alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 72-1134.

#### Reibert et al. *v.*Atlantic Richfield Co. et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
#### Virginia MCCANN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

No. 02-3378.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Derek Baker

V .

U .S . Social SecuritV Administration,

Commissioner

No . 06-fp-17 9

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-179-SM .

SO ORDERED .

ame R. Muirhead

nl ed States Magistrate Judg e

Date : May 15, 200 6

cc : Raymond J . Kelly, Esq .

Case 1:06-cv-00179-SM Document 3 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1550 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1550

    To change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar year 
   taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

   Mr. Bartlett of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar year 
   taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.

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

SECTION 1. DEADLINE FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 
              TAXPAYERS CHANGED FROM APRIL 15TH TO FIRST MONDAY OF 
              NOVEMBER.

    (a) In General.--Section 6072 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to time for filing income tax returns) is amended in 
subsection (a) by striking ``15th day of April'' and inserting ``first 
Monday in November''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
#### CORMIER v. GRIMMETT & JANES et al.

No. 3181.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1950.

Waldo H. Dugas, Lafayette, Kaliste J. Saloom, Jr., Lafayette, for appellant.

Maurice T. Mouton, Lafayette, for ap-pellees.

JONES, Judge ad Hoc.

This is a suit for damages, which it is alleged resulted from an unlawful trespass by the defendant on the plaintiff’s real property during the construction of a parish-wide drainage project. The defense to the suit is that whatever entry was made on the property of the plaintiff by these defendants was done so by them as representatives and agents of the Department of Public Works of the State of Louisiana, and pursuant to the direction and authority of said agency. From a judgment dismissing said suit the plaintiff has appealed.

The material facts and issues in this cause are the same as those presented in the case of Chargois v. Grimmett & James et al., which was decided by this court on the 30th day of June, 1948 — a rehearing having been denied on August 9, 1948. This case is reported in 36 So.2d 390.

 Just as in the Chargois case, the defendants here are representatives and agents of the state and they cannot be sued ex delicto for damages while carrying out a governmental function, unless it is shown that said agents were guilty of negligence. It is neither alleged nor proved that the defendants were guilty of negligence and, since here the defendants stand in the same relative position as the State, or the Department of Public Works thereof, they cannot be held liable for trespass because they are granted the same immunity as is applicable to the State. The record is bare of any negligence by these defendants in connection with the work and, accordingly, they cannot be held liable herein for the reason that they were prosecuting a governmental function for a governmental *374agency. See Dupont v. Thibodo, La.App., 5 So.2d 383.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.
EXHIBIT  11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                  RALSTON PURINA COMPANY
                            COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                           (IN MILLIONS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     MARCH 31,
                                                     ---------


                                                                1997     1996
                                                               -------  -------         




Earnings Per Common Share Outstanding
<S>                                                            <C>      <C>      <C>    <C>


Net earnings                                                   $214.1   $187.6 
Dividend on Series A ESOP convertible
  preferred stock, net of taxes                                  (6.7)    (7.2)
Earnings available to common shareholders                      $207.4   $180.4 
                                                               =======  =======          

Weighted average shares - primary
  earnings per share calculation                                101.9        *   101.8  *
                                                               =======           =====   

Earnings per common share outstanding                          $ 2.04   $ 1.77 
                                                               =======  =======          


EARNINGS PER SHARE ASSUMING FULL DILUTION

Net earnings                                                   $214.1   $187.6 
Adjustments to net earnings to reflect assumed
  ESOP preferred stock conversion                                (1.5)    (2.2)
Net earnings for fully diluted earnings per share calculation  $212.6   $185.4 
                                                               =======  =======          

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            101.9        *   101.8  *
Convertible preferred stock                                       6.6      6.9 
Dilutive effect of stock options                                  2.0      1.8 
Dilutive effect of deferred compensation awards                   0.4      0.3 
                                                               -------  -------          
Weighted average shares - fully diluted earnings
  per share calculation                                         110.9    110.8 
                                                               =======  =======          

Earnings per share assuming full dilution                      $ 1.92   $ 1.67 
                                                               =======  =======          

</TABLE>




*   Excludes 4,275,000 and 4,173,000 shares held in Grantor Trust at March 31,
1997  and
     1996,  respectively.
#### CIOLINA v. PATTON.

No. 14467.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 12, 1933.

Joseph Rosenberg, of New Orleans, for appellant.

S. C. Hartel, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

This case grows out of an automobile collision at the corner of Franklin avenue and North Galvez street. At that point Franklin avenue is sometimes known as Almonaster avenue.

Plaintiff was driving his Chevrolet sedan on Franklin avenue going in the direction of Lake Pontchartrain, and defendant was driving his truck down North Galvez street. Just as the truck of defendant emerged from the neutral ground of Franklin avenue into the lower roadway the collision occurred.

Plaintiff obtained judgment in the lower court for $75 and, maintaining that the amount of the judgment should have been $120, has answered the appeal taken by defendant.

In the court below, defendant, by reeonven-tional demand, asserted that the cause of the accident was the negligence of plaintiff himself and sought reimbursement for damages caused to his truck.

It is well established that, while defendant was crossing Franklin avenue, on reaching the neutral ground, he did not stop his truck, and it necessarily follows that he was not entitled to the right of way across the lower side of Franklin avenue. He was, therefore, at fault in proceeding without affording plaintiff an opportunity to pass.

