alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4299 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4299

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 410 South Jackson Road in Edinburg, Texas, as the ``Dr. Miguel A. 
                    Nevarez Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 410 
South Jackson Road in Edinburg, Texas, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Dr. Miguel A. Nevarez Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. Miguel A Nevarez Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         111,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,233,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,122,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,663,377
<PP&E>                                       1,351,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,350,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,517,895
<BONDS>                                        398,704
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           352
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,114,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,350,416
<SALES>                                      8,545,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,545,655
<CGS>                                        5,361,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,034,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (108,342)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,559
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 17, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16652

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-01108-CV-T-S

MARGARET WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(August 17, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this slip-and-fall case, Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Williams appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee WalMart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”).

Williams’ amended complaint alleges that while shopping in Wal-Mart, she

slipped on a puddle of water, which resulted in injury to her leg, hip, and shoulder.

Williams seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligence and

wantonness, based on Wal-Mart’s employees’ alleged failure to detect and clean up

the liquid.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams had not met

her burden, under Alabama negligence law, of establishing that Wal-Mart had:

1

(1) actual notice of the puddle; (2) constructive notice; or (3) that the store was

otherwise delinquent for failing to discover and remove the hazard. Williams

replied that she had proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate constructive

notice and/or delinquency on the part of Wal-Mart, and, alternatively, an adverse

inference should be drawn against Wal-Mart because it allegedly destroyed or

withheld video surveillance tapes from Williams. The district court concluded that

Williams had not met her burden of proving notice, rejected Williams’ spoliation

argument, and granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on both the

 Because jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship, the forum state’s 1

substantive law applies. See McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120, 1131-32 (11th Cir. 2001).

2
negligence and wantonness claims. Williams now appeals to this court.

2

After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we are in accord with the

district court that Williams failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to clean up the water that Williams

allegedly slipped on and that Williams’ spoliation of evidence argument is

meritless.

For the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned

opinion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.

AFFIRMED.

 Williams does not challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the 2

wantonness claim. This issue has been abandoned. See Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269,

1274 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008).

3
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 2003 S es sio n BEL INDA KULL MAN RHOADS v . CHRIST OPHE R KULLMAN, SR.

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Dickson Coun ty No. 4573-96 Leonard W. Mar tin, Chan cellor

No. M2002- 02716-COA-R 3-CV - F iled March 29, 2004

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R . , P
. J
. , M
. S
. , d i s s en t i n g. I respe ctfully

disag reewith the court’s c onclusion that Ms. Rhoads is not entitled to Tenn. R. Civ. P . 60.02(1) r elief f rom the J une 26, 2002 order removing her children from her c ustody . Her la wy er mi sh and le d h e r c a se in thr e e sig nif ic a nt w a y s. F ir st, he se t th e he ari ng on his motionto wi thdra w a s Ms . Rh oa ds ’s c ou ns e l on the sa me day a s the fi na l cus tod y he ari ng . Se c on d, he tol d M s. Rhoads that the ca se would most likely be continued until Aug ust 2002 afte r his motion was g rante d. T h i rd , h e d i dn o tt el l M s . R h o ad s t h ath erp re s en ce wa s re q u i re datt h e J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 h eari n g. I find no evidenc e in this recor d that Ms. Rhoa ds had been otherwise dilatory about this case. Ba sed on her

lawy er’ s comments, Ms. Rhoads could rea sonably have concluded that her pre sence in court on J une 25, 2002 was not re quired be causethe trial would be c ontinued until August 2002. Ms. Rhoads’s predicament is her lawy er’ s making , not hers. In my mind, these circ umstances justify g ranting relief

under Te nn. R. Civ. P . 60.02(1).

__________________________________ WI LL I AM C. KOCH, J R., P.J .,M.S.
Exhibit (10) U

                Letter agreement dated December 29, 1997 between
                     Mercantile Bankshares Corporation and
                                 Jay M. Wilson.


<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit (10) U

                       Mercantile Bankshares Corporation

                               December 29, 1997

Mr. Jay M. Wilson
Executive Vice President
Mercantile-Safe Deposit and
 Trust Company
2 Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, Maryland  21201

Dear Jay:

         This letter is written pursuant to the December meeting of the
Compensation Committee, in view of your resignation effective December 31, 1997,
concerning the modification to your Option Agreement dated August 18, 1995,
which we have previously discussed.

         Accordingly, Section 3.3 of the Option Agreement is hereby amended by
adding the following subparagraph (c) at the end thereof:

         "(c) In the event that Grantee ceases to be an employee of MBC or an
         Affiliate for any reason on or after December 31, 1997 and prior to
         March 15, 1998, the determination of the percentage of the Anniversary
         Date Option Amount that shall become exercisable, if at all, on the
         March 14, 1998 Anniversary Date shall be determined as though Grantee's
         employment with MBC or an Affiliate ceased on March 15, 1998."

         Section 4.1 of the Option Agreement is hereby amended by adding the
following language after the initial sentence of Section 4.1.

