alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 2338

_____________________________
F RONTLINE I NSURANCE U NLIMITED C OMPANY a/s/o S MOKY H ILL C APITAL G ROUP LLC
, Appellant,

v.
Q UIK R YDE , I NC

. , a Florida corporation d/b/a Q UIK R YDE LLC and J AMES D. C OCHRAN , an individual
, Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. David W. Green , Judge

.

July 31, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W INOKUR , and L ONG , JJ

. , concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Michael Bernard Stevens and Mary Grecz of Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad, West Palm Beach
, for Appellant.

Kimberly Kanoff Berman of Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Fort Lauderdale; William Estes and James Patrick Hanratty of Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Jacksonville; Mark Kraus McCulloch of Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Orlando
, for Appellees.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3270 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3270

    To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, as an 
    affected area for purposes of making claims under the Radiation 
  Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear 
                                testing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2010

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, as an 
    affected area for purposes of making claims under the Radiation 
  Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear 
                                testing.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

    Section 4(b)(1)(C) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by inserting ``Mohave,'' after 
``Apache,''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BANTA CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          49,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,379
<INVENTORY>                                     74,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,491
<PP&E>                                         658,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 341,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,371
<BONDS>                                        133,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,988
<OTHER-SE>                                     395,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   708,510
<SALES>                                        275,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               275,363
<CGS>                                          222,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33<F1>
<FN>
<F1>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE IMPACT OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE." THE EPS UNDER THE
"EPS-PRIMARY" TAG REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 21, 2005 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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: November 21, 2005                 /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                        JohnW. Whitney

                                        President

Date: November 21, 2005                 /S/MICHAEL C. HORSLEY
                                        MichaelC. Horsley

                                        Controller

36
Exhibit 12

                 WASHINGTON MUTUAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                       (Unaudited)

<TABLE>

                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                -------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in thousands)             2000          1999         1998         1997         1996
                                ---------     ---------    ---------    ---------   ---------
Income from operations before
<S>                             <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>
   income taxes                 $ 126,419     $ 118,712    $  87,587    $  76,031   $  99,518
                                ---------     ---------    ---------    ---------   ---------
Fixed charges:
   Interest and debt
   expense on all
   indebtedness                   202,092       149,609      133,211      128,887    120,758

Appropriate portion
   of rentals (33%)                 3,995         3,917        3,718        3,565      3,292
                                ---------     ---------    ---------    ---------   --------
Total fixed charges               206,087       153,526      136,929      132,452    124,050
                                ---------     ---------    ---------    ---------   --------
Earnings available for
   fixed charges                $ 332,506     $ 272,238    $ 224,516    $ 208,483   $223,568
                                =========     =========    =========    =========   ========
Ratio of earnings to
   fixed charges                     1.61          1.77         1.64         1.57       1.80
                                =========     =========    =========    =========   ========
</TABLE>
# NIMH’s Dr. Susan Daniels Designated National Autism Coordinator

May 18, 2023  • Institute Update

Susan A. Daniels, Ph.D. has been appointed as the HHS National Autism Coordinator and Director of the Office of National Autism Coordination (ONAC). In this position, Dr. Daniels will play a vital role in ensuring the implementation of national autism research, services, and support activities across federal agencies. This role will complement Dr. Daniels’s continuing work as the Executive Secretary of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee ** (IACC), a federal advisory committee composed of federal officials and public members that focuses on gathering public input, coordinating federal autism activities, and providing advice to the HHS Secretary on issues related to autism. Dr. Daniels will report to the NIMH Director and support both the activities of the ONAC and the IACC.

Dr. Daniels has served as the Acting National Autism Coordinator since 2021, the Director of the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) since 2014, and the Acting Director and Deputy Director of OARC between 2008 and 2014. During this period, Dr. Daniels oversaw IACC activities as the committee produced its first strategic plan in 2009 and subsequent iterations, and developed analyses, reports, advice, and recommendations to guide HHS and other federal departments and agencies on issues related to autism.

Prior to working at NIMH, Dr. Daniels worked in policy and program management related to neurodegenerative diseases and infectious diseases at two other NIH institutes, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Before coming to NIH, Dr. Daniels was a Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow and consultant at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She received her Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from Brandeis University, where she conducted research on the function of the sensory nervous system, and holds a bachelor’s degree in biology and French from Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.
#### BLOOM et al. v. REILLY, Postmaster.

No. 9143.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 11, 1947.

Lawrence Friedman, of Newark, N. J., for plaintiffs.

Edgar H. Rossbach, U. S. Atty., and Roger M. Yancey, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Newark, N. J., for defendant.

FAKE, District Judge.

