alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helen E. Town v. Lucius H. Armstrong.

*Negligence*— Landlord *and tenant*— Failure *to repair*— Contributory *negAgence.*

*A*tenant who, with full knowledge of the dangerous condition of a stairway, which she had not used for over a year, voluntarily attempts to use it for a trivial purpose, cannot recover damages for the injuries sustained, nor will the-landlord’s failure to keep his promise to repair it warrant such recovery.

Error to Wayne. (Case tried before Judge Chipman, of the superior court, and bill of exceptions settled by Judge Hosmer, of the Wayne circuit court.)

Argued June 19, 1889.

Decided June 28, 1889.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Larned & Larned (Reuben Emery,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cutcheon, Crane &*Stellwagen, for defendant.

Morse, J.

This is an action of trespass on the case, for *581damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff as tenant of defendant, and through his negligence.

On the twenty-fourth day of May, 1886, the plaintiff, who was occupying with her husband a building at 138 Grand River avenue, in the city of Detroit, belonging to defendant,. was in the cellar-way of the building, looking at some canned fruit. She stood on a chair, and reached up to take down a can. In doing so, she dropped the cover of a can into the cellar. She got down off the chair, and attempted to go down into the cellar after the cover, when the stairs gave way, and she fell into the cellar, breaking her ankle, and otherwise injuring herself.

Some serious questions are raised whether she could recover from the defendant in any event, considering the circumstances of her tenancy, but under our view of the case it is not necessary to examine them.

At the close of the testimony, the judge of the superior court of Detroit very properly, as we think, directed a verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiff, from her own showing, was negligent, and grossly so, and cannot therefore recover. She had lived in this building for thirteen years, and was fully acquainted with the condition of the stairway, — knew that it was “ rotten and rickety,” — and had not gone down the stairway in over a year. The fact that Armstrong had promised to repair these stairs, and failed to do so, cannot aid her. Her fault was. responsible for the accident as well as his, if not more so.

There can be found in the record no excuse which will justify a recovery under the circumstances of her own action. She voluntarily went into a dangerous place, fully aware of the risk she was taking, and using great care in going down the stairs, because she knew that they were unsafe. She took this risk for a can cover. She did not go down to avoid *582a sudden peril, or to prevent great loss or damage. She went for a trifle.

The judgment of the superior court must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
[No. 6472.

Decided December 12, 1906.]

#### Mary E. Hoeschler *et al., Appellants,*v. Frank H. Bascom *et al., Respondents.**1*

Appeal — Record—Exceptions. Where no exceptions are taken to findings of fact in an equitable action, and the findings support the conclusions and the judgment, the findings cannot he reviewed, and the statement of facts will he struck out on motion and. the judgment affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Hun eke, J., entered July *26,*1906, upon find*674ings in *favor of*the defendants, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

Affirmed.

*Belden & Losey,*for appellants.

*Merritt, Oswald*& *Merritt*and *William E. Richardson,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 87 Pac. 943.

Per. Curiam.

This is an action for the reformation of a deed, for the eviction of the defendants from certain lots, for the restitution of said lots to the plaintiffs, and for the quieting of title of said lots in plaintiffs. The cause was tried by the court, and facts were found and conclusions of law made in favor of defendants, and judgment' was rendered against the plaintiffs for costs.

Motion is made to strike the statement of facts and to affirm the judgment, for the reason that no exceptions were taken to any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law made by the trial court. It is not contended that all the findings of the court were erroneous; some of them were admitted by the pleadings, and some were stipulated to be correct. The record shows that no exceptions were taken, and it is the settled law of this state that, where no exceptions are taken to findings of fact, said findings are not subject to review by the appellate court, but they will be considered admitted facts. There was some contention made by the appellants in oral argument, that some of the conclusions of law were not justified by the facts found. But an investigation of the record convinces us that the conclusions of law and the judgment entered were amply justified by the facts found.

The motion will be sustained and the judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53013-53014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21524]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Fiscal Year 2011 Tariff-rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane 
Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar, and Sugar-containing Products; 
Revision

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; revision.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)

[[Page 53014]]

published a notice in the Federal Register of August 17, 2010 
concerning Fiscal Year 2011 tariff-rate quota allocations of raw cane 
sugar, refined and special sugar, and sugar-containing products. USTR 
is revising the effective date of that notice to September 1, 2010 from 
October 1, 2010.

