alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL ROSE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 118 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL ROSE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 119 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Jacobs et al. v. Wells et al.

(Decided Dec. 14, 1937.)

*83W. R. McCOY for appellants.

J. B. CLARK for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

Stanley,, Commissioner—

Reversing.

On August 6, 1906, H. E. Jacobs and others brought suit against Marion Wells and others, claiming ownership and possession of a 50-acre tract of land, including the standing timber,, through adverse possession and record title. They prayed an injunction and a quieting of title. The defendants answered denying the allegations of the petition and alleging ownership and possession in themselves. They prayed “that the injunction herein be dissolved and that the plaintiffs’ petition be dismissed, and for judgment against plaintiffs, for their cost and for all proper relief.” A reply completed the issues. Evidence was taken and a judgment rendered 25 years later, on August 13,' 1931. It dismissed the petition and proceeded to quiet the title and possession of the defendants. An appeal was granted and then was added to the order, “This case having served its purpose is stricken from the docket.”

On October 26, 1933, a judgment was entered reciting:

> “It appearing that by oversight or mistake the original judgment entered in this action did not dispose of, decide, or assess the value of the timber in the evidence, or damage done to the timber as complained of in the answer and counterclaim of the defendants, the Wells, and on motion of counsel for. the defendants, the Wells, it is ordered and adjudged by the court by way of supplemental judgment that the defendants, the Wells, as named in the original judgment herein, recover of the plaintiffs herein the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) as the value of said timber, and the cost of this action for which they may have execution. To which the plaintiffs object and except.”

The record purports to be complete, but there is no such motion as is referred to in this order, nor any other proceeding, whatsoever between the judgment of August 13, 1931, and that of October 26, 1933.

On October 4, 1935, the plaintiffs prayed an appeal in this court from both judgments. It is readily appar*84ent that no appeal from the judgment of August 13, 1931, is permissible because of the bar of limitations of two years placed upon appeals. Section 745, Civil Code of Practice. The judgment of October -26, 1933, is not supported by any pleading, and therefore not authorized. The answer of the defendants was not and did not purport to be a counterclaim against the plaintiffs for damages. The defendants only asked that the petition be dismissed. The court may not voluntarily grant or thrust upon a party a judgment he does not seek. Dunn v. Champion, 266 Ky. 757, 99 S. W. (2d) 813.

The appeal as to the first-mentioned judgment is dismissed. The second judgment is reversed.
#### § 100.84 Office building for State, local, or district party committees or organizations.

A donation made to a non-Federal account of a State, local, or district party committee or organization in accordance with 11 CFR 300.35 for the purchase or construction of an office building is not a contribution. A donation includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Presidential Documents 11935 

Proclamation 8632 of February 28, 2011 

Death of Army Corporal Frank W. Buckles, the Last Surviving American Veteran of World War I 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

As a mark of respect for the memory of Army Corporal Frank W. Buckles, 

the last surviving American veteran of World War I, and in remembrance 

of the generation of American veterans of World War I, I hereby order, 

by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the 

United States of America, that, on the day of his interment, the flag of 

the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon 

all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, 

and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia 

and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until 

sunset on such day. I further direct that the flag shall be flown at halfstaff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular 

offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval 

vessels and stations. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth 

day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of 

the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and 

thirty-fifth. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5032 

Filed 3–2–11; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W1–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCD4OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Editorial Note on Part 113
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

§ 113.36 Detection of pathogens by the chicken inoculation test. The test for detection of extraneous pathogens provided in this section shall be conducted when such a test is prescribed in an applicable Standard Requirement or in the filed Outline of Production for the product. ( a ) The biological product to be tested shall be prepared for use as recommended on the label, or in the case of desiccated vaccine to be used in poultry, rehydrated with sterile distilled water at the rate of 30 ml per 1,000 doses.
( b ) At least 25 healthy susceptible young chickens, properly identified and obtained from the same source and hatch, shall be immunized at least 14 days prior to being put on test. The immunizing agent shall be the same as the product to be tested but from a serial previously tested and found satisfactory.
( c ) At least 20 of the previously immunized birds shall be inoculated with 10 label doses of the vaccine being tested by each of the following routes: Subcutaneous, intratracheal, eye-drop, and comb scarification (1 cm2). Twenty birds may be used for each route or combination of routes.
( d ) At least five birds shall be isolated as control birds.
( e ) All birds shall be observed for 21 days for signs of septicemic diseases, respiratory diseases, or other pathologic conditions.
( f ) If the controls remain healthy and unfavorable reactions attributable to the product occur in the vaccinates, the serial or subserial tested is unsatisfactory. If the controls do not remain healthy or if unfavorable reactions not attributable to the product occur in the vaccinates, or both, the test shall be declared a No Test and may be repeated: *Provided,* That, if the test is not repeated, the serial of subserial tested shall be considered unsatisfactory.
[38 FR 29889, Oct. 30, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 21042, June 18, 1974; 43 FR 7610, Feb. 24, 1978]
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM 

