHARITY HOSPITAL OF LOUISIANA, Intervener),

No. 17279.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 13, 1940.

Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cyril F. Dumaine, of New Orleans, for inte r veno r-app ell ant.

Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a tenant against her landlord for $2,000 damages due to physical injuries resulting from a fall alleged to have been caused by the defective condition of the steps leading to plaintiff’s apartment. The Charity Hospital intervened asserting a legal subrogation under Act 230 of 1932, to the extent of $99.50 for hospital services. The defendant denied that plaintiff suffered any injuries and, in the alternative, averred that, if she was injured as alleged, it was due solely to her own carelessness and fault.

There was judgment below in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit and the plaintiff and intervenor have appealed.

We are convinced that Juliet Harris, the plaintiff, was injured. The records of the Charity Hospital and the testimony of her physician conclusively prove this fact. We believe that her injuries were due to a fall while descending the stairs which lead to her apartment, but it is not shown that there was anything wrong with the steps which could have been the cause of her fall. There are two photographs of the stairs in evidence, one offered by plaintiff and the other by the defendant. They do not differ in any material aspect and fail to exhibit any defect. The court and counsel visited the scene of the accident and made a personal examination of the stairs, particularly the step which Juliet Harris stated gave way under her weight.

Walter C. Keenan, an architect, testified on behalf of defendant that he had examined the steps and that he not only walked up and down the stairway, but jumped up and down and though he weighed two hundred ánd eight pounds, the steps did not give Way.

No repairs have been made to the steps since the accident complained of, according to the testimony of Henry H. Vatter, the lessor, and his rent collector, E. L. Van Cl eve. There is soriae testimony about *575a small fragment one inch and a half wide having been detached from one of the steps when plaintiff fell, but her counsel expressly disclaims any contention that this had anything to do with her fall, insisting that the steps gave way under her weight.

Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that the case has been properly decided; consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,105

TYRONE JAMAAL WILLIAMS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 31293

IN THE 196TH DISTRICT COURT

HUNT COUNTY

Per curiam. 

ORDER

The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of

appellant’s capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 196th

 District

Court of Hunt County, Cause No. 31293, styled The State of Texas v. Tyrone Jamaal

Williams. Appellant has filed in this Court a “Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand Case

for Completion of Appellate Record.”

In his motion, appellant asks for the juror information cards and questionnaires to

be included in the appellate record. Appellant should first present his request for the
Williams – 2

disclosure of this information to the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 35.29. 

Appellant also lists several items that he contends are missing from the appellate

record. Because the trial court is in a better position to determine the accuracy of the

record, we abate the appeal and remand this cause to the trial court to resolve this issue. 

The trial court is directed to make findings of fact regarding whether the items in question

have been omitted from the record, and if so, whether they should be included. If the trial

court determines that certain items need not be included in the record, then the trial court

should state its reasons for making that determination. If the trial court determines that

any relevant items have been omitted from the clerk’s record or reporter’s record, then the

trial court shall direct the clerk and/or court reporter to prepare, certify, and file in this

Court a supplemental record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1)

& 34.6(d). 

Appellant further asks us to “strike” the clerk’s record and reporter’s record that

have already been filed in this Court and to “instruct the trial court to have the District

Clerk and Court reporter create new records such that the entirety of the records correctly

reflect the events in chronological order of occurrence.” In addition, Appellant requests

that the district clerk be ordered to “provide . . . appellate counsel with copies of all

sealed and ex parte documents previously filed by the defense in the trial court” and to

“provide both . . . appellate counsel and . . . counsel for the State of Texas with copies of

documents filed under seal in the trial court but not filed ex parte[.]” We decline these
Williams – 3

requests. 

The findings shall be made and any necessary supplements shall be filed within 30

days of the date of this order. Appellant’s brief will be due in this Court within 30 days

thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.

Do not publish
#### EDWARDS v. MIRANNE.

No. 17877.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 31, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1943.

*271Jas. E. Courtin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Leo McCune, of Gretna, for appellee.

SIMON, Judge.

Mrs. Lettia Edwards, wife of William John Edwards, seeks the recovery of damages against Joseph Miranne in the sum of $750. This claim arises out of the same accident wherein we found the defendant Joseph Miranne liable in the opinion this •day handed down in the case of Blanke v. Miranne et al., La.App., 11 So.2d 264. It only remains to discuss the claim of plaintiff for damages in this suit.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant rejecting and dismissing plaintiff’s demands.

