alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Noah Maclin, Inc., Appellant, v. International Diesel Electric Company, Incorporated, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### Samuel Shopiro, Respondent, v. Samuel M. Berlin and Another, Appellants.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied. Held, defendants’ witnesses are not necessary upon the issues raised hy them original answer. If defendants give the stipulation required to retain them amended answer, they thereby elect to try the case in Onondaga county.
### §1780l. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 109–286, §14, Sept. 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 1229, which related to distribution of funds plan, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        1000
<OTHER-SE>                      (1000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
                                

</TABLE>
Dr. Henry A. Holle 

Commissioner of Health 

State Department of Health 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Dr. Holle: 

Opinion No. W-194 

Re: Authority of a City Health 

Officer to assist in enforcing the provisions of 

House Bill 194, Acts of the 

55th Legislature, R.S. 1957. 

This opinion Is In response to your letter of June 27, 

1957 in which you present the following questions, regarding 

House Bill 194, enacted by the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957: 

1. 'Is there any provision in House Bill 194 

which would prohibit a city health officer 

from taking action against any person violating this law within the city health officer's jurisdiction provided the complaint 

was filed in county court since the maximum 

penalty removes jurisdiction from corporation 

and justice courts? 

2. 'Is there any provision in House Bill 194 

which would prohibit a city health officer 

from enforcing this law in his jurisdiction 

and prosecuting violations in corporation 

court if the maximum penalty were $200.00 

with no provision for imprisonment%'" 

You are advised that both of the questions you ask 

are answered in the negative. 

Article 4430, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides that 

the city health officer shall fully cooperate with the State 

Department of Health and city health officers shall discharge 

and perform such duties as may be prescribed for him under the 

directions, rules, regulations and requirements of the State 

Department of Health and the Commissioner of Health. 

Article 4430, Vernon's Civil Statutes, also provides 

that the city health officer shall aid the State Department 

of Health at all times in the enforcement of proper rules, 

regulations and requirements in the enforcement of all sanitaTy 
Dr. Henry A. Holle, page 2. (w-194) 

laws, quarantine regulations and vital statistics collection, 

and perform such other duties as the State Health Department 

shall direct. 

Subdivision (a), Section 5 of House Bill 194, states: 

"This Act shall be enforced by the Commissioner 

of Heath of the State of Texas.” 

Under the provision of Article 4430, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, the Commissioner of Health may call upon the city 

health officer to aid in the enforcement of House Bill 194. 

There Is no provision in House Bill 194 which would 

prohibit a city health officer from taking action against any 

person violating said law within the city health officer's 

jurisdiction if called upon by Commissioner of Health to do so. 

SUMMARY 

The city health officer has authority 

to take action against any person violating House Bill 194 within the city 

health officer's jurisdiction If called 

upon by Commissioner of Health to do so. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

MRT:wam:zt 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

C. E. Richards 

John Lennan 

Marvin R. Thomas, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Geo. P. Blackburn 

B 

Marvin R. Thomas, Jr. 

Assistant
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #P055]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for Public Assistance on September 23, 2004 the U.S. Small Business Administration is activating its disaster loan program only for private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature. I find that Addison, Caledonia, Chittenden, Franklin, Lamoille, Orleans, and Windham Counties in the State of Vermont constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding occurring on August 12, 2004 and continuing through September 12, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 22, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical DamageNon-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
2.900Non-profit organizations with credit available elsewhere
4.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is P05506. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59008.) Dated: September 28, 2004. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 04-22382 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **2 -**  **7976**

CARLOS LAJUANE MURPHY , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02223

- F )

Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Carlos LaJuane Murphy , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlos LaJuane Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissin g without prejudice hi s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failing to abide by the orders of the court, failing to prosecute, and abandonment of claims . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Murphy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collatera l order. Murphy may be able to save his petition by amending it to comply with the district court’s order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pau peris and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 (“Form 10-K”),filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated:  December 9, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Harry Brill         |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Harry Brill             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Attachment 002 Structure and Reaction Sequence 

Material redacted --- Confidential Business Information
Die 04968 Gripper 1" Notes: 

Heidelberg Press: 

Contact: 

24331 ALB Doorhanger Job ID: 
Notes: Die 04968 Gripper 1"Press: HeidelbergContact: Job ID: 24331 ALB Doorhanger
§ 3809.580 What happens if I modify my notice or approved plan of operations? ( a ) If you modify a notice or an approved plan of operations under § 3809.331 or § 3809.431 respectively, and your estimated reclamation cost increases, you must increase the amount of the financial guarantee to cover any estimated additional cost of reclamation and long-term treatment in compliance with § 3809.552.
( b ) If you modify a notice or an approved plan of operations under § 3809.331 or § 3809.431 respectively, and your estimated reclamation cost decreases, you may request BLM decrease the amount of the financial guarantee for your operations.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., 3G 

LICENSING S.A., and SISVEL S.p.A., 

Plaintiffs 

§

§

§

§

v. 

HMD AMERICA, INC., and HMD GLOBAL 

OY, 

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CV-22051-JEM 

Defendants. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE FOR 

MATTHEW MOFFA, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION, AND REQUEST TO 

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILING 

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for 

Matthew Moffa, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of 

Electronic Filing (the “Motion”), pursuant to the Rules Governing the Admission, Practice, Peer 

Review, and Discipline of Attorneys in the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida and Section 2B of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. This Court having 

considered the motion and all other relevant factors, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

The Motion is GRANTED. Matthew Moffa, may appear and participate in this action on 

behalf of Defendants HMD AMERICA, INC. and HMD GLOBAL OY. The Clerk shall provide 

electronic notification of all electronic filings to Matthew Moffa, at MMoffa@perkinscoie.com. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at , Florida, this 

day of . 

____________________________________

 JOSE E. MARTINEZ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 16-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 1 of 1
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 574 Lower Tribunal No. CF16

- 007533

- XX

_____________________________
C HARLES M ILLER , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Donald G

. Jacobsen , Judge.
February 6, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
TRAVER
, C

. J. , and NARDELLA and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Charles Miller, Malone, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor and Jonathan S. Tannen, Assistant Attorney s General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
**Exhibit 32.1**

STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Theodore R. Maloney,certify that:

1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the yearended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of MediCor Ltd. (the “Company”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Date:September 28, 2006
|   | /s/ Theodore R. Maloney |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Theodore R. Maloney     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §612. Basis for cost depletion