Plaintiff, who was driving along Franklin avenue, was justified in assuming that defendant would stop on the neutral ground, and there was no duty in him to stop his car and to afford defendant the right of way, since defendant did not do what he was required to do by law, that is, stop his automobile on the neutral ground, sound his horn, and afford plaintiff an opportunity to stop.

We feel, as did our brother below, that the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of defendant to stop his car before emerging into the roadway on the lower side of Franklin avenue.

 The amount awarded cannot be increased. The automobile of plaintiff had cost him only $75 about a year before, and it is difficult for us to believe that the damage caused it could have been as great as he contends it was.. There is no doubt that under the jurisprudence of this state he would not be limited in his recovery to the amount which he had previously paid for the car, Bianchi v. Mussachi, 1 La. App. 291; Croft v. Southern Hardwood Lumber Co., 7 La. App. 274; Baudine v. Teche Transfer Co., 15 La. App. 90, 130 So. 60; E. B. Norman & Co. v. Mulhearn, 18 La. App. 253, 138 So. 211, but a careful review of the evidence leaves us convinced that the estimates upon which plaintiff relies are somewhat in excess of what would .actually h^we been necessary to put the car into the condition in which it was prior to the accident, and we therefore feel that the ends of justice will be best served by an affirmance of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22175]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11411]


Florida Disaster Number FL-00036

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida 
(FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/24/2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 through 09/12/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/12/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/23/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Florida, dated 08/24/2008, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 08/18/2008 and continuing through 
09/12/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22175 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Henry Earl DUNLAP, Appellant, v. E. B. SWOPE, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, McNeil Island, Wash., Appellee.

No. 8668.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1938.

Henry Earl Dunlap, in pro. per.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and Gerald Shucklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs herein, and.after oral argument on behalf of appellee, ordered order of District Court affirmed, that a decree be filed and entered accordingly; mandate to issue as provided in rule 32.
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|                    |  |                                                                   
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2006 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21732]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


September 15, 2008 Public Hearing

    OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction 
with each Board meeting was published in the Federal Register (Volume 
73, Number 173, Page 51861) on September 5, 2008. No requests were 
received to provide testimony or submit written statements for the 
record; therefore, OPIC's public hearing scheduled for 2 p.m., 
September 15, 2008 in conjunction with OPIC's September 18, 2008 Board 
of Directors meeting has been cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the hearing 
cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, 
via facsimile at (202) 218-0136, or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c0f23222225296208233b223f0c233c252f622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14577b7a7a7d713a507b637a67547b647d773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 12, 2008.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21732 Filed 9-12-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### J. O. MUTCH, Whose First Name Is Unknown, and Will C. Mee, Appellants, v. Charles W. SEIGNIOUS, Jr., and Cleola Eunice Seignious, His Wife, Appellees.

No. 7949.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1938.

Weadock & Weadock, of Saginaw, Mich., and Clausen, Hirsh & Miller, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

Clark & Henry, of Bay City, Mich., for appellees.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that a motion to docket and dismiss appeal has been filed, accompanied by certificate of the clerk of the District Court as provided by rule 18, and it further appearing that appellants have failed to file the record or docket the case by or before the return day, and that there has been no extension of time therefor, on consideration whereof, it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is, docketed and dismissed.

Appeal docketed and dismissed.
#### William M. ODOM v. The PEOPLE’S GIN COMPANY, Incorporated, et al.

No. 4106.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 14, 1932.

Harvey G. Fields, of Farmerville, for appellant.

J. W. Elder, of Ruston, for'appellees.

mcgregor, j.

This is a case involving the liability of a warehouseman for the loss of cotton by fire. There was judgment in the lower court in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed devolutively. The court found from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence in not providing sufficient safeguards and protection for the cotton stored with him. This is purely a question of fact. Counsel for appellant has not appeared before us, nor has he favored us with a brief sup-' porting the appeal. Under the circumstances, and in accordance with our custom, we are justified in presuming that the appeal has been abandoned. Furthermore, after a careful reading of the record in the case, we find no manifest error in the judgment appealed from, and it is therefore affirmed, with all costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-10-148-CV

IN RE JAMES CARLEY AND	RELATORS

AAA TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY

AS SUBROGEE FOR JAMES CARLEY

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the response of the real party in interest, and relators’ reply and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 18, 2010
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 Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review R13s, F31s, R03.                    

*Date:*                         October 15, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn, El Tropicano Riverwalk, 110 Lexington Avenue, San Antonio, TX 78205.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-594-4809,                         *mary_kelly@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 4, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-21037 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 05, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 05, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A2110. BARBARA SMITH MCBRIDE v. ENCORE HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a DOUBLETREE SUITE BY HILTON.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Appointing the day for the convening of the second session of the One 
                       Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED 
              SEVENTH CONGRESS.

    The second regular session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress 
shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January 23, 2002.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CALLING SPECIAL SESSION BEFORE CONVENING OF 
              SECOND REGULAR SESSION.

    If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority 
Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the 
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader 
of the Senate, determine that it is in the public interest for Congress 
to assemble before the convening of the second regular session of the 
One Hundred Seventh Congress as provided in section 1--
            (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall notify the 
        Members of the House and Senate, respectively, of such 
        determination and of the place and time for Congress to so 
        assemble; and
            (2) Congress shall assemble in accordance with such 
        notification.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Appointing the day for the convening of the second session of the One 
                       Hundred Seventh Congress.
```