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Leslie O'Connor, 
Director of Agricultural Affairs, Office of Agricultural Affairs, 
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie O'Connor, Office of 
Agricultural Affairs, telephone: 202-395-6127 or facsimile: 202-395-
4579.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 19, 2010, the Secretary of 
Agriculture announced that sugar entering the United States under the 
Fiscal Year 2011 raw sugar tariff-rate quota will be permitted to enter 
the U.S. Customs Territory beginning September 1, 2010, a month earlier 
than the beginning of Fiscal Year 2011 on October 1, 2010. Accordingly, 
USTR is revising the effective date of its notice of allocation to 
accommodate the Secretary's announcement. All other information 
contained in the August 17, 2010 USTR notice remains unchanged and will 
not be repeated in this notice.

Ronald Kirk,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2010-21524 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W0-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Natco International Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

      Dated: August 12, 2008

                                                      /s/ Raj-Mohinder S. Gurm
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Raj-Mohinder S. Gurm
                                               Chief Executive Officer and CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          34,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,404
<INVENTORY>                                    162,263
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,251
<PP&E>                                         240,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 652,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          194,218
<BONDS>                                        292,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   652,694
<SALES>                                        767,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               767,380
<CGS>                                          261,256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  722,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,183)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Delegation of Authority 332]

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including the authority of section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the certification authorities under 46 U.S.C. 70502(c)(2) & (d)(2), and 18 U.S.C. 2237(d) .

Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources may exercise any function or authority covered by this delegation.

As used in this delegation of authority, the word “function” includes any duty, obligation, power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, discretion, or activity. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure shall be deemed to be a reference to such act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.

Delegation of Authority Number 316 of September 2, 2008, is hereby superseded.

                    This Delegation of Authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: August 6, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-21855 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-17-P
[No. 6463.

Decided December 10, 1906.]

#### F. K. Hiscock, *Respondent,*v. Grays Harbor Boom Company, *Appellant.*
      *1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Chapman, J., entered May 19, 1906.

.Affirmed.

*J. B. Bridges*and *Ben Sheelcs,*for appellant.

*Bogle, Hardin*cG *Spooner,*for respondent.

Reported in 87 Pac. 943.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons assigned in the case of *Burrows v. Grays Harbor Boom Co., ante*p. 630, 87 Pac. 937, the judgment in this case will be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 16, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on March 24, 2010, (75 FR 14189), Rhodes Technologies, 498 
Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668)......................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for conversion and sale to dosage form manufacturers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Rhodes Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance 
with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as 
a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-21782 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PROVIDENT AMERICAN CORPORATION                                                                                           EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

(In thousands except per share data)                                                       Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                                            1997                1996
<S>                                                                                          <C>                 <C>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                                    $   778         $     14,978
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:
   Common stock                                                                            10,064                9,113
   Common stock equivalents applicable to stock options and warrants                        1,523                1,517
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                                                11,587               10,630
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================
NET INCOME PER SHARE:                                                                     $  0.07         $       1.41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================



Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                                    $   778         $     14,978
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:
   Common stock                                                                            10,064                9,113
   Common stock equivalents applicable to stock options and warrants                        1,523                1,517
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                                                11,587               10,630
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================
NET INCOME PER SHARE:                                                                     $  0.07         $       1.41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1718
SARADINDU MAHAPATRA; ALOK KUMAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus R. BRADBURN, Baltimore County Police; G. DARRELL RUSSELL, Baltimore County District Court Judge, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 1168-L) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saradindu Mahapatra, Alok Kumar, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on their claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and deny Appellants' motion for a jury trial. Mahapatra v. Bradburn , No. CA96-1168-L (D. Md. May 1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00108

- CR

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS

V

.

M ATTHEW D ALE P UGH

, A ppellee §

§

§

§

§ O n Appe al from County Criminal

Court No. 10

of Tarrant County ( A3236651 )

June 2, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief

Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismisse d. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
EXHIBIT 31.a

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Black Gardenia Corp. (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Amy Ng,Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

| Date: February 28, 2006 | /s/ Amy Ng

_______________________   Amy Ng   Acting Chief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### GLENN-ROBINSON v. ACKER

No. 16P01

Case below. 140 N.C. App. 606

Motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 April 2001. Petition by defendant (Acker) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 2001.