OFFICE OF PLANNING 

235 South Beretania Street, 6th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 

Ref. No. P-13496 

January 10, 2012 

Mr. David Smith 

Manager, NPDES Permits Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

75 Havlthorne Street 

San Franci ~o, California 94105-3901 

Attention: Mr. Eugene Bromley 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE GOVERNOR 

RICHARD C. LIM DIRECTOR 

MARY ALICE EVANS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

JESSE K. SOUKI 

DIRECTOR 

OFFICE OF PLANNING 

Telephone: (808) 587·2846 

Fax: (808) 587-2824 

SubJect: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Federal Consistency 

Review for the Issuance of General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation 

of Vessels 

The Hawaii CZM Program has completed its review of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act national federal consistency determination for the issuance oftwo general NPDES permits 

for discharges incidental to the normal operation ofvessels: (1) Vessel General Permit (VGP) to 

regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and noncommercial vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length; and (2) Small Vessel General 

Permit (sV(rP) to cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-recreational, nonmiiitary vessels iess than 79 feet in length. 

We concur with EPA's determination that the proposed VGP and sVGP are consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Hawaii CZM Program, 

based on the following condition: 

.The VGP and the sVGP shall be in compliance with State of Hawaii water quality 

certification requirements under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as specified in 

Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342D Water Pollution, and Hawaii Administrative 

Rules Chapter 11-54 Water Quality Standards. These authorities are administered by the 

Stat~ Department of Health and are federally-approved ·enforceable policies of the Hawaii 

CZM Program. 
Mr. David Smith 

Page 2 

January 10,2012 

CZM consistency concurrence is not an endorsement of the project nor does it convey 

approval with any other regulations administered by any State or County agency. Thank you for 

your cooperation in complying with the Hawaii CZM Program. If you have any questions, 

please call John Nakagawa of our CZM Program at (808) 587-2878. 

Sincerely 

. .,/ ; -,./c 

( 

Jess uki Dtr'ector 

_I 

c: Dr. Wendy Wiltse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Department of Health, Clean Water Branch
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications to Support Business Development and Create Jobs for 

People in Rural America

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2021 – The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that

it is accepting applications to support economic development and create jobs for people in rural America.

USDA is making this funding available under the Rural Business Development Grant program for eligible

entities to support business opportunity and enterprise projects in rural communities. Eligible entities are rural

towns, communities, state agencies, authorities, nonprofits, federally recognized tribes, public institutions of higher

education and non-profit cooperatives.

Business opportunity projects are used to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use local rural 

materials or human resources. Such projects must be consistent with any local and area-wide community and 

economic development strategic plans and are used to support other economic development activities in the project 

area. Projects include the establishment of business support centers or to finance job training and leadership

development in rural areas. Funding for business enterprise projects must be used to finance or develop small and 

emerging businesses in rural areas. Enterprise projects include the repair or modernization of buildings, technical 

assistance to a small business such as feasibility studies or business plans, or an equipment purchase for leasing to a 

small or emerging business.

In Fiscal Year 2022, USDA anticipates that part of the funding will be set aside for federally recognized Native 

American tribes, Rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities/Rural Economic Area Partnerships, projects 

located in Persistent Poverty areas, including those of Native Americans, and for Strategic Economic and 

Community Development (SECD) projects. Eligible applicants for the persistent poverty and SECD set-aside funds 

must demonstrate that 100 percent of the benefits of an approved grant will assist beneficiaries in the designated 

areas.

Applications for grant funding, including all set-aside funds, must be submitted to the USDA Rural Development 

State Office for the state where the project is located by 4:30 p.m. local time on Feb. 28, 2022. For additional 

information, visit Grants.gov or see page 53270 of the Sept. 27, 2021, Federal Register.

USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider projects that will advance key priorities under the 

Biden-Harris Administration to help rural America build back better and stronger. Key priorities include 

combatting the COVID-19 pandemic; addressing the impacts of climate change; and/or advancing equity in 

rural America.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                         DEKALB Genetics Corporation
                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  years ended August 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
               (Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
                                                          1997                   1996                   1995

<S>                                                 <C>                    <C>                    <C>
  Average shares outstanding*                             34,250,522             32,515,743             30,981,014

  Net average additional shares outstanding
   assuming dilutive options exercised
   and proceeds used to purchase treasury
   stock at average market price*                          1,509,946              1,060,655                572,873


  Average number of common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding                          35,760,468             33,576,398             31,553,887



  Net earnings for primary earnings per share
   computation                                        $       28,781          $      17,025          $      10,758



  Primary earnings per share*                               $   0.80               $   0.51               $   0.34


</TABLE>
*Earnings per share and all share amounts have been adjusted to reflect the two-
      for-one split of the Common
   Stock to holders of record July 25, 1997 and the three-for-one split of the
      Common Stock to holders of
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**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 Foamex International Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Larney, Chief Financial Officer of Foamex International Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Foamex International Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ Robert M. Larney

Robert M. Larney

Chief Financial Officer

April 7, 2008
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to October 30, 2018)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-17-843 Robertson v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.

A-18-029 In re Interest of Nehemyah H.

A-18-030 In re Interest of Nehemyah H.

A-18-415 In re Interest of Nevaeh S.

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
### §3765. Effect of sale

A sale, made and conducted as prescribed in this chapter to a bona fide purchaser, shall bar all claims upon, or with respect to, the property sold, for each of the following persons:

#### (1) Notice recipients

Any person to whom the notice of default and foreclosure sale was mailed as provided in this chapter, and the heir, devisee, executor, administrator, successor, or assignee claiming under any such person.

#### (2) Subordinate claimants with knowledge

Any person claiming any interest in the property subordinate to that of the mortgage, if such person had actual knowledge of the foreclosure sale.

#### (3) Nonrecorded claimants

Any person claiming any interest in the property, whose assignment, mortgage, or other conveyance was not duly recorded or filed in the proper place for recording or filing, or whose judgment or decree was not duly docketed or filed in the proper place for docketing or filing, before the date on which the notice of the foreclosure sale was first served by publication, as required by section 3758(3) of this title, and the executor, administrator, or assignee of such a person.

#### (4) Other persons

Any person claiming an interest in the property under a statutory lien or encumbrance created subsequent to the recording or filing of the mortgage being foreclosed, and attaching to the title or interest of any person designated in any of the foregoing paragraphs.

(Pub. L. 103–327, title II, Sept. 28, 1994, 108 Stat. 2316.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 816 of title VIII of S. 2281, One Hundred Third Congress, as reported July 13, 1994, which was enacted into law by Pub. L. 103–327.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Joel C. Phillips, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Exactech, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlsover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: March 15, 2006
### §§2181, 2182. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–233, title IV, §418(a)(2), (3), formerly §415(a)(2), (3), Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1653; renumbered §418(a)(2), (3), Pub. L. 100–399, title IV, §409(a), Aug. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 1003

Section 2181, Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.10, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 612; Pub. L. 96–592, title IV, §402, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3446, related to merger of similar banks.

Section 2182, Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.11, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 612; Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §205(f)(4), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1706, related to board of directors for merged bank.
#### Charles W. Mayer, Respondent, *v.*Commonwealth Trust Company of New York, Appellant.

*Bill of particulars*— *when granted in action for conversion.*

-Appeal from an order of .the Special- Term denying the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars,

Per Curiam:

The defendant’s motion for a bill' of particulars should have been granted, although it may be that the demand therefor is *too*broad. It is true that the defendant’s answer'displays a knowledge of certain transactions between itself and the plaintiff. These transactions as recited in the answer do not, however, appear to furnish grounds for an action for conversion such as plaintiff now *933brings. The defendant is, therefore, entitled to a bill of particulars showing upon what transactions the plaintiff claims that defendant has been guilty of conversion. It is a well-recognized function of a bill of particulars to amplify the complaint and define the. issues to be litigated at the trial. The order appealed from will, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Settle order on notice.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

INFINITE CUSTOMER SYSTEMS, LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4564 ) EMIL A. ZARCHEV; KALINKA ) ZARCHEVA; YOUNG PEST CONTROL ) OF COASTAL FLORIDA, INC.; ) BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP ) PORTFOLIO NO. 13, LLC as ) successor in interest to WASHINGTON ) MUTUAL, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 31, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Andrea McHugh, Judge. Jennifer Lima-Smith and Christos Pavlidis of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Shawn G. Brown of Frazier & Brown, Tampa, for Appellees Emil A. Zarchev and Kalinka Zarcheva. No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.- 2 - Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.