alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
154 So.2d 11

#### Ex parte Alton O. WILLIAMS.

6 Div. 1.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1963.

Alton O. Williams, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Petitioner, Alton O. Williams, seeks a writ of mandamus to be directed to the “Walker County Circuit Court” to do its “public duty in regards to said petition” for writ of error coram nobis filed by petitioner in said court. The petition was filed here on May 3, 1963. Apparently, the relief sought is to require a ruling on Williams’ coram nobis petition filed in said lower court.

The State has moved to strike the petition for mandamus. The motion is well taken.

There has been filed here a copy of the judgment of the circuit court of Walker County rendered on March 28, 1963, dismissing Williams’ petition for coram nobis. The basis for dismissal is the court’s finding that “petitioner has already filed a Writ of Error Coram Nobis proceeding in this Court on, to-wit: January 20, 1962, which was heard on its merits on, to-wit: May 10, 1962, and that an order was made by this Court on, to-wit: June 15, 1962 denying petitioner’s petition for Writ of. Error Coram Nobis; and * * * that no new material grounds are alleged in this petition by the petitioner.”

Since the trial court, at the time of filing' the petition for mandamus, had already done the thing sought to be required of it by the petition, the State’s motion to strike is-due to be granted.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN, MERRILL, and HARWOOD, JJ„ concur.
§ 171.210 Where will BIA provide my irrigation service? ( a ) We will provide service to your farm unit at a single delivery point that we designate.
( b ) At our discretion, we may establish additional delivery points when: ( 1 ) We determine it is impractical to deliver water to your farm unit from a single delivery point;
( 2 ) You agree in writing to be responsible for all costs to establish an additional delivery point;
( 3 ) You pay us our costs prior to our establishing an additional delivery point; and
( 4 ) Any work accomplished under this section does not disrupt our service to other customers without their written agreement.
( c ) We may establish your delivery point(s) at a well head.
##### 



MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
 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
  (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: November 14, 2007
    

    BY:

    /s/ Paul ZogasPaul ZogasPresident, Chief Executive Officer 
and Chief Financial Officer
§ 11.200 What is the composition of the Court of Indian Offenses? ( a ) Each court shall be composed of a trial division and an appellate division.
( b ) A chief magistrate will be appointed for each court who will, in addition to other judicial duties, be responsible for the administration of the court and the supervision of all court personnel.
( c ) Appeals must be heard by a panel of magistrates who were not involved at the tribal/trial level.
( d ) Decisions of the appellate division are final and are not subject to administrative appeals within the Department of the Interior.
[58 FR 54411, Oct. 21, 1993, as amended at 73 FR 39860, July 11, 2008]
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward L. Pierce, Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BindView
Development Corporation (the Company), certify that
(i) the Companys Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1 for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 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 the Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1 for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and the results of operations of the Company. By
    
    /s/ EDWARD L. PIERCEEdward L. PierceDirector, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 20, 2004
 A signed original of the foregoing certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
### §835. Art. 35. Service of charges; commencement of trial

(a) In General.—Trial counsel detailed for a court-martial under section 827 of this title (article 27) shall cause to be served upon the accused a copy of the charges and specifications referred for trial.

(b) Commencement of Trial.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), no trial or other proceeding of a general court-martial or a special court-martial (including any session under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)) may be held over the objection of the accused—

(A) with respect to a general court-martial, from the time of service through the fifth day after the date of service; or

(B) with respect to a special court-martial, from the time of service through the third day after the date of service.

(2) An objection under paragraph (1) may be raised only at the first session of the trial or other proceeding and only if the first session occurs before the end of the applicable period under paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B). If the first session occurs before the end of the applicable period, the military judge shall, at that session, inquire as to whether the defense objects under this subsection.