The issues here arise on a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Postmaster General is an indispensable party to the suit and process was not served upon him within this district.

Owing to ineptness appearing on the face of the complaint herein, I have been put to much labor which would have been avoided had the pleader given heed to the basic rules of pleading. I do not understand that our modern federal practice was intended to permit either an avoidance or an evasion of those rules of logic which lie at the base of all good pleading.

The complaint herein prays relief solely against Louis Reilly, the local postmaster at Newark. The only material allegations in the complaint set forth that plaintiffs are engaged in using the mails in the sale of vitamins coupled with a reducing program advertised as the “Regent Reducing Plan” and Reilly wrongfully refuses to allow them to send or receive mail in connection therewith.

The complaint sets out a voluminous record of an alleged proceeding before the Postmaster General resulting in a ruling there against the plaintiffs. This matter is merely surplusage in the complaint and falls in conflict with the rule that “it is not necessary to state matter which would come more properly from the other side.” Upwards of two centuries ago, *515Sir Matthew Hale said it is “like leaping before one comes to the stile.” This rule is followed in equity since “an original bill in chancery is in the nature of a declaration at common law.” These things are as true in the year 1947 as they were upwards of two centuries ago.

In the absence of the surplusage I have above referred to, the complaint herein is sufficient on its face to constitute a cause of action against the local postmaster standing alone. It is for him to interpose a defense and not for plaintiffs to anticipate what it will be in their complaint.

The motion to dismiss is denied and an order will be entered permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint in conformity herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy
Louisiana's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000060527
<NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 012
   <NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,332,028 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    118,537
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         365,208 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       366,112
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,181,885
<COMMON>                                     1,088,900
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       (2,321)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             74,739
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,161,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          155,000
<PREFERRED>                                    100,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,332,315
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    6,772
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     43,275
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                32,539
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,350,166
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,181,885
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,710,908
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           109,104
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,308,027
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,308,027
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        402,881
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               6,871
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 409,752
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       121,161
<NET-INCOME>                                   179,487
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     13,014
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  166,473
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       138,500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       98,801
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         338,564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE> 75
                                                                   Exhibit 99.2


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Patrick Corydon, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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.



/s/ G. Patrick Corydon
--------------------------
G. Patrick Corydon
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2003
#### Andrew Corrigan, Appellant, v Stellar Management, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 28, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order of affirmance, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; *Eaton v State of New York, 76*NY2d 824 [1990]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### Caroline O’Berg et al., Plaintiffs, v MacManus Group, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Flik International Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 306]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated April 1, 2005, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The third-party defendant, Flik International Corp. (hereinafter Flik), operated a cafeteria in the offices of D’Arcy, Masius, Benton & Bowles (hereinafter D’Arcy) pursuant to a written contract between itself and D’Arcy. D’Arcy is alleged to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant third-party plaintiff, MacManus Group, Inc. (hereinafter MacManus). MacManus also owns the building in which D’Arcy’s offices are located.

The plaintiff Caroline O’Berg (hereinafter the plaintiff) was employed by Flik as an assistant manager in the cafeteria and suffered a work-related accident in which a ceiling tile fell down and struck her in the head, injuring her. She received workers’ compensation benefits as a result of that accident. After she sued MacManus for its alleged negligence in maintaining the building, MacManus commenced a third-party action against Flik for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Flik’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 11). We affirm.

In response to Flik’s showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, MacManus failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc.,*3 NY3d 408 [2004]; *Krollman v Food Automation Serv. Techniques, Inc.,*13 AD3d 1209 [2004]; *Sergeant v Murphy Family Trust,*292 AD2d 761 [2002]). Additionally, the contracts relied upon by MacManus fail to show the existence of *600an express agreement between Flik and itself for contribution and/or indemnification, as required by the statute *(see Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*3 NY3d 486 [2004]; *Lipshultz v K & G Indus.,*294 AD2d 338 [2002]; *cf. Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc.,*5 NY3d 427 [2005]). Accordingly, Flik’s motion was properly granted *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

MacManus’s remaining contention is without merit *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]). Florio, J.P, Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This legend contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy's
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1995, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000060527
<NAME> LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 009
   <NAME> LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,537,650
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     73,963
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         331,912
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       387,998
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,331,523
<COMMON>                                     1,088,900
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (4,836)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             72,150
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,156,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          100,009
<PREFERRED>                                    160,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,385,171
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              76,459
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   35,260
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     43,362
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                28,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 953,763
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,331,523
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,674,875
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           116,486
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,226,606
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,342,606
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        332,269
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,153
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 328,116
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       134,885
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,537
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     21,307
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  180,230
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       221,500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         384,657
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>