alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Blew, Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

*Negligence*— Street *railways*— passenger—Presumption—Evidence.

Where an injury to a passenger on a street railway car does not result from a defect in the means or appliances of transportation, but from a collision between the side of the car while it is on its own track, and a cart or wagon not under the control or management of the street railway company, no presumption of negligence arises in favor of the passenger as against the street railway company.

Argued Jan. 21, 1910.

Appeal, No. 259,

Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 3,696, on verdict for defendant in case of Robert M. Blew and Christiana K. Blew, his wife, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ferguson, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for defendant; plaintiffs appealed.

*320
      *Errors assigned*were various instructions.

*Joseph Hill Brinton*and *John McClintock, Jr.,*with them *A. Florence Yerger,*for appellant.

*Thomas Learning,*with him *Owen J. Roberts,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

February 21, 1910:

The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s cars running north on Eighth street. She was seated on the east side near the middle of the car on a longitudinal seat with her back to a window. A large ash cart was east of the track and near it. She testified that the car in passing the cart scraped against it, and the wheel of the cart broke through the window and struck her back and she was thrown to the floor. Her testimony was uncorroborated and was in direct conflict with her written statement made two days after the accident, except as to the breaking of the window. Six witnesses for the defendant, four of whom were passengers, testified that the car was standing still when the driver of the cart turned his horses to the east bn a cross street and, as his wagon swung around, the projecting end of the tailboard broke the glass; that no other part of the car was touched by the cart; that no passenger was thrown to the floor or injured in any way. The issue of fact raised was submitted to the jury by a charge that was accurate, full and entirely just to both parties.

No useful purpose would be served by reviewing in detail the numerous assignments of error. The learned trial judge was clearly right in charging that no presumption of negligence arose from the fact that the plaintiff was injured while a passenger. The accident did not result from a defect in the means or appliances of transportation, but from a collision between the side of the car while it was on its track and an object not under the control or management of the defendant, as in Railway Co. v. Gibson, 96 Pa. 83. The request for charge was properly refused because of fatal defects in asking for peremptory instructions in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Blanche Mae COX, Appellant, v. Roy F. BADEN, Individually and as Sheriff of Manatee County, Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Jan. 28, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Veterans Affairs

      ( print page 57732)    
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War has scheduled a meeting for October 27-29, 2008, in Jackson, Mississippi. On October 27-28, the meeting will be held at the Sonny Montgomery Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1500 E. Woodrow Wilson Drive. On October 29, it will be held at the Hilton-Jackson Hotel, 1001 E. County Line Road. The meeting will be held each day from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. 

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation. 

The meeting will begin with remarks from dignitaries, a review of committee reports, and an update of activities since the last meeting. A town hall meeting will be held on October 27 at 1:30 p.m. On October 28, the Committee will hear presentations from representatives of the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoner of War Studies and the VA Employee Education System. The day will conclude with new business and general discussion. On October 29, the Committee's medical and administrative work groups will meet to discuss their activities and then will report back to the Committee in the afternoon. Additionally, the Committee will review comments discussed throughout the meeting to compile a report to be sent to the Secretary. 

Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Submitted materials must be received by October 15, 2008.

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

By Direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-23441 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 10 filed 08/16/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Marion Miller et al., Appellants, v Jim Duffy et al., Respondents.

[744 NYS2d 900]

Motion by the appellants for re-argument of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which was determined by decision and order of this Court, dated June 11, 2001, and cross motion by the respondents for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers submitted in opposition thereto, it is

*445Ordered that the cross motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court, dated June 11, 2001 *(see Miller v Duffy,*284 AD2d 380) is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

In an action for specific performance of an option to purchase a cooperative apartment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which denied that branch of their motion which was to restore the action, and, in effect, denied those branches of their motion which were for disclosure and to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

After the plaintiffs failed to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, the action was marked “off” and purportedly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. However, for the reasons stated in *Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.*(282 AD2d 190), CPLR 3404 was not applicable because the case was not on the trial calendar. Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion to “restore” should have been granted.

The matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination on the merits of the remainder of the plaintiffs’ motion, which was, in effect, denied as academic. Ritter, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1117 KA 11-00253** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARL F. NELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered November 23, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the jury with respect to the voluntariness of defendant’s statements to the police. We reject that contention. “A court is required to provide a charge regarding the voluntariness of defendant’s statements only if defendant raises that issue, and ‘evidence sufficient to raisea factual dispute [is] adduced either by direct or crossexamination’ ” ( People v Nathan , 108 AD3d 1077, 1078, lv denied 23 NY3d 966, quoting People v Cefaro , 23 NY2d 283, 288-289). Here, defendant did not submit any evidence presenting a genuine issue of fact concerning the voluntariness of his statements, and we therefore conclude that the court was not required to instruct the jury on that issue ( see People v Canfield , 111 AD3d 1396, 1396, lv denied 22 NY3d 1087; Nathan , 108 AD3d at 1078).

