alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civil No. 246.]

#### C. S. CLARK, Appellant, v. JAMES REILLY, Appellee.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise.

Geo. G. Berry, for Appellant.

James Reilly, for Appellee.

February 11, 1889.

Affirmed.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Benjamin Shannon Rhodes, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00144

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17976 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Benjamin Shannon Rhodes, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 30, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.2**Section1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Syntax-Brillian Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wayne A. Pratt, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ Wayne A. Pratt   Wayne A. Pratt   Chief Financial Officer   November 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE CLOROX COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AS
PRESENTED IN THE CLOROX COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILED FOR SUCH PERIOD, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           67804
<SECURITIES>                                     45928
<RECEIVABLES>                                   400825
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1521
<INVENTORY>                                     201220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                758640
<PP&E>                                         1048322
<DEPRECIATION>                                  473900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2882473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           682494
<BONDS>                                         907570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         55422
<OTHER-SE>                                      969444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2882473
<SALES>                                        1770197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1770197
<CGS>                                           780849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1441729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2356)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               39247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 291577
<INCOME-TAX>                                    116532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             175045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    175045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

THOMAS MICHAEL LUTZ-MORRISON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 764 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Whether [Petitioner] is subject to lifetime reporting requirements pursuant

to 42 Pa.C.S.A[.] § 9799.15.
### §§1450, 1451. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1450, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §100, as added Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title III, §302, 68 Stat. 622; amended Sept. 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–372, title IV, §417(1), 73 Stat. 676, which related to the Urban Renewal Fund, was omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated authority to make grants or loans under this subchapter after Jan. 1, 1975.

Section 1451, acts July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §101, 63 Stat. 414; Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title III, §303, 68 Stat. 623; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 783, title I, §108(a), 69 Stat. 638; Aug. 7, 1956, ch. 1029, title IV, §402, 70 Stat. 1103; Sept. 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–372, title I, §110(a)(3), (4), title IV, §§401, 417(2), 73 Stat. 659, 670, 677; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–70, title I, §101(b), title III, §314(a), 75 Stat. 153, 172; Sept. 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88–560, title III, §§301(a), 302, 78 Stat. 785; Aug. 10, 1965, Pub. L. 89–117, title I, §101(f), title III, §§302(a)(1), (b), 305(b), 79 Stat. 453, 474, 476; Sept. 9, 1965, Pub. L. 89–174, §7(d), 79 Stat. 670; May 25, 1967, Pub. L. 90–19, §6(b), (c), 81 Stat. 21; Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §513, 82 Stat. 525; Dec. 24, 1969, Pub. L. 91–152, title II, §217(a), 83 Stat. 390; Apr. 30, 1977, Pub. L. 95–24, title I, §105(a), 91 Stat. 56, which related to local programs under this subchapter, was omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated the authority to make grants or loans under this subchapter after Jan. 1, 1975.

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

#### Amendment of Contracts for Incorporation of Certain Cost Provisions

Pub. L. 88–560, title III, §301(d), Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 785, provided that any contract for a capital grant under this subchapter executed prior to Sept. 2, 1964, could be amended to incorporate the provisions of section 1460(c) of this title for costs incurred on or after such date.

#### Completion of Projects Entered Into Prior to August 2, 1954

Act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title III, §312, 68 Stat. 629, as amended by Pub. L. 90–19, §10(a), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 22, provided that notwithstanding the amendments by title III of the 1954 Act to this subchapter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was required to continue to extend financial assistance for the completion of any project covered by any Federal aid contract executed, or prior approval granted, by him under this subchapter before Aug. 2, 1954, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter in force immediately prior to Aug. 2, 1954.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 12075

Ex. Ord. No. 12075, Aug. 16, 1978, 43 F.R. 36877, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12148, July 20, 1979, 44 F.R. 43239, which established the Interagency Coordinating Council and provided for its membership, functions, etc., was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12379, §14, Aug. 17, 1982, 47 F.R. 36099, formerly set out as a note under section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

No. 13-779 C 

Filed: August 2, 2016

************************************* 

 * 

CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al., * 

on behalf of herself and * 

all others similarly situated, * 

 * 

 Plaintiffs, * 

 * 

v. * 

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

 * 

 Defendant. * 

 * 

************************************* 

ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Class Administrator, on behalf of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), shall provide the following notice by postcard or letter, 

prepaid first class mail to the last known home address of each of the 21,769 employees and former 

employees of the VA who previously were identified by the VA as putative members of the class in 

this case: 

Some of you may have received postcard notices or otherwise heard or read 

about a class action lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on 

behalf of VA employees. You may also have heard or read comments questioning the 

legitimacy of the lawsuit or the website associated with the lawsuit or suggesting that 

the lawsuit and website are scams. 

The purpose of this message is to correct any mistaken impressions and to 

confirm that the lawsuit, captioned DeMons et al., v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 13-

779C, is a legitimate, on-going class action lawsuit in the United States Court of 

Federal Claims. The associated website, www.myleavepay.com, is a valid, secure site 

created and administered by a Class Action Administrator approved by the United 

States Court of Federal Claims. 