         "If, however, Grantee ceases to be an employee of MBC or an Affiliate
         for any reason on or after December 31, 1997 and prior to March 15,
         1998, (a) any portion of the Option which shall have become exercisable
         prior to or on the March 14, 1998 Anniversary Date may be exercised in
         whole or in part at any time on or after March 14, 1998, but not later
         than the stated term of the Option or as otherwise provided by Section
         4.2 of the Agreement, and (b) any portion of the Option which shall not
         have become exercisable prior to or on March 14, 1998 shall terminate
         on March 14, 1998.



<PAGE>






Letter to Mr. Jay M. Wilson
December 29, 1997
Page Two




         Please sign one copy of this letter agreement below and return it to
me.







                                              Mercantile Bankshares Corporation




                                              By  /s/ Alan D. Yarbro
                                                  __________________
                                                  Alan D. Yarbro
                                                  General Counsel and Secretary



Agreed:




    /s/ Jay M. Wilson
_______________________
    Jay M. Wilson
| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      26, 2009 |                                                 |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | /s/      A. F. Petrocelli                            |
|                                 | A.F.      Petrocelli                                 |
|                                 | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                 |                                                 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837596
<NAME> REDHEADS, INC.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               611,226
<PP&E>                                       3,631,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,243,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,232,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    460,815
<COMMON>                                         2,458
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,262,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,243,176
<SALES>                                      2,093,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,093,681
<CGS>                                          624,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,057,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,975)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (619,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (619,612)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (619,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                15,916
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      2,432,452
<ALLOWANCES>                          35,000
<INVENTORY>                        1,959,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   4,741,568
<PP&E>                            12,357,264
<DEPRECIATION>                     3,855,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    20,318,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              4,759,400
<BONDS>                            6,427,158
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                102,789
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           2,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                         7,164,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      20,318,728
<SALES>                            6,545,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   6,545,736
<CGS>                              4,285,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      4,285,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,969,708
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   179,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      136,924
<INCOME-TAX>                          52,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   84,924
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          84,924
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.01


</TABLE>
#### Hazlett *et al. vs.*Gill.

The right of a party to change his attorneys is an absolute right; except that where a substitution is permitted, the lien of the former attorneys on any papers, for whatever sum is due to them, will be preserved.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J.

at special term, February —, 1866.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted
from the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         712,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,001,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,198,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,243,412
<PP&E>                                         196,849
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,087,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          213,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,992,313
<OTHER-SE>                                   (134,484)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,087,718
<SALES>                                      1,107,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          580,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  499,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,001
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,401
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

            In connection with the Annual Report of Mills Music Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marcia Markowski, the
Trust officer of the corporate trustee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to my knowledge:

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

            2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Trust.*

* The statements of cash receipts and disbursements reflect only cash
transactions and do not include transactions that would be recorded in financial
statements presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The Trust is required
to distribute all funds received. Accordingly, the Trust has not prepared any
statements of financial condition or cash flows.

Date: March 30, 2004

                                     /s/ Marcia Markowski
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Marcia Markowski
                                     Trust officer of the corporate trustee
9994.

#### Bennett *v.*Lifsey.

Decided January 16, 1919.

Trover; from Crawford superior court—Judge Mathews. June 19, 1918.

*R. H. Culverhouse, L. D. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

Luke, J.

The evidence in this ease, though conflicting, authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. The charge of the court, when considered as a whole, was full, fair, and presented the issues made by the pleadings. Bor none of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WORLDCOM,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         102,157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  599,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,261
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               731,351
<PP&E>                                       2,119,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                 492,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,803,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,003,991
<BONDS>                                      2,324,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          107,119
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,887
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,170,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,803,239
<SALES>                                      3,706,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,706,806
<CGS>                                        2,034,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,040,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (14,494)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,395
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             252,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                428,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                   171,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            256,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   223,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
10806.

#### Walker *v.*The State.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Indictment for burglary; from Fulton superior court—Judge Humphries. July 12, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*8. O. Crane, Claude D. Rowe,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. BoyJcin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Luke, J.

The jurisdiction of the judges of the superior courts is coextensive with the limits of the State. A superior-court judge may preside in any county of the State, upon the invitation of the judge of the superior court of the county. Accordingly, where the judge of the superior courts of the Southern circuit was requested by one of the judges of- the superior court of Pulton county to preside in that court, a plea of guilty to an indictment therein, and the sentence upon the plea, will not be set aside and treated as a nullity on motion of the defendant, upon the ground that the invited judge was without authority of law to preside in that court, or that the court was being held contrary to law and without authority of law. See Park’s Ann. Code, §§ 4866-69; *Bone*v. *State,*86 *Ga.*108 (2) (12 S. E. 205); *Burge*v. *Mangum,*134 *Ga.*307 (67 S. E. 857); *Pendergrass*v. *Duke,*144 *Ga.*839 (88 S. E. 198). Por no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*