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of World HeartCorporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, Morgan R. Brown, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 thatto his knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of June 30,2010.

 
| Dated:  August 11 , 2010 | /s/  Morgan  R. Brown                                         |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Morgan  R. Brown, Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)                           |

 

“Thiscertification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Corporation under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whethermade before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.”

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan SERVIN-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50245.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

*421Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Juan Servin-Luna appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Servin contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Servin maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Servin acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 21**

**SHUFFLEMASTER, INC.SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

| **Name of  Subsidiary**                                             | ** ** | ** **   | ** ** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
| Shuffle Master  International, Inc.                            |       | Nevada       |
| Shuffle Master Australia Pty  Ltd                                   |       | Australia    |
| Gaming Products Pty Ltd                                             |       | Australia    |
| VIP Gaming Solutions Pty  Limited                                   |       | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia  Holdings Pty Ltd                        |       | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia  Pty Ltd                                 |       | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Holding GMBH                                         |       | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master  Management-Services GMBH                            |       | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master GMBH                                                 |       | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Holding  GMBH & Co Financing Consulting-KEG |       | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master  GMBH & Co KG (dba CARD)                    |       | Austria      |
| Shuffle Up Productions                                              |       | Delaware     |
| CARD Casinos Austria  Research and Development Limited              |       | New  Zealand |
| CARD-Australasia Limited                                            |       | Macau        |
| Stargames Pty Ltd  (subsidiaries listed below)                      |       | Australia    |
| CARD Shuffle Master Investments (Proprietary)  Limited              |       | South Africa |

 

**Stargames Pty Ltd Subsidiaries**

| **Name of  Subsidiary**                     | ** ** | ** **  | ** ** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|-------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
| Stargames Group  Management Pty Limited     |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Holdings Pty  Limited             |       | Australia   |
| Professional Vending  Services Pty Limited  |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Australia Pty  Limited            |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Investments Pty  Limited          |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Corporation Pty  Limited          |       | Australia   |
| Precise Craft Pty Limited                   |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Property Pty  Limited             |       | Australia   |
| Australasian Gaming  Industries Pty Limited |       | Australia   |
| Advem Pty Limited                           |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Assets Pty Limited                |       | Australia   |
| Stargames Corporation (NZ) Pty Limited      |       | New Zealand |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Date: MARCH 25, 2013 

Courtroom Deputy: Julie Dynes FTR: BNB COURTROOM A-401 

 Parties Attorney(s) 

KATHERYN KIPLING Bradley A. Levin 

Thomas G. Tasker 

 Plaintiff(s) 

v. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

Franklin D. Patterson 

 Defendant(s) 

COURTROOM MINUTES 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Court in Session: 9:40 a.m. 

Appearance of counsel. 

Discussion held on [69] Unopposed Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery. 

ORDERED: [69] Unopposed Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery is 

GRANTED.

Proposed Pretrial Order reviewed. 

ORDERED: Parties agree to seat a jury of eight (8), with not less than six (6) deliberating. 

Four day jury trial confirmed for May 13, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. Parties allowed 20 

minutes each for voir dire. Parties to submit proposed jury instructions, 

verdict forms, and proposed voir dire on or before April 8, 2013. 

Status conference to discuss instructions set for May 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. 

Revised exhibit lists, with Bates numbers, due at the conference. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 72 Filed 03/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119

Discussion held on trial procedures. 

ORDERED: Reply to [66] Motion to Reconsider due by April 1, 2013. 

Discussion held on whether to inform the jury on insurance limits or not. Parties are to be 

prepared to discuss this again at the status conference on May 2, 2013. 

Pretrial Order was approved and filed. 

Court in Recess: 10:00 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 00:20 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 72 Filed 03/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

 11 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2008. 

# Place:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

 Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

Enforcement Matters. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Staff Assistant. 

 [FR Doc. E8-23418 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ugochukwu Ossai

v. Civil No. 08-cv-436-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The movant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence ordered by the court

in United States v. Ugochukwu Ossai, Criminal No. 05-14-01-JD. 

The court has reviewed the motion.

The court orders the United States Attorney to file an

answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, which

answer shall provide a detailed response, with appropriate

references to the record when necessary, to each claim asserted

by the movant.

In the event that the United States Attorney contends that

the motion is not timely filed under the limitations provided for

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or that it is a second or successive motion, 

a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response shall be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

Date: November 10, 2008

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Ugochukwu Ossai, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00436-JD Document 4 Filed 11/10/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

 

 

ORDER TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT

 

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Leave to Restrict

Document. Upon consideration and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that said Document, the United States’ Brief in Support of Motion

to Restrict Document, as well as any order revealing the contents of that document, are

hereby restricted until further order by the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that said Document and Order and Brief in Support of Motion to

Restrict Document shall be restricted to a “Level 2" and will be “Viewable by Selected

Parties & Court” only.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of _______, 2013.

 

THE HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CHIEF JUDGE

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 270-1 filed 04/29/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
No. 72-1132.

#### Jacobs, Administratrix *v.*Clarke-White.

Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.