(3) This subsection shall not apply in time of war.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 49; Pub. L. 90–632, §2(12), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1337; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVI, §5206, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2908.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 835 | 50:606. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 35), 64 Stat. 119. |

The word "may" is substituted for the word "shall". The word "after" is substituted for the words "subsequent to".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The trial counsel to whom court-martial charges are referred for trial shall cause to be served upon the accused a copy of the charges upon which trial is to be had. In time of peace no person may, against his objection, be brought to trial, or be required to participate by himself or counsel in a session called by the military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)), in a general court-martial case within a period of five days after the service of charges upon him, or in a special court-martial case within a period of three days after the service of charges upon him."

1968—Pub. L. 90–632 inserted reference to a session called by the military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 262 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 29, 1999.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2465) making 
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment 
and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2000, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IR Spectra
Oct 01, 2023 PBGC Appeals Board Data 08:53:15 AM

By Fiscal Year 

FY23 FY22 FY21 FY20 FY19 FY18 FY17 FY16 FY15 FY14 

Appeals Opened in the FY 147 79 157 222 228 186 397 397 222 220 

Appeals Closed in the FY 72 108 145 249 221 204 512 351 236 846 

Average Days to Close an Appeal 204 225 158 116 170 210 175 215 283 402 

% Appeals with a Decision Changed 26 39 34 35 37 29 17 18 35 30 

Appeals On-Hand at End of Period 122 47 76 64 91 84 102 217 171 185 

1 Report: PBGC Website Snapshot - 10 Years
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:28 PM

To: Pettyjohn, Mary

Cc: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael

Subject: EPA Response regarding AEP/SWEPCO Flint Creek

Hi Mary,

Here is our response to the email you forwarded on 3/19/13 from AEP/SWEPCO.

Thank you for providing a copy of the vendor’s performance guarantee of NID for Flint Creek. However, it is unclear to us

what the averaging period is for the vendor’s 0.055 lb/MMBtu emission guarantee (i.e., is this on a 30 day rolling

average?). The average controlled emission rate can vary considerably depending on whether performance is being

measured on a daily, monthly, or annual time period. If any other page(s) of the vendor’s proposal specify the averaging

time period, please provide this to us. BART limits have generally been based on a 30 day rolling average.

For NOx BART, if you have a vendor guarantee or any other documentation to support the selection of 0.23 lb/MMBtu

(using LNB/OFA), please provide this to us as well.

Thank you,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.108 Who makes the determination as to whether a child is a member, whether a child is eligible for membership, or whether a biological parent is a member of a Tribe? ( a ) The Indian Tribe of which it is believed the child is a member (or eligible for membership and of which the biological parent is a member) determines whether the child is a member of the Tribe, or whether the child is eligible for membership in the Tribe and a biological parent of the child is a member of the Tribe, except as otherwise provided by Federal or Tribal law.
( b ) The determination by a Tribe of whether a child is a member, whether a child is eligible for membership, or whether a biological parent is a member, is solely within the jurisdiction and authority of the Tribe, except as otherwise provided by Federal or Tribal law. The State court may not substitute its own determination regarding a child's membership in a Tribe, a child's eligibility for membership in a Tribe, or a parent's membership in a Tribe.
( c ) The State court may rely on facts or documentation indicating a Tribal determination of membership or eligibility for membership in making a judicial determination as to whether the child is an “Indian child.” An example of documentation indicating membership is a document issued by the Tribe, such as Tribal enrollment documentation.
155 So.2d 297

#### Ex parte *Joe*SMITH.

3 Div. 78.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 27, 1963.

*345Joe Smith, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GOODWYN, Justice.

This is an original habeas corpus petition filed here by Joe Smith, who is confined in Kilby Prison under sentences of ten years for first degree burglary and two years for assault with intent to murder. Both sentences were imposed by the circuit •court of Walker County.

It appears from the petition that, on April 1, 1963, Smith applied to a judge of the circuit court of Montgomery County for a writ of habeas corpus. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 6. It further appears that the writ was issued, that a return thereto was made by the warden of Kilby Prison, and that a hearing was held before the circuit judge on May 7, 1963. On the same day, the judge entered an order denying Smith’s release and remanding him to the custody ■of the respondent warden.

