alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
155 So.2d 506

#### Jack WILSON v. STATE of Alabama.

3 Div. 79.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 3, 1963.

See also, post, p. 403, 155 So.2d 507.

Jack Wilson, pro se.

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

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice;

On May 7, 1963, Jack Wilson filed before a Judge of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County a petition praying for his discharge in a habeas corpus proceeding. He was unsuccessful. The matters here involved were his two convictions for robbery in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County on June 9, 1937.

On May 13, 1963, Jack Wilson petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, to review the judgment rendered in that court on May 7, 1960, in the habeas corpus proceeding.

The Attorney General of the State of Alabama has filed a motion to strike the *403petition for certiorari, stating several grounds, among them, that appeal is the proper remedy to review the action of the trial court in habeas corpus proceedings.

Section 369, Title 15, Code 1940, authorizes an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cf. Ex parte Keene, ante, p. 197, 153 So.2d 631; Ex parte Ward Raymond Lee, ante, p. 343, 155 So.2d 296; Ex parte Joseph L. Taylor, ante, p. 346, 155 So.2d 299; Ex parte John E. Burton, ante, p. 345, 155 So.2d 298, and Ex parte Joe Smith, ante, p. 344, 155 So.2d 297.

The state’s motion to strike the petition is due to be and is hereby granted. Petition for certiorari stricken.

On May 27, 1963, Jack Wilson filed in this Court a document, or instrument, entitled “Appeal from Habeas Corpus, Montgomery County, Circuit Court, Montgomery, Alabama, May 7th 1963. Sentenced June 9, 1937, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (6th Judicial Court) Case Numbers 4061-4062. Robbery, Robbery, 50 years, 50 years (2 cases).”

This instrument, or document, is totally lacking in efficacy to support an appeal. It is unintelligible, does not contain any evidence taken on the habeas corpus proceeding, and contains no organization of the court as required by Supreme Court Rule 24, Title 7, Appendix, and no certificate of the Clerk of the Montgomery Circuit Court.

The appeal is dismissed on the authority of Tidwell v. State, 41 Ala.App. 296, 130 So.2d 206, and cases cited therein; Robert Moody Sparrow v. A. H. Evans et al., Ala., 152 So.2d 155,1 and cases therein cited. See also Griffin v. State, 258 Ala. 557, 63 So.2d 682.

Certiorari denied and appeal dismissed.

LAWSON, GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Ante, p. 89.
# C_2006281EN.01004902.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/49

---

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Bouis and Others v Commission

(Case F-113/06)

(2006/C 281/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that Article 13 of the General Provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (GPI) is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 13 of the General Provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (GPI) is unlawful;

| — | annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as the applicants' names are not included; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as the applicants' names are not included;

| — | annul the decisions to award transitional priority points to the applicants, in that these points are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade up to a maximum of 7 points without taking into account the real merits of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions to award transitional priority points to the applicants, in that these points are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade up to a maximum of 7 points without taking into account the real merits of the applicants;

| — | annul the decisions to award to the applicants neither the priority points awarded by the Directors and Directors-General, nor the priority points awarded by the Promotion Committee, in particular in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution in the 2003 and 2004 promotion procedures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions to award to the applicants neither the priority points awarded by the Directors and Directors-General, nor the priority points awarded by the Promotion Committee, in particular in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution in the 2003 and 2004 promotion procedures;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decisions disregard the scope of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which imposes on the Appointing Authority the obligation to choose officials that are to be promoted essentially on the basis of a consideration of their comparative merits.