Plaintiff suffered superficial lacerations .and brush burns of the face and minor contusions of the body. She was not hospitalized, receiving treatment at the office of her physician. She was partially incapacitated and undoubtedly experienced pain as .a result of these injuries for a period of a few weeks. We feel that an award of ■$200 is just.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered, .adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of ■plaintiff, Lettia Edwards, wife of William John Edwards, and against the defendant, Joseph Miranne, in the sum of $200 with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51482-51483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Confidentiality, 
Privacy, & Security Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 22nd meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 
U.S.C., App.)

DATES: September 11, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. [Eastern Time].

[[Page 51483]]


ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 1114. Please use the C Street entrance closest 
to 3rd Street and bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/confidentiality/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup Members will continue 
discussing and evaluating the confidentiality, privacy, and security 
protections and requirements for participants in electronic health 
information exchange environments.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/cps_instruct.html.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-20332 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-45-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Archstone-Smith
Operating Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the Issuer), hereby
certifies, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Periodic Report) of
the Issuer for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this
certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Date: November 12, 2003

/S/ CHARLES E. MUELLER, JR.Charles E. Mueller, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

   Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration under 12(g) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports Under
          Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-42167

                       CITICORP MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
           (Issuer in respect of the REMIC Pass-Through Certificates)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                          909 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
                            New York, New York 10043
                                 (212) 559-6727
   (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
                    registrant's principal executive offices)

                 REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-10
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d) remains)

         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]            Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]            Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]            Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]            Rule 15d-6                [x]
      Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date: 30

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.


Dated as of: January 26, 1999                  BY:      /s/ Carol Koch
                                                        --------------
                                                        Carol Koch
                                                        Assistant Secretary

      Instruction: This form is required by Rules 12g-4, 12h-3 and 15d-6 of the
General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
registrant shall file with the Commission three copies of Form 15, one of which
shall be manually signed. It may be signed by an officer of the registrant, by
counsel or by any other duly authorized person. The name and title of the person
signing the form shall be typed or printed under the signature.
#### Earnest FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION; U.S. Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-15564. D.C. No. CV-02-01051-SBA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before BROWNING, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Freeman's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Earnest Freeman, a former production controller for the United States Department of the Navy, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (“OWCP”) decision denying him wage loss benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.S.C. § 8101. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Staacke v. United States Sec’y of Labor,*841 F.2d 278, 280 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1988), and summary judgment, *Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande,*17 F.3d 1227, 1233-34 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Freeman’s claim that OWCP improperly denied his workers’ compensation claim. *See*5 U.S.C. § 8128(b); *see also Staacke,*841 F.2d at 281 (holding that FECA decisions are not subject to review unless plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the constitution or a “statutory mandate”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Freeman’s due process claim because Freeman failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was precluded from submitting all evidence supporting his wage loss claim at the administrative hearing. *Cf. Raditch v. United States,*929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991).

Freeman’s contention that it was improper for the district court to change the case management conference date is unavailing. *See United States v. Batiste,*868 F.2d 1089, 1091 n. 4 (9th Cir.1989) (acknowledging that a district court has broad discretion to manage its own calendar).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
210 La. 866

#### STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. 38260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 12, 1946.

G. Wray Gill and Albert B. Granzin, Jr., both of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herve Raci-vitch, Dist. Atty., Geo. McCulloch, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Alexander E. Ralston, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., all of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans convicting Elizabeth Williams of cruelty to juveniles as defined in Article 93 of the Louisiana Criminal Code and sentencing her to serve six months in jail and is, therefore, reviewable on an appeal in this court on the law and the facts. See Section 96 of Article VII of the Constitution of 1921 as amended pursuant to Act No. 169 of 1944; State v. Smith, 209 La. 363, 24 So.2d 617; State v. Smith, 210 La. —, 27 So.2d 359.

The sole issue presented in this case is whether of not the state has proved the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cruelty to juveniles is defined in Article 93 of the Louisiana Criminal Code to be “the intentional or criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect, by anyone over-the age of seventeen, of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to said child.”

Thus it may be seen that the gravamen of the offense is the intentional neglect or mistreatment by one over 17 of a child under that age when such mistreatment or neglect results in its unjustifiable pain and suffering. In other words, the state must allege and show there was an intentional mistreatment or neglect of the child in this case and that such child, as the result of such neglect or mistreatment, has been subjected to unjustifiable pain or suffering.

*461From a review of the testimony taken on the trial of this case, all of which is reported verbatim in the record, we conclude that the state has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt one of the elements of the crime charged, i. e>, that the subject child was caused unjustifiable pain and suffering as the result of its neglect on the stated occasion.