The State has moved to strike the petition on the ground, among others, that the proper method of reviewing the circuit judge’s action is by appeal, and not by •original petition for habeas corpus addressed to this court. The motion is well taken. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 369; Ex parte Smotherman, 140 Ala. 168, 170, 37 So. 376; Keene v. Wiman, 274 Ala. 219, 147 So.2d 817; Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391, 393, 13 So.2d 683; Vernon v. State, 240 Ala. 577, 579, 200 So. 560, cert. den. Vernon v. Wilson, 313 U.S. 559, 61 S.Ct. 837, 85 L.Ed. 1519; Ellis v. State, 41 Ala.App, 438, 135 So.2d 814, cert. den. 273 Ala. 707, 135 So.2d 815, cert. den. 368 U.S. 932, 82 S.Ct. 369, 7 L.Ed.2d 195, cert. den. 369 U.S. 807, 82 S.Ct. 650, 7 L.Ed.2d 554.

Aside from the foregoing, petitioner was properly denied his release because none of the grounds of the petition challenges either the jurisdiction of the Walker County circuit court or the regularity of the proceedings therein on their face. Keene v. Wilman, 274 Ala. 219, 147 So.2d 817, 818, supra; Griffin v. State, 258 Ala. 557, 558, 63 So.2d 682; Johnson v. Williams, supra; Vernon v. State, supra.

The motion to strike the petition is due to be granted.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C.J., and LAWSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificateis furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 7, 2012,by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2012-A, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation, as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersignedhereby certifies that:

 

1)	I am a duly authorized officer of theServicer.

 

2)	A review of the activities of the Servicerfrom March 7, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the “Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance underthe Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)	Based on such review, the Servicer has,to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the RelevantPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed thisCompliance Certificate this 28th day of March, 2013.

 

 

 

HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA,as Servicer

 

 

By:  /s/Min Sok Randy Park               

Name: Min Sok Randy Park

Title: ChiefFinancial Officer
# C_2006212EN.01001501.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-262/06)

(2006/C 212/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) to be understood as meaning that a statutory requirement provided for under earlier national law for the authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an undertaking with a dominant position in that market, and hence an administrative measure confirming that requirement, should be temporarily maintained? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) to be understood as meaning that a statutory requirement provided for under earlier national law for the authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an undertaking with a dominant position in that market, and hence an administrative measure confirming that requirement, should be temporarily maintained?

1

2

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

| 2. | Does European Community law preclude such extensive continuation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does European Community law preclude such extensive continuation?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

2

---
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 976

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the amount

of payment under the Medicare Program for pap smear laboratory tests.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself and Mrs. BONO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase

the amount of payment under the Medicare Program

for pap smear laboratory tests.

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 ‘‘Investment in Wom5 en’s Health Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 976 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR PAP SMEAR

2 LABORATORY TESTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(h) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(h)) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(7) In no case shall payment under the fee schedule

7 established under paragraph (1) for the laboratory test

8 component of a diagnostic or screening pap smear be less

9 than $14.60.’’.

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

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to laboratory tests

12 furnished on or after January 1, 2000.

Æ
# C_2006190EN.01000102.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/03) (1)

1

(Immigration policy - Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals - Directive 2003/86/EC - Protection of fundamental rights - Right to respect for family life - Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children)

(2006/C 190/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Petersen and M. Simm, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and C. Ladenburger, Agents) and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann, W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Annulment of the last subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Derogations from the right to family reunification of minor children.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

1

---
# C_2006202EN.01000702.xml

| 25.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4295 — Endesa/Foster Wheeler/JV)

(2006/C 202/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 August 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4295. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4295. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 170.103 Is consultation with Tribal governments required before obligating TTP funds for direct service activities? Yes. Consultation with Tribal governments is required before obligating TTP funds for direct service activities. Before obligating TTP funds on any project for direct service activities, the Secretary must: ( a ) Consult with the affected Tribe to determine Tribal preferences concerning the program, project, or activity; and
( b ) Provide information under § 170.600 within 30 days of the notice of availability of funds.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00476

- CR

Joshoa Immanuel PEREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 19th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 2093

- C1

Honorable George Allen, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 23, 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice