alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY

#### Laura B. Winston v. Maxine H. Diehl v. Genevieve P. Winston

November 21, 1983

Case No. 79-L-250

By JUDGE L. PAUL BYRNE

The Court writes to address the one remaining question in this action for personal injury.

The plaintiff, Laura B. Winston, instituted this suit against the defendant, Maxine H. Diehl, to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by Genevieve P. Winston which was in collision with the vehicle driven by Maxine H. Diehl.

In response to the Motion for Judgment, the defendant filed her Grounds of Defense and, additionally, filed, pursuant to Rule 3:10, a third-party motion for judgment against Genevieve P. Winston.

Later, the third-party defendant submitted to the Court an affidavit of indigency, a request that she be permitted to proceed *in forma pauperis*and a request for court-appointed counsel to defend her interest. Pursuant to that request, the Court appointed Steve Burcin to represent the third-party defendant.

The case was subsequently tried to a jury which by its verdict found in favor of the defendant. By *130virtue of its finding, the jury avoided consideration of the issue of negligence on the part of Genevieve Winston.

Judgment has been entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant, and the Court now has before it a motion by Mr. Burcin for an award of attorney’s fees.

In the absence of statutory authority to make such an award at public expense, the Court must consider whether or not such an award might appropriately be made against the defendant Maxine H. Diehl. If such an award were appropriate, it would have to rest upon the theory that as between the defendant and the third-party defendant, the latter is a "prevailing party." The jury’s verdict constituted a finding that the defendant was not guilty of negligence that próxima tely caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury’s verdict does not make the third-party defendant a prevailing party.

Thus, the Court concludes that the motion of Mr. Burcin must be overruled.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**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 Quarterly Report of Envirosafe Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Guoqiang Zhan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:





(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 result
      of
      operations of the Company.






Date:
      November 14, 2007




**ENVIROSAFE
      CORPORATION**





*By:
                /s/ Guoqiang Zhan*
              *Guoqiang
                Zhan*
              *Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer*
II 

Calendar No. 225 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2940 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2011 

Received; read the first time 

NOVEMBER 8, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under Regulation D. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Capital for 

5 Job Creators Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EXEMPTION. 

7 (a) REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION.—Section 4(2) of the 

8 Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(2)) is amended by 

9 adding before the period the following: ‘‘, whether or not 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2940 PCS 

1 such transactions involve general solicitation or general 

2 advertising’’. 

3 (b) MODIFICATION OF RULES.—Not later than 90 

4 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secu5 rities and Exchange Commission shall revise its rules 

6 issued in section 230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal Reg7 ulations, to provide that the prohibition against general 

8 solicitation or general advertising contained in section 

9 230.502(c) of such title shall not apply to offers and sales 

10 of securities made pursuant to section 230.506, provided 

11 that all purchasers of the securities are accredited inves12 tors. Such rules shall require the issuer to take reasonable 

13 steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accred14 ited investors, using such methods as determined by the 

15 Commission. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 3, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 225 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2940 

AN ACT 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission 

under Regulation D. tation as a requirement for a certain exemption to eliminate the prohibition against general soliciNOVEMBER 8, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 290 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 290

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 36, United States Code, to ensure that memorials 
commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain 
               religious symbols, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``War Memorial Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS AS PART OF MILITARY MEMORIALS.

    (a) Authority.--Chapter 21 of title 36, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2115. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of military 
              memorials
    ``(a) Inclusion of Religious Symbols Authorized.--To recognize the 
religious background of members of the United States Armed Forces, 
religious symbols may be included as part of--
            ``(1) a military memorial that is established or acquired 
        by the United States Government; or
            ``(2) a military memorial that is not established by the 
        United States Government, but for which the American Battle 
        Monuments Commission cooperated in the establishment of the 
        memorial.
    ``(b) Military Memorial Defined.--In this section, the term 
`military memorial' means a memorial or monument commemorating the 
service of the United States Armed Forces. The term includes works of 
architecture and art described in section 2105(b) of this title.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``2115. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of military 
                            memorials.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 24, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 290

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 36, United States Code, to ensure that memorials 
commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain 
               religious symbols, and for other purposes.
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Willett v. McCullar

December 1, 1983

Case No. (Law) 8463

By JUDGE ALBERT H. GRENADIER

This matter comes before the Court on an appeal from the General District Court, which awarded the plaintiff a judgment in the sum of $2,968.00. On appeal the defendant for the first time asserts a counterclaim. Count I of the counterclaim alleges malpractice and seeks damages in the sum of $3,000.00; Count II asks for damages in the sum of $5,000.00 for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and Count III requests $10,000.00 in punitive damages.

The Court is not entirely satisfied that a party can for the first time assert a counterclaim in the Circuit Court upon an appeal from the General District Court. The authorities cited by the defendant in her memorandum are not clear and convincing on this point. Assuming that such right exists, however, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant’s counterclaim is not permissible on this appeal.

Section 16.1-88.01 Virginia Code forbids counterclaims which exceed the jurisdiction of the General District Court. Section 16.1-77 Virginia Code limits the jurisdiction of the General District Court to claims for not more than $7,000.00. The total of the claims made by the defendant in her counterclaim total $18,000.00.

*136In *Hoffman*v. *Stuart,*188 Va. 785 (1949), the Court, citing *Stacy*v. *Mullins,*185 Va. 837, 841 (1946), and *Addison*v. *Salyer,*185 Va. 664 (1946), held that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on appeal from the trial justice (now General District Court) is derivative, and if the trial justice had no jurisdiction the appellate court acquires none on appeal; that an appeal from the trial justice is a continuation of the original case, and on appeal the warrant cannot be amended to make a case of which the trial justice would not have jurisdiction.

