alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steven and Melanie PETCHAK v. BOSSIER PARISH POLICE JURY.

No. 2011-C-0165.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Bossier Parish Police Jury; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 120,576; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,705-CA.

Denied.

*113VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.
#### Ricky D. FOX v. Billy Ray VICE, et al.

No. 2011-CC-1966.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 12, 2011.

In re Town of Vinton; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2005-005932; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-01093.

Stay Denied; Writ Denied.
#### Missouri Pacific R’y Co. v. W. P. Harmonson.

(No. 6216.)

Appeal from Denton County.

J. D. Ferguson, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 91. *Railroad companies; breach of contract to fur~ nish cars; damages.*Suit in justice’s court brought by appellee against the company to recover damages *for*failing to furnish cars to ship cattle as per agreement, damages claimed being $200. He recovered $100 in the justice court, and the company appealed to the county court, where appellee again recovered $100, and from this judgment the. company appeals to this court. Upon the trial the appellee was permitted, over objections, to prove an oral agreement between the agent of the company and himself by which the company agreed to furnish two cars at 10 o’clock, Thursday morning, August 9,1888, each costing $104. This agreement was made on Tuesday, August *7,*1888. The cars were not furnished. Counsel for appellant contends that the appellee’s suit was for the penalty denounced by the act of the twentieth legislature for failure to furnish freight cars after demand therefor in writing, etc., and hence no verbal demand would suffice. There is not the slightest *134intimation in this record that this suit was brought under the provisions of said act. This is a suit based upon a breach of contract, the amount sought to be recovered being the damages resulting from such breach. Appellant agreed to furnish cars for the transportation of beef cattle to Chicago at a certain time and place. Appellee drove his cattle at the time and to the place agreed upon, but the cars were not furnished as per agreement. Appellee, failing to get the cars, drove his cattle through the mud about ten miles to Justin, a station on the Santa Fe road, and shipped to Chicago by that route. The cattle were without food for twenty-four hours. This suit is to recover the damages resulting to the cattle from the above facts. There was no error in permitting proof of a verbal contract. Appellee propounded this question to the witness Peters: “State how much said cattle were damaged.” Counsel for appellant objected because it would elicit an opinion merely, and not facts. Objection was overruled, and the witness answered: “I can safely say that they were damaged $2 each head by travel and loss of feed.” Peters had been handling cattle for years; had shipped a great many himself; he knew the appellant’s cattle, and the road they traveled to Roanoke. He says they were badly “ drawn ” when shipped on the Santa Fe railroad. They had not eaten anything for twenty-four hours. He shows himself quite competent to give an opinion, if it be an opinion, as to the amount said cattle had been damaged. There was no error in regard to this matter. The decision in Railway Co. v. Reason, 61 Tex. 613, and cases thereunder, do not bear upon this question. The seventh, eighth and ninth assignments present the same question, which is, Does the act of the twentieth legislature, abrogate the common-law right to damages in such a case as this? Evidently it does not.

April 23, 1890.

Affirmed.
#### M & M GAMING, INC., et al. v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2010-CC-2395.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Lafayette Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 107-206; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1063.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.
#### Bruce L. SALITURI and Susan Salituri, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for HALO 2007-2 and HSBC Mortgage Company (USA), Appellees.

No. 4D10-1911.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

Garry W. Johnson and Bruce K. Herman of 511 Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Wm. David Newman, Jr., of Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for HALO 2007-2.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the Appellee’s concession of error, the order denying the motion to vacate final judgment and cancel certifi*339cate of title is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

*Reversed and Remanded.*

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.10

	
Amendment to Supplemental Executive Retirement Program





AMENDMENT
TO SUPPLEMENTAL

EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PROGRAM (the “SERP”)


          On
December
15, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Corporation approved the following
amendment to the
SERP:


          (i)           
The last sentence of Section 4.1(b) of the SERP was amended by the insertion of
a period after the word “thereafter” and the deletion of the language in
parentheses (“or such later date as the affected Participant may consent in
writing”).


          (ii)          
Article III (“Unfunded Plan A”) and all references thereto were deleted. 


          (iii)          The
following paragraph “d” was added to Article V, Section 5.1, of the SERP:


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
“(d) Any income tax withholdings paid by the Bank on behalf
of a
 Participant as a result of contributions to the SERP shall be paid at the
 time the contributions are made. In addition, any income tax withholdings
 paid by the Bank on behalf of a Participant as a result of payments made to
 the Participant to reimburse the Participant for the applicable income taxes
 on Trust earnings shall be paid at the time the reimbursement is made.





18
News United States Air Force
 Rice nominated to become next Air National Guard directorPublished April 11, 2016
                        
                        By DOD News sources
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced April 5 that President Barack Obama has nominated Maj. Gen. L. Scott Rice for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and for assignment as director of the Air National Guard.Rice was commissioned in 1980 through the ROTC at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. Following graduate school, he attended pilot training at Reese Air Force Base, Texas, receiving the pilot badge in 1982 and later serving in England where he flew the F-111 Aardvark.Rice joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 104th Fighter Wing in 1989 to fly the A-10 Thunderbolt II. He then served as squadron commander, operations group commander, wing commander and Air National Guard commander.He mobilized numerous times since 1995, including deployments to Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq. He also served as the commander of Air Force forces for exercise Eastern Falcon in the U.S. Central Command area of operations, where he supervised F-16 Fighting Falcon units deployed to Kuwait in 2004, to Jordan and Oman in 2005, and to Pakistan in 2006.Rice is currently serving as the adjutant general of the Massachusetts National Guard at Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts. He also serves on the Massachusetts Military Asset and Security Strategy Task Force as well as secretary of the Adjutants General Association of the U.S.FM 



Air National Guard 



guard 



DOD 



SecDEF
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1249 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1249

       To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2007

  Mr. Roskam introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DEHYDROEPIANDROSTERONE.

    Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
802(41)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
        ``corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone'' and inserting 
        ``and corticosteroids'';
            (2) by redesignating clauses (x) through (xlx) as clauses 
        (xi) through (xlxi), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (ix) the following:
            ``(x) dehydroepiandrosterone (androst-5-en-3b-ol-17-
        one);''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-6531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 14, 2011.

*412Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Therese A. Savona, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation based on his discharge from a drug treatment facility for writing an inappropriate unsolicited letter to a woman outside of the facility. We reverse because Appellant’s letter and subsequent discharge from the facility did not constitute a willful and substantial violation of his probation.

Successful completion of a drug treatment program was a condition of Appellant’s probation, but, for Appellant’s failure to complete the program to be a willful violation of probation, the evidence must show that he was at fault or “in some manner responsible” for his dismissal from the program. *See Rubio v. State,*824 So.2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether a violation of probation has occurred, *State v. Carter,*835 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002), but, for a probationer to be at fault or responsible for his dismissal, he must at least be informed that dismissal is a potential sanction for the behavior at issue. *Cf. Bennett v. State,*684 So.2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that defendant’s refusal to admit to charged offense leading to his dismissal from treatment program was not willful violation of probation because defendant had not been advised that he would have to admit to offense in order to complete probation).

Here, the treatment facility director admitted that Appellant did not violate any specific rule by sending the letter and that Appellant was never told that he could be dismissed from the program for sending letters to persons outside of the *413facility. Accordingly, although it is undisputed that Appellant sent the letter at issue (and that the letter was in poor taste), the evidence fails to establish that Appellant’s dismissal from the program for sending the letter constitutes a willful violation of his probation. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation.

For these reasons, the order revoking Appellant’s probation is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court to reinstate Appellant’s probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, LEWIS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5385-H5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

  (Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Americans across this great land know the 
old concept, the concept of the old order that ought to be the concept 
of the new order as well, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.''
  We know full well that justice is being denied and delayed again and 
again. We were told that it was inappropriate to consider the charges 
against the Speaker until the contract was passed. And then when the 
contract was passed, we were told it was [[Page H5386]] inappropriate 
to do it until after the congressional recess. Now we are told, well, 
maybe after Memorial Day. Justice is being delayed and justice is being 
denied because some people are unwilling to make the hard choices, the 
hard choices that demand that an independent counsel act without 
political bias to evaluate these charges, to decide whether they have 
merit.
  Anyone, be they old or new, ought to support that very old concept of 
impartial justice. Looking at these charges, seeing that they are 
resolved only through an independent counsel will that be done and we 
need that action immediately.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-66371 and 333-34263) of U.S. Restaurant
Properties, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2000 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change
in the method of accounting for contingent rents to conform to the consensus
reached by the Emerging Issues Task Force in Issue 98-9 on May 21, 1998)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Restaurant Properties,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 30, 2000
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher J. Horn, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IONA Technologies PLC; and
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report.;     By: /s/ Christopher J. Horn       **Christopher J. Horn**   ***Chief Executive Officer***  
Date: April 1, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-25-1998
<CASH>                                            4,894
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    95,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     114,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                221,110
<PP&E>                                          185,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  454,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            99,659
<BONDS>                                           8,029
<COMMON>                                        309,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    454,515
<SALES>                                         240,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                240,537
<CGS>                                           152,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   211,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  25,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              16,705
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     16,705
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.86
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LORENZO LINEAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-21; 1:05-cv-97)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Linear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Linear seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Linear has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,129
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          11,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,787
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,013
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,787
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     44
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 44
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        44
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. George A. JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0644.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Jackson, George A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 16130; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 11-00152.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Ronnie Lynn MESHELL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1039.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Meshell, Ronnie Lynn; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 58,571; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01256.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       THE EVERYBODY WINS PROGRAM

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this spring on Capitol Hill an 
exiting literacy program began with the help of Senators and Senate 
staff. The children at Brent Elementary School are now being read to 
once a week during their lunch hours by volunteers in the Everybody 
Wins Program. Everybody Wins is a successful literacy program which 
matches up professionals with at-risk, inner-city school children as 
reading partners.
  During each power lunch session, the reading partners select a book 
and read aloud together--an activity that the Commission on Reading 
calls the single most important activity for building a child's 
eventual success in reading.
  Dr. Frances Plummer, the principal of Brent Elementary School, has 
been instrumental in making this program a success. Dr. Plummer, a 
native Washingtonian, attended the D.C. schools, from kindergarten 
through receiving her B.S. degree from D.C. Teachers College. She then 
went on to earn a masters degree and doctorate of education from George 
Washington University. Her career has included being a teacher and 
assistant principal in the Washington D.C. public schools before going 
on to become the principal of the Brent Elementary School.
  Dr. Plummer's philosophy is ``Teach each child at your school as you 
would want your own child taught.'' I, along with my colleagues who are 
participating in the program would like to commend Dr. Plummer's 
patience, hard work, and a lifetime of dedication to the children that 
she serves.

                          ____________________
```