alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rowand *v.*Germantown Trust Co., Appellant.

*Negligence*— *Automobiles*— *Pedestrian*— Collision — *Act of chauffeur*— Respondeat *superior.*

In an action ’to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a pedestrian, by reason of the sudden starting of the automobile of the defendant’s decedent, the case is for the jury where it appears that the starting of the car was due to the negligent and improper operation of it by a person who had volunteered to drive it to a garage after the owner had been arrested, and there was testimony that the defendant’s decedent had placed such person in charge of his car and described him as an experienced chauffeur.

Argued Feb. 3, 1915.

Appeal, No. 109, Jan. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1910, No. 5595, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Annie Rowand v. Germantown Trust Company, Executor of the Will of James P. Fleming, deceased.

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

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Willson, P. J.

*342March 1, 1915:

From the record it appeared that defendant’s decedent had been arrested on Broad street, Philadelphia, for the careless driving of his automobile, that while he was in custody another person named Maxwell, came up, stated to the officer that he knew defendant’s decedent, that he knew how to handle the car and that he would take it to the garage. The officer, who did not know him, asked defendant’s decedent if this was correct and whether he knew the man and would let him take charge of the machine, to which he replied in the affirmative. Maxwell then went into the street and started to crank the car; while he was so engaged, the car started, knocking him down, and the hub of one of the wheels caught in the plaintiff’s dress and she was thrown to the ground, receiving the injuries complained of.

Verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing defendant’s motion for binding instructions.

*Alfred D. Wiler,*for appellant,

cited: Lingle v. Scranton Ry. Co. 214 Pa. 500; Citizens Pass. Ry. Co. v. Ketcham, 122 Pa. 228; McColligan v. Penna. R. R. Co., 214 Pa. 229; Hartfield v. Roper & Newell, 21 Wend. 615.

*Thomas James Meagher,*for appellee:

Wallaston v. Park, 47 Pa. Superior Ct. 90.

Per Curiam,

The question of the liability of the estate of James P. Fleming for the injuries sustained by the appellee depends upon whether Maxwell was a mere interloper when he took charge of the automobile of the decedent or had been put in charge of it by the latter. This was a pure question of fact for the jury, and, as there was testimony that Fleming had placed him in charge of his *343car, describing him to a bystander as an experienced chauffeur, the verdict was justified.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSBof United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Barb Bontrager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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 Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Barb Bontrager                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barb Bontrager                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer           |
|   | Dated:   March 17, 2005 |

 

----
"Date","Total","Federal","Nonfederal Total","Nonfederal Households","Nonfederal Business","Nonfederal State and local govts"
"1998",6.7,7.8,11.8,6.3,-1.4,
"1999",6.3,8.3,10.5,3.4,-1.9,
"2000",4.9,9.1,9.0,1.3,-8.0,
"2001",6.3,9.6,5.7,8.8,-0.2,
"2002",7.3,10.9,2.4,11.0,7.6,
"","","","","","",""
"2003",8.1,11.5,2.5,8.3,10.9,
"2004",8.8,11.2,5.8,7.4,9.0,
"2005",9.2,11.1,7.7,10.2,7.0,
"2006",8.7,10.2,9.6,8.2,3.9,
"2007",8.1,6.8,11.6,9.2,4.9,
"","","","","","",""
"2006Q1",10.2,11.5,10.6,5.5,8.0,
"2006Q2",8.4,11.4,8.5,7.3,1.0,
"2006Q3",7.2,8.8,6.8,7.7,3.6,
"2006Q4",8.1,7.4,11.3,11.2,2.8,
"","","","","","",""
"2007Q1",7.9,6.8,9.5,11.2,6.7,
"2007Q2",7.1,7.2,10.9,10.3,-1.4,
"2007Q3",8.8,6.8,12.0,6.5,8.8,
"2007Q4",7.7,5.6,12.0,7.6,5.1,
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**ALTERA CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of Altera Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2008, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Timothy R. Morse, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Date: August 04, 2008

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altera Corporation and will be retained byAltera Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.111 Foreign Banking Offices in U.S.1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### SCHWARTZ v. MARCUS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61852-61853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-33-000]


Barton Windpower II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 10, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Barton Windpower II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 30, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the

[[Page 61853]]

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the 
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266063746569484a4f484375535656495452664043544508414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="084e4d5a4b47666461666d5b7d7878677a7c486e6d7a6b266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-24663 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Senior United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), the Chief Judge certified the existence of a judicialemergency necessitating the designation of a panel consisting of fewer than two members of the Court of Appeals.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-4017

___________ United States, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the Northern James Edward Clay, * District of Iowa * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: May 15, 2001 Filed: June 19, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, BOGUE, 1 and MAGNUSON, 2 District Judges. 3

___________ PER CURIAM.-2-

James Edward Clay appeals his convictions for the transportation of stolen vehicles, sale or receipt of stolen vehicles as well as conspiracy to commit the same. Clay argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Further, he asserts the trial court erred when it did not declare a mistrial after an improper question by the prosecution and commentary by the court. This Court has scrutinized the record thoroughly and has determined that Clay’s arguments are without merit. There was clearly sufficient evidence to support the verdict and the trial court properly gave a curative instruction after the improper questionby government counsel. Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further commentary is necessary. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
218 La. 236

#### STATE v. PEARSON.

No. 39954.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 6, 1950.