The Department of Justice represents the VA in this lawsuit; VA employees 

who are already a part of this lawsuit or who join in the class action are represented 

by class counsel. If you are interested in obtaining further information about this 

lawsuit, you should visit the website and follow the instructions on the site. 

Class Action;

Class Notice by Postcard or Letter to 

Putative Class Members;

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”).
2

I want to assure you that the lawsuit and the website www.myleavepay.com is 

not a scam. It is a secure, valid website approved by the United States Court of 

Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims has extended the deadline 

for filing an opt-in claim form until September 16, 2016. 

Sincerely, 

Leigh Bradley 

General Counsel 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the deadline for filing 

a timely opt-in claim form by a putative member of the class is extended from August 15, 2016 

to September 16, 2016. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ Susan G. Braden 

 SUSAN G. BRADEN 

 Judge
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under									

E.O.	13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft Final Rule, “Control of Air Pollution from 

Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards,” RIN 2060-AQ86

1. With respect to your question about the statement that nearly 90% of daily trips occur by personal 

vehicle, according to the 2001 NHTS. Personal vehicle refers to motor vehicles, not 

bicycles. Personal vehicles are differentiated from transit and “other” trips. The “nearly 90%” refers 

to both trips and miles. In the 2009 NHTS, it would be “about 80%” of trips and “about 90%” of 

miles. I’m inclined to leave the sentence as is (but perhaps without the additional “and other motor 

vehicles” that we had added, because it is less precise) but am happy to hear further questions 

about it.

EO 12866 Response: Without looking at the data, it appears that NHTS differentiates trips from 

miles so it would be more accurate to use the percentage trips number if that is what is being 

relayed in the sentence. Suggest the agency revise the sentence to say, “Almost 80 percent of the 

number of trips made per day use personal vehicles.”
### SUBCHAPTER X—OTHER PROVISIONS
§ 3.40 Admissibility of evidence in advertising substantiation cases. ( a ) If a person, partnership, or corporation is required through compulsory process under section 6, 9 or 20 of the Act issued after October 26, 1977 to submit to the Commission substantiation in support of an express or an implied representation contained in an advertisement, such person, partnership or corporation shall not thereafter be allowed, in any adjudicative proceeding in which it is alleged that the person, partnership, or corporation lacked a reasonable basis for the representation, and for any purpose relating to the defense of such allegation, to introduce into the record, whether directly or indirectly through references contained in documents or oral testimony, any material of any type whatsoever that was required to be but was not timely submitted in response to said compulsory process. *Provided, however,* that a person, partnership, or corporation is not, within the meaning of this section, required through compulsory process to submit substantiation with respect to those portions of said compulsory process to which such person, partnership, or corporation has raised good faith legal objections in a timely motion pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, until the Commission denies such motion; or if the person, partnership, or corporation thereafter continues to refuse to comply, until such process has been judicially enforced.
( b ) The Administrative Law Judge shall, upon motion, at any stage exclude all material that was required to be but was not timely submitted in response to compulsory process described in paragraph (a) of this section, or any reference to such material, unless the person, partnership, or corporation demonstrates in a hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge finds, that by the exercise of due diligence the material could not have been timely submitted in response to the compulsory process, and that the Commission was notified of the existence of the material immediately upon its discovery. Said findings of the Administrative Law Judge shall be in writing and shall specify with particularity the evidence relied upon. The rules normally governing the admissibility of evidence in Commission proceedings shall in any event apply to any material coming within the above exception.
[42 FR 56500, Oct. 10, 1977; 42 FR 61450, Dec. 5, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 45578, July 7, 1980]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

p1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

150876 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150876

COA: 324115

Lenawee CC: 13-016749-FH;

13-016750-FH; 13-016751-FH;

13-016790-FH

DAVID ANTHONY FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of September 16, 2015, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals. 

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to 

appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
(March 11, 1955.)

#### In the Matter of C. David Nash et al., Appellants-Respondents, against Calvin Van Pelt, as Clerk of the Village of Northport, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— In a proceeding pursuant to the Election Law to invalidate a nominating petition filed in connection with the annual village election of the Village of Northport, petitioners appeal from an order which denies their application to declare the petition invalid for failure to set forth thereon the correct election districts in which the respective signers thereof resided, and respondents-appellants appeal from certain portions of said order. On appeal of appellants-respondents, order affirmed, without costs. On the argument of this appeal it was conceded that, although the village has been divided by resolution of the board of trustees into two election districts but one polling place has been used; that there is no separation of the vote in the village by district; that one voting result is announced and filed; and that the inspectors of election have not been designated by district but rather from the village as a whole. On consideration of the peculiar circumstances disclosed by this record, we are of opinion that there has been substantial compliance with the statute (Election Law, § 138). On appeal by respondents-appellants, appeal dismissed, without costs. They are not parties aggrieved. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER IX—REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
### §1436d. Consultation with affected areas in settlement of litigation

In negotiating any settlement of, or consent decree for, significant litigation regarding public housing or section 8 [42 U.S.C. 1437f] tenant-based assistance that involves the Secretary and any public housing agency or any unit of general local government, the Secretary shall seek the views of any units of general local government and public housing agencies having jurisdictions that are adjacent to the jurisdiction of the public housing agency involved, if the resolution of such litigation would involve the acquisition or development of public housing dwelling units or the use of vouchers under section 1437f of this title in jurisdictions that are adjacent to the jurisdiction of the public housing agency involved in the litigation.

(Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §599H(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2668.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Secretary, referred to in text, means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, and not as part of the United States Housing Act of 1937 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §599H(m), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2670, provided that: "This section [enacting this section and amending section 1490 of this title] shall take effect on, and the amendments made by this section are made on, and shall apply beginning upon, the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998]."
FOssil springs and Past Groundwater Flow

Ancient springs leave mineral
deposits that mark the location
of prehistoric groundwater
discharge during cooler, wetter
periods in the past. These
fossil spring deposits indicate
where groundwater could
discharge in the future under
different climate conditions.

State Line Deposits
Nevada-California
Deposited by springs more
than 30,000 years ago

oe
* ‘>
4 Pg
, 2° | 7a : 4
ae CL “ ”
4 4 Aad ¥ ;
<a * oe m &
Kae
Po oa §
O Ts + - ?
, ish “ea 4s ce
. TM~ r J
“4 of )) oF

4, .
re ad

ie

2
yas 17?

, boa ‘ wit vA,
oo Ag " a 4
he ¥
4

®USNRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment
No. II-11-068 December 5, 2011 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

NRC STAFF SCHEDULES MEETING WITH SHAW AREVA MOX SERVICES 

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT MIXED OXIDE FACILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting with officials of 

Shaw Areva MOX Services at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 15 in Aiken, S.C., to discuss the results 

of the Applicant Performance Review for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility currently 

under construction at the Savannah River site. 

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held at Newberry Hall, 117 Newberry 

St., SW, in Aiken. NRC officials will be available to answer questions from the public after the 

business portion of the meeting. 

The NRC review covered the period from Oct. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2011, and found 

MOX facility construction activities acceptable. The review also determined that the construction 

program was being sufficiently implemented. The NRC did not identify any areas needing 

improvement during the most recent assessment period. 

The MOX facility, which is owned by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear 

Security Administration, is part of an effort to make surplus weapons-grade plutonium into more 

proliferation-resistant forms. Converting the plutonium into MOX fuel will enable it to be used 

in commercial reactors to generate electricity. In the United States, only those reactors 

authorized by the NRC will be permitted to use MOX fuel. 

The performance review letter for the MOX facility is available on the NRC website at 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . The number to access that document is ML11319A354. 

 ### 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
NRC NEWS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

or nas@nrc.gov

I-96-73 November 5, 1996

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE

 RELEASE

 Neil A. Sheehan 

 NRC DISPATCHES INSPECTOR TO REVIEW CIRCUMSTANCES

 OF THE CONTAMINATION OF TWO WORKERS AT THE HADDAM NECK

 NUCLEAR PLANT

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing an incident over the weekend

at the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant, in Haddam, Connecticut, in which two

workers received unplanned radiation exposures. 

 

 Northeast Utilities (NU), which operates the plant, has told the NRC that the incident

occurred last Saturday morning (November 2), when two workers were performing

decontamination and cleanup work in the plant's spent fuel transfer canal. In

preparation for the movement of the shutdown reactor's nuclear fuel core, the workers --

one a Northeast Utilities supervisor, the other a Westinghouse refueling contractor --

spent about 15 minutes removing contamination and debris from the canal, which at the

time was dry. After being flooded, the canal is used to move highly radioactive spent

fuel from the reactor to the nearby circulating-water storage pool. The workers were

wearing protective clothing but not respirators, breathing equipment designed to protect

against airborne contamination.

 

 Upon exiting the work area, NU determined that the workers had unknowingly

conducted activities that created a significant potential for radiological exposure greater

than what was originally anticipated, including handling highly radioactive debris. 

Further evaluation of the airborne radioactivity in the area indicated radioactive air

concentrations that were significantly higher than expected, probably as a result or

cleaning activities conducted by the workers. These conditions prompted NU to stop all

work in the immediate area until the causes of the changes in the radiological conditions

were understood and proper radiation protection measures were implemented. The

employees were measured for radiation exposure, but initial recordings showed the

workers did not receive a dose higher than permissible levels. For nuclear industry

workers, the maximum annual exposure rate is 5 rem per year.

 A senior radiation specialist from NRC Region I has been dispatched to the site to

look into the incident.
### SUBCHAPTER II—TRAINING
5349.7003 Notification of Anticipated Terminations or Reductions       (b)(2)(i) The contracting officer must submit the draft notification through the SCO to the cognizant HCA Workflow as soon as the proposed termination/reduction is known. The cognizant HCA will forward the notification to SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ for signature (see MP5349).     **Parent topic:** Subpart 5349.70 – SPECIAL TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS
#### Carl E. Anderson, Appellant