They also claim that Article 13 of the GPI, as interpreted and applied by the Commission, is unlawful, since it disregards the scope of the provision which it is supposed to implement as well as the general principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

---
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.201 What must an application for certification as a Tribal energy development organization (TEDO) include? An application for certification as a TEDO must include documentation of the items listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. ( a ) The Tribe has carried out a contract or compact under title I or IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301 *et seq.*) for a period of not less than 3 consecutive years ending on the date on which the Tribe submits the application, and the contract or compact: ( 1 ) Has been carried out by the Tribe without material audit exceptions (or without any material audit exceptions that were not corrected within the 3-year period); and
( 2 ) Has included programs or activities relating to the management of Tribal land;
( b ) The TEDO is organized under the Tribe's laws;
( c ) The majority of the interest in the TEDO is owned and controlled by the Tribe (or the Tribe and one or more other Tribes) the Tribal land of which is being developed; and
( d ) The TEDO's organizing document: ( 1 ) Requires the Tribe with jurisdiction over the land to maintain, at all times, the controlling interest in the TEDO;
( 2 ) Requires the Tribe (or the Tribe and one or more other Tribes the Tribal land of which is being developed) to own and control, at all times, a majority of the interest in the TEDO; and
( 3 ) Includes a statement that the TEDO is subject to the jurisdiction, laws, and authority of the Tribe.
Exhibit 32.1


                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                      CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  KeySpan   Corporation   (the
"Corporation")  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
B. Catell,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of the  Corporation,  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, as amended; 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/ Robert B. Catell
                                  --------------------
                                  Name: Robert B. Catell
                                  Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                  Date: November 4, 2004
### Combined Ice and Water Balances of Gulkana and Wolverine Glaciers, Alaska, and South Cascade Glacier, Washington, 1965 and 1966 Hydrologic Years

By: Mark Frederick MeierWendell V. TangbornLawrence R. MayoAustin Post

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp715A

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
H. Res. 422

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 15, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2086) to authorize funding for networking and

information technology research and development for fiscal

years 2000 through 2004, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Science. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the

bill, modified by striking section 8 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). Each section of that amend-
2

•HRES 422 EH

ment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as

read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House

on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole

to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
3

•HRES 422 EH

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32(b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick D. Hanley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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) 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
Corporation.



|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|   
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ PATRICK D. HANLEY                            
|    |  |                                                  
|    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





May 7, 2004
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2024 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2024

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

**TABLE I-24 SELECTION OF RETIREMENT RATE CATEGORY**

**For valuation dates in 2024**

November 29, 2023
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2016 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2016

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

TABLE I-16 SELECTION OF RETIREMENT RATE CATEGORY(For plans with a valuation date after Dec. 31, 2015 and before Jan. 1, 2017)

 

January 13, 2022
#### DUKE UNIVERSITY v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO.

No. 54P90

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 635

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                     100,754,000
<SECURITIES>                                49,499,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           151,549,000
<PP&E>                                       4,280,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,403,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             153,770,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,366,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 149,374,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               153,770,000
<SALES>                                      1,089,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,089,000
<CGS>                                          305,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,494,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,733,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,733,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,733,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  $(1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.06)


</TABLE>
(logo)Berkadia

 

 

Annual Statement as toCompliance 

For the YearEnded December 31, 2017****

 

*MorganStanley Capital I Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates*

*Series2012-C4*

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of theSubservicingAgreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), Ihereby attest that: 

 

i.         A review of theactivities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period hasbeen made under my supervision. 

 

ii.       To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in allmaterial respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughoutthe period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreementhas occurred and is continuing. 

 

Berkadia,

     /s/ Mark E. McCool 

Mark E. McCool 

President 

February 10, 2018 

 

 

Inv. 861 Lib. A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RIVER
HOLDING CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0                   1,804
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  37,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                 (1,281)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                  35,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  76,580
<PP&E>                                               0                  56,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                (19,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 351,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                (38,460)
<BONDS>                                              0               (115,000)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                (38,644)
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                (91,748)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  18,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                (72,751)
<SALES>                                       (41,111)               (113,279)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (41,111)               (113,279)
<CGS>                                           19,587                  56,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,879                  40,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                     191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,812                  16,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (833)                     406
<INCOME-TAX>                                       271                      18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (562)                   (424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (562)                   (424)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HERBERT BENSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 426 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 44.107 Under what circumstances may the Secretary reassume a program?

The Secretary may only reassume a program in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 450m and 25 CFR part 900, subpart P. The tribe or school board shall have a right to appeal the reassumption pursuant to 25 CFR part 900, subpart L.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003,the undersigned, James A. Cady, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc., and Michael E. McConnell, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.,each do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2)  the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WatchGuardTechnologies, Inc.