*909Harvey G. Fields, Farmerville, for appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ragan D. Madden, Dist. Atty., Ruston, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice;

The defendant was charged with ‘‘unlawfully keeping for sale for beverage purposes intoxicating liquors, where the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited by Union Parish Police Jury Ordinance.” On trial-he was convicted and sentenced by the lower court to serve a term of six months in jail and pay a fine of $300.00 and costs, in default of payment of fine and costs to serve an additional four months in jail. He has appealed.

We are presented on this appeal with three bills of exceptions. Bill of exception No. 1 is based on the ground that the evidence as a whole shows an absence of guilt. It does not appear that this appeal has been seriously urged because no brief was filed and no appearance was made by counsel for the defendant at the argument. The trial court in its per' curiam points out the circumstances, the adroit concealment of the whiskey which was. contained in half pint bottles arid the failure of the defendant to disclose the possession of the whiskey. He also points out the defendant admitted on cross-examination that he had previously been convicted of trafficking in intoxicating liquors in that parish. The whiskey was hidden in secret compartments of the living quarters and the attic of his house. The record contains evidence of guilt. .This court will not pass on the sufficiency of the evidence.

In bill of exception No. 2 it is urged that the police jury ordinance is null, void and unconstitutional because it was - not signed at the time of its passage by the president and secretary of the police jury. This question is identical to the one presented in the case of State v. Thurston, 210 La., 797, 28 So.2d 274, wherein this Court stated .that the failure of the president to sign the ordinance did not effect its validity.

Bill of exception No. 3 was reserved, to the overruling of a motion for a new trial based on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence and the grounds set forth in bill of exceptions No. 2 and 3. An allegation that a verdict is contrary to law and evidence presents nothing for review. We have passed on the other questions raised in the motion.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

HAWTHORNE, J., concurs in the decree.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11430 and #11431]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

      ( print page 60393)    

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated 09/13/2008.

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Ike.                    

*Incident Period:*                         09/07/2008 and continuing through 10/02/2008.                    

*Effective Date:*                         10/03/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/12/2008.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/15/2009.                    

# 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 the State of Texas, dated 09/13/2008 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/07/2008 and continuing through 10/02/2008.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-24106 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.115 Credit Unions** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4829 VERA VERONICA ELLIOTT, a/k/a B.B., a/k/a Sealed Deft. 5, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-98-37) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David H. Rogers, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Vera Veronica Elliott appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 846 (West Supp. 1999). Elliott's only claim on appeal is that she received ineffective assistance of c ounsel. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, such a claim must be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), to allow for adequate development of the record. See United States v. Hoyle , 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). A claim may be brought, however, when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. See King , 119 F.3d at 295. The review of the record in this appeal does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm Elliot's conviction and sentence. 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.
AFFIRMED
2
#### Carlo BURNS and Kentucky Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellants, v. YOUNG & HUBBARD LUMBER COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 3, 1971.

William R. Forester, Greene & Forester, Harlan, for appellants.

William A. Rice, Gayle G. Huff, Rice & Huff, Harlan, for appellee.

NEIKIRK, Judge.

Carlo Burns was seriously injured while felling a tree. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that Burns was totally and permanently disabled and that he was injured while working as an employee of the Young & Hubbard Lumber Company. On appeal, the Perry Circuit Court found that Burns was not an employee of the Young & Hubbard Lumber Company, and entered judgment setting aside the opinion and award of the Board. Burns appeals. We reverse.

The Young & Hubbard Lumber Company was engaged in the general business of buying logs, processing, and selling lumber. Rema Huff had worked for the company about ten years. He was co-owner with Mack Young, an officer of the company, of the boundary of timber where Burns was injured. Huff claimed to be an independent contractor. He had employed Aubrey Turner to cut and log the timber at the site where Burns was hurt. Turner had worked for no other employer for about seven years. Turner had also claimed to be an independent contractor. No written agreements or contracts had been made establishing the relationships of the respective parties. The company contends that by virtue of these relationships and other factors developed in the evidence, Burns was not one of its employees.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board, in determining the employer-employee relationship, concluded that the facts, when examined under the guidelines as set forth in Ratliff v. Redmon, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 320, supported a finding that Burns at the time he sustained his injury was an employee of Young & Hubbard Lumber Company. We do not consider it essential to this opinion to relate the details of the evidence. Suffice it to say that some of the facts developed favor the lumber company and others favor Burns. The question of the exact status of Burns as an employee of the lumber company or as an employee of an independent contractor is close. We have examined the record and we are convinced that the circumstances presented are sufficient to support the Board’s factual finding that the lumber company was, for workmen’s compensation purposes, the employer of Burns. We conclude that the evidence in favor of the lumber company is not so clear-cut and convincing as would require us to find that the Board acted er*70roneously as a matter of law. Smith v. Perry, Ky., 411 S.W.2d 903.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter a judgment affirming the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
   BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF HEALTHY PLANET PRODUCTS, INC.
   SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
   SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
   10-QSB REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000768260
<NAME> HEALTHY PLANET PRODUCTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                        172437
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1946628
<ALLOWANCES>                                  157780
<INVENTORY>                                   595623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2621048
<PP&E>                                       2037165
<DEPRECIATION>                               1467003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3882741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1577398
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                     3134
<COMMON>                                       38406
<OTHER-SE>                                   2177575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3882741
<SALES>                                      3793782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3817129
<CGS>                                        1806367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4227068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (419976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (420776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (420776)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.11)





</TABLE>