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, the basis on which depletion is to be allowed in respect of any property shall be the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for the purpose of determining the gain upon the sale or other disposition of such property.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 208.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThree-dimensional Euler time accurate simulations of fan rotor-stator interactionsA numerical method useful to describe unsteady 3-D flow fields within turbomachinery stages is presented. The method solves the compressible, time dependent, Euler conservation equations with a finite volume, flux splitting, total variation diminishing, approximately factored, implicit scheme. Multiblock composite gridding is used to partition the flow field into a specified arrangement of blocks with static and dynamic interfaces. The code is optimized to take full advantage of the processing power and speed of the Cray Y/MP supercomputer. The method is applied to the computation of the flow field within a single stage, axial flow fan, thus reproducing the unsteady 3-D rotor-stator interaction.Document ID19910014811Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBoretti, A. A.*(Fiat Research Center Orbassano, Turin, Italy)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102528E-5338NASA-TM-102528ICOMP-90-08Accession Number91N24124Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASA ORDER C-99066-GDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910014811.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 413.2 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Project Manager* means the Project Manager of the Columbia Basin Project, a Federal reclamation project.
( b ) *District* means any one of the irrigation districts organized under the laws of Washington which has contracted with the United States under the Columbia Basin Project Act to repay a portion of the construction cost of the project.
( c ) *Settlement lands* means those public lands of the United States within the project or those lands acquired by the United States under the authority of the Columbia Basin Project Act, title to which is vested in the United States and which are being held pending their conveyance in accordance with the project settlement and development program.
( d ) *Other project act lands* means those public lands within the project and those lands or interests acquired and being held by the United States under the Columbia Basin Project Act, which are being held other than for conveyance in accordance with the project settlement and development program.
( e ) *Rights of way* means lands or interests in lands acquired by the United States under the Federal Reclamation Laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, 43 U. S. C. 391, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto) for the construction and operation of project works, rights of way, including improvements thereon, reserved to the United States, under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U. S. C. 945) or section 90.40.050 of the Revised Code of Washington and being asserted for project purposes.
§ 4.1012 Where and how must documents be filed? ( a ) *Place of filing.* Any documents relating to a case under this subpart must be filed with DCHD. DCHD's contact information is identified in the OHA Standing Orders on Contact Information
( b ) *Method of filing.* ( 1 ) Unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ, a document must be filed with DCHD using one of the following methods: ( i ) By hand delivery of the original document;
( ii ) By sending the original document by express mail or courier service for delivery on the next business day;
( iii ) By sending the document by facsimile if: ( A ) The document is 20 pages or less, including all attachments;
( B ) The sending facsimile machine confirms that the transmission was successful; and
( C ) The original of the document is sent by regular mail on the same day.
( 2 ) Parties are encouraged, but not required, to supplement any filing made under paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section by providing the appropriate office with an electronic copy of the document.
( c ) *Date of filing.* A document under this subpart is considered filed on the date it is received. However, any document received by DCHD after 5 p.m. is considered filed on the next regular business day.
( d ) *Nonconforming documents.* If any document submitted for filing under this subpart does not comply with the requirements of this subpart or any applicable order, it may be rejected. If the defect is minor, the filer may be notified of the defect and given a chance to correct it.
( e ) A document may be electronically transmitted under the terms specified in OHA Standing Orders on Electronic Transmission.
[36 FR 7186, Apr. 15, 1971, as amended at 88 FR 5794, Jan. 30, 2023]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-80717-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/Brannon

VERONICA BRAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

 

ORDER CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice (“Stipulation”) (DE 18), filed on October 13, 2020. The Court congratulates the Parties 

on their amicable resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago Franchising, Inc. v. 

Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012), the Parties’ Stipulation is self-executing and no order 

of the Court is required to dismiss this action. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 

(1) The above-styled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

(2) The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this CASE and DENY all pending motions AS 

MOOT. 

SIGNED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 15th day of October, 2020.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-80717-DMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### Hughes, administrator, *v.*Hughes *et al.*

December 14, 1910.

Ejectment. Before Judge Rawlings. Toombs superior court. August 10, 1909.

*Williams, Giles & Corbitt,*for plaintiff.

*nines & Jordan*and *Jones & Sparks,*for defendants.

Fish, C. J.

An instrument attested as a deed' and duly recorded during the life of the maker, contained the following language: “Now, for the love, affection, regard and sympathy I have and bear for my affectionate wife, Sarah Hughes, I make, relinquish, and deed all my legal right in and to my homestead survey of pine land upon which I now reside, to her and in her own legal right and benefit.” Then followed a description and plat of certain land. Continuing, the language of the instrument was as follows: “And whereas I, the said Duncan Hughes [the maker], do make this deed and conveyance to my affectionate and beloved wife, the aforesaid Sarah Hughes, under the following conditions, to wit: If my wife, the said Sarah Hughes, should survive me, my desire and wish is for her to retain possession during her lifetime, and after her demise it is my desire and wish that our beloved daughter, Margaret Hughes, now remaining with us on the said premises and a member of our household, shall heir the a'bove-deseribed 215 acres with all the improvements now and which may be hereafter put upon the same,, to have arid to hold the same in her legal right '"against the claim of any one or more of the rest of my heirs or relatives, and against the claims of any and all other persons whatsoever.” *Held,*that the instrument was properly construed by the trial judge to be a deed. *Isler*v. *Griffin,*134 *Ga.*192 (67 S. E. 854), and cases cited.

*(a)*Accordingly, as the right of the plaintiff below for a recovery of the land in question depended upon the instrument above referred to being construed as a will and not as a deed, the same having been put in evidence by the defendant, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Notices]               
[Page 19946]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-40]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, April 21, 2010; 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS:  Closed to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 13, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8904 Filed 4-14-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```