alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McCLINTON v. MOORE BROS., Inc., et al.

No. 913.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1932.

E. L. Stewart, of De Ridder, for appellant.

C. V. Pattison, of Lake Charles, for appel-lees.

ELLIOTT, J.

James McClinton, an employee of Moore Bros., Inc., as a laborer on road work, was required as a result of his employment to distribute, place, and level in the road freshly mixed cement, and for this purpose it was necessary for him to walk in the cement mixture. On July 14, 1930, some of the freshly mixed cement got into one of his boots and burned his foot very seriously.

He was receiving weekly wages at the rate of $15 per week. The Union Indemnity Company carried liability insurance for Moore Bros., Inc. Plaintiff brought suit agaiust Moore Bros., Inc., and Union Indemnity Company for compensation at the rate of 65 per cent, of his weekly wage from July 14, 1930, to January 1, 1931, and from that time, in addition, $4.871⁄2 per week on account of partial disability for a time necessary in order to make up a total of 300 weeks.

The defendants admit the employment of the plaintiff at the wages alleged, his injury and their liability for the compensation claimed from July 16, 1930, to September 2, 1930, 'but deny any further liability.

The lower court, giving reasons, awarded plaintiff compensation at the rate of $9.75 per week for 75⁄8 weeks, amounting to $69.61, and rejected the balance of his demand. The plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff testifies that he was injured on the 14th of July, 1930, and that his injury produced in him a total disability from that time to about December, 1930, and that since then he has been partially disabled.

Four witnesses called by plaintiff corroborated him as to his disability, but the physician who treated plaintiff at the time of the injury testifies that on September 2, 1930, plaintiff was entirely cured and discharged from further treatment; that since then nothing prevented him returning to work, as far as the injury received from being burned with cement was concerned.

Another physician gave testimony corroborating that of the first physician. The plaintiff bared his foot in open court so that the court could look at what he claimed was still an existing injury resulting from his cement burns, and we have the benefit of the observations of the district judge on that subject.

The evidence in the case is conflicting, due to the testimoñy of the physicians and that of the plaintiff and the four witnesses called by him; but the observations of the district judge support the testimony of the physician, and our conclusion is that the evidence will not justify us in interfering with the judgment of the lower court. We are satisfied that the judgment appealed from is correct.

Judgment affirmed; defendánt and appel-lee to pay the cost in the lower court; plaintiff and appellant the cost of appeal.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      The Travelers Indemnity Company
Address:   One Tower Square
           Hartford, Connecticut 06183

Form 13F File Number:              28-4686

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Firoz Tarapore
Title:     Deputy Treasurer
Phone:     (212) 793-8090

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Firoz Tarapore        New York, New York        November 12, 1999
------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-178075 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 14, 2022, relating to the financial statements and supplemental schedule of the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Tax-Qualified Savings Plan appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Cincinnati, Ohio


June 14, 2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sergio VARGAS-ESQUER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50654. D.C. No. CR-01-02819-GT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Sergio Vargas-Esquer appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release upon a finding that Vargas-Esquer had reentered the United States in violation of the conditions of his supervised release imposed following his 2001 conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Vargas-Esquer contends that the district court erred by revoking his supervised release because there was no evidence that Vargas-Esquer was ever given written notice of the conditions of his supervised release. This argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Ortega-Brito,*311 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.2002), which held that written notice was not required where a defendant had received actual notice of the conditions of his release. Here, the record indicates that during Vargas-Esquer’s sentencing hearing on September 26, 2001, the district court told VargasEsquer that his supervised release required that he never “again as long as you five, reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being properly and legally documented to do so, and have legal permission from the United States *684government.” (SER 58-9). Accordingly, the district court is

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.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending August 29, 
2008

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-0268.
    Date Filed: August 29, 2008.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Mail Vote 004/08 and 005/08.
Cargo Tariff Coordinating Conference.
Composite Meeting, (Memo 0618).
Intended effective date: 1 October 2008.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-21435 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 15 and 52

[FAC 2005-27; Item XIV;Docket FAR-2008-0007; Sequence 1]


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendment

AGENCIES:  Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document makes amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation in order to make editorial changes.

DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  The FAR Secretariat, Room 4041, GS 
Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4755, for information 
pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FAC 2005-27, 
Technical Amendment.



List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 15 and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: September 9, 2008
Al Matera,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

0
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 15 and 52 as set forth 
below:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 15 and 52 continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 15--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION


15.404-1  [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 15.404-1 by removing from paragraph (a)(7) ``http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contractpricing/index.htm'' and adding ``http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing _reference_guides.html 
''in its place.

PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


52.212-5  [Amended]

0
3. Amend section 52.212-5 by removing from paragraph (b)(26) the word 
``FAR''.
[FR Doc. E8-21368 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Renewal of Charter for the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory 
Committee

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services is hereby announcing renewal of the charter for the Chronic 
Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anand K. Parekh, Executive 
Secretary, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of 
Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 727H, 
Washington, DC 20201; (202) 401-7605.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002. 
The Committee was established to advise, consult with, and make 
recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, on a broad range of topics including (1) The current state of 
knowledge and research about the epidemiology and risk factors relating 
to chronic fatigue syndrome, and identifying potential opportunities in 
these areas; (2) current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods 
for chronic fatigue syndrome; and (3) development and implementation of 
programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the 
biomedical, academic, and research communities about chronic fatigue 
syndrome advances.
    Since CFSAC was established, renewal of the Committee charter has 
been carried out at the appropriate intervals as stipulated by FACA. 
The previous Committee charter was scheduled to expire on September 5, 
2008. On August 27, 2008, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
approved for the Committee charter to be renewed. Renewal of the CFSAC 
charter provides authorization for the Committee to operate until 
September 5, 2010. A copy of the Committee charter is available on the 
CFSAC Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs. A copy of the Committee 
charter also can be obtained by accessing the FACA database that is 
maintained by the Committee Management Secretariat under the General 
Services Administration. The Web site address for the FACA database is 
http://fido.gov/facadatabase.

    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Anand K. Parekh,
Executive Secretary, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E8-21516 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-42-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kari Stefansson, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report fairly present in all material respects,the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: November 13, 2003 | /s/ Kári Stefánsson         |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   Kári Stefánsson |
|                     |   Chief  Executive Officer  |

 

----
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


            1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                  Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                  covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan
                  Trust 2006-OA6 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                  taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a
                  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
                  make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
                  under which such statements were made, not misleading with
                  respect to the period covered by this report;

            3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
                  and other information required to be provided under Form
                  10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
                  the Exchange Act periodic reports;

            4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
                  the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                  review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                  statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                  Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                  periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                  obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                  respects; and

            5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with
                  servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
                  related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
                  servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
                  be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
                  Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
                  been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
                  otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
                  of noncompliance described in such reports have been
                  disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

      Date: March 27, 2007


                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                  -------------------------
                  Steve Bailey
                  Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CHAUNCEY FLOYD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:04-cr-01125-HFF-1; 7:06-cv-01084-HFF)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chauncey Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chauncey Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Floyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO MARTINEZ-PATRICIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-356, CA-02-101-1) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Martinez-Patricio, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Pedro Martinez-Patricio seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martinez-Patricio has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# EXHIBIT 15.1

Board of Trustees
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust:

Re: Registration  Statements No.  333-68591(Form  S-3).

With respect to the subject  registration  statement,  we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated  April 26,  2002,  except as to Note 9, which is as of May 1, 2002,  related to our review of interim  financial
information.

Pursuant  to Rule 436 under the  Securities  Act of 1933  (the  "Act"),  such  report is not  considered  a part of a
registration  statement  prepared or certified by an accountant,  or a report  prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Chicago, Illinois
May 13, 2002