The defendant cites the case of *Copperthite Pie Corp.*v. *Whitehurst,*157 Va. 480 (1932), in support of her argument that a counterclaim for an amount in excess of the lower court’s jurisdictional amount is permissible. Although *Copperthite*has never been expressly overruled, the Court does not believe that it is dispositive in this case. *Copperthite*was decided in 1932 and the three later cases cited above clearly hold that on an appeal the jurisdiction of the appellate court is limited by the jurisdiction of the lower court.

Accordingly, the Court will enter an order striking the defendant’s counterclaims and dismissing them without prejudice.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20675]


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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Concepts (SFFAC) 8, Federal Financial Reporting

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as 
amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of 
Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC) 8, Federal Financial 
Reporting.
    The Statement is available on the FASAB Web site at http://www.fasab.gov/accounting-standards/. Copies can be obtained by 
contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or 
call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: September 22, 2017.
Wendy M. Payne,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-20675 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and
Chairman of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc, a Delaware corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in
all respects, the financial condition of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. and results of
its operations.

Date: September 19, 2008/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
Exhibit 32













CERTIFICATION




By signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of River Valley Bancorp.




Signed this 15th day of November, 2010.







/s/ Matthew P. Forrester

/s/ Vickie L. GrimesMatthew P. Forrester

Vickie L. GrimesPresident and Chief Executive Officer

Vice President of Finance
Annual Performance Incentive Plan for 2010



 EXHIBIT 10(e)(14) 
 Annual Performance Incentive Plan for 2010 (“2010 APIP”) 
 Under the 2010 APIP, executive officers of
the Company are eligible to receive performance related cash payments. Payments are, in general, only made if performance objectives established by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) are met. 

The Committee previously approved an incentive target opportunity for 2010, expressed as a percentage of base salary, for each participating officer. Certain
additional goals were established for some officers based on business unit goals. The Committee also established overall threshold, target and maximum measures of performance for the 2010 APIP. The performance measures and weightings were adjusted
Earnings per Share (weighted at 40%), Cash Flow from Operations (weighted at 40%) and Pro Forma Revenue Growth (adjusted to exclude the impact of changes in the translation of foreign currencies into U.S. dollars) (weighted at 20%). 

The performance against the 2010 APIP goals was as follows: adjusted earnings per share and cash flow from operations exceeded maximum, and pro forma constant
currency revenue growth was at target.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 06 -00 613 -CV Cl ay to n M c Br yde , A ppe lla nt

v. G r andeCo m m unic at ion s, Inc .; The Ci tyof A ust in d/b /a A ust in Ene r gy ; T he Ci tyof A ust in d/b /a Austin E nergy Ve ntures; The City of Austin d /b/a Au stin En ergy Services; The City

of Au stin d/ b/a Aus tin En ergy P roducts; e t al., Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN30190 6 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant has f

iled an unopposed motion t o dismiss . We gr ant the motion and dismiss the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: April 2, 2007
#### Komla EDAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-3430.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 25, 2008.

BEFORE: MARTIN and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Komla Edah appeals the district court’s grant of Trident Seafoods Corp.’s motion to dismiss. Because Edah retains the right to refile his complaint where permitted by the current incarnation of 46 U.S.C. § 30104, *see*National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub.L. No. 110-181, § 3521, 122 Stat. 596 (2008), the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,097
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,325
<PP&E>                                          95,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          292,081
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,550
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                    (78,297)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,288
<SALES>                                        357,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,877
<CGS>                                          277,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,236
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,154)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.51)


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2672 

To clarify the orphan drug exception to the annual fee on branded prescription 

pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Mr. GERLACH (for himself and Mr. ALTMIRE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 clarify the orphan drug exception to the annual fee on 

branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and 

importers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Access to 

5 Orphan Drugs Act of 2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2672 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ORPHAN DRUG EXCEPTION TO 

2 ANNUAL FEE ON BRANDED PRESCRIPTION 

3 PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS AND 

4 IMPORTERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 9008(e) 

6 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

7 Law 111–148) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(3) EXCLUSION OF ORPHAN DRUG SALES.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘branded 

10 prescription drug sales’ shall not include sales 

11 of any drug or biological product— 

12 ‘‘(i) with respect to which a credit was 

13 allowed for any taxable year under section 

14 45C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(ii) which is approved or licensed by 

17 the Food and Drug Administration for 

18 marketing solely for one or more rare dis19 eases or conditions. 

20 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—Subparagraph (A) 

21 shall not apply with respect to any drug or bio22 logical product after the date on which the drug 

23 or biological product is approved or licensed by 

24 the Food and Drug Administration for mar25 keting for any indication other than the treat26 ment of a rare disease or condition. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2672 IH

1 ‘‘(C) RARE DISEASE OR CONDITION.—In 

2 this paragraph, the term ‘rare disease or condi3 tion’ has the meaning given such term under 

4 section 45C(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 

5 of 1986, except that in the case of any drug or 

6 biological product that has not been designated 

7 under section 526 of the Federal Food, Drug 

8 and Cosmetic Act for a particular indication, 

9 determinations under such section 45C(d)(1) 

10 shall be made on the basis of the facts and cir11 cumstances as of the date such drug or biologi12 cal product is approved or licensed by the Food 

13 and Drug Administration for marketing for the 

14 treatment of such disease or condition.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall take effect as if included in section 9008 

17 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

18 Law 111–148). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 15(a)**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-99785,333-89508,333-104691,333-126139,333-181334 and 333-197846) of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC of our reports dated 19 February 2018, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statementsof InterContinental Hotels Group PLC, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the yearended 31 December 2017. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

London, England

28 February 2018
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Sun Reporter, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/ Richard H. Tanenbaum
                                 ------------------------
                                 Richard H. Tanenbaum
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
April 3, 2007