We do not deem it necessary to detail here the sordid story sought to be revealed by the evidence in the case. Suffice it to say that the several witnesses for the state not only contradicted each other in many respects but they are otherwise discredited, rendering their testimony of little probative value.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are annulled and set aside and the defendant is ordered discharged.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.19    
    


 
 

FEI Company Board of Directors Compensation Program
  (As approved by the Board of Directors on July 17, 2003)    
    


Annual Retainers (payments are made pro rata, quarterly)  



	
$	

15,000	
 	

Annual base retainer for all outside Board members ($3,750 per quarter)
	
$	

10,000	
 	

Annual additional retainer for membership on Audit Committee ($2,500 per quarter)*
	
$	

5,000	
 	

Annual additional retainer for membership on Compensation or Nominating and Governance Committee ($1,250 per quarter)*
	
$	

2,500	
 	

Annual additional retainer for committee chair ($625 per quarter)
	
$	

10,000	
 	

Annual retainer for Lead Director position ($2,500 quarterly)





*If
a director serves on more than one committee, the annual additional retainer for service on the second committee is $2,500. For example, a director serving on the Audit Committee and Compensation
Committee would receive a total retainer of $12,500. A director serving on the Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee would receive a total retainer of $7,500. 


Payments made on a per meeting basis  



	$	1,000	 	Payment for attendance at a Board or Committee meeting whether attending in person or by teleconference.




Option Share Grants of Company Common Stock  


Initial
grant of 15,000 option shares of Company Common Stock on joining the Board with the grant vesting at 2.78% of the total grant per month of service. In addition, at the time of each annual
shareholder meeting, each director who is elected receives an additional option grant of 7,500 shares vesting at 2.78% of the total grant per month of service. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.19


FEI Company Board of Directors Compensation Program (As approved by the Board of Directors on July 17, 2003)
- 796 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 296 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SCHIESSER Cite as 296 Neb. 796



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v


### . M i c hael 

### R

. S c hiesser 

### , appella n t


### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed June 2, 2017. No. S-16-115. 

### Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, I n body 

### , R iedma nn 

### , and B ishop 

### , Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Lancaster County, L ori 

### A

. M aret 

### , Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed. John S. Berry, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Melissa R. Vincent, and, on brief, George R. Love for appellee. H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller 

### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , K el c h 

### , and F u n ke 

### , JJ. P er

### C uriam


### . Having reviewed the briefs and record and having heard oral arguments, we conclude on further review that the deci

sion of the Nebraska Court of Appeals in State v. Schiesser , 24 Neb. App. 407, 888 N.W.2d 736 (2016), is correct, and accord

ingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the district court. A ffirmed


### . Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/14/2017 09:11 AM CDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John R. Crooker

v. Civil No. 05-cv-008-JD

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

O R D E R

John R. Crooker moves for clarification of the court’s order

on the parties’ previous motions for clarification. In the

previous order, the court declined to address the issue of

preemption in the context of a motion for clarification and

directed Anheuser-Busch, Inc., (“AB”) to file a properly

supported motion to dismiss the remaining claims in Crooker’s

complaint that AB contends are preempted by ERISA. The court

gave Crooker the option, depending on his view of preemption in

light of AB’s motion, either to file an objection to that motion

to file an amended complaint to properly plead his claims. 

Crooker objects to those options, arguing that he should not be

offered the option of filing an amended complaint until the court

rules that his claims are preempted.

Crooker misunderstands. At this stage, in response to AB’s

motion to dismiss, Crooker may choose to object OR, if he agrees

that his claims are preempted, he may file an amended complaint. 

If Crooker is not persuaded at this stage by AB’s motion to

Case 1:05-cv-00008-JD Document 28 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2
2

dismiss on preemption grounds, he will file an objection. If the

court nevertheless rules the claims are preempted and dismisses

the claims, within a reasonable time, he may seek leave to file

an amended complaint to state claims under ERISA, if appropriate. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

SO ORDERED.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for

clarification (document no. 26) is granted to the extent

explained in this order.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 17, 2005

cc: David A. Garfunkel, Esquire

Andrea K. Johnstone, Esquire

Paul B Kleinman, Esquire

Shenanne Ruth Tucker, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00008-JD Document 28 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

128751 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128751 

 COA: 253751 
 Wayne CC: 03-008585-02 

GILBERTO JUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 51

Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the

products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2001

Mr. ARMEY (for himself, Mr. GEPHARDT, and Mr. CRANE) (all by request):

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with

respect to the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress approves the extension of nondiscrim4 inatory treatment with respect to the products of the So5 cialist Republic of Vietnam transmitted by the President

6 to the Congress on June 8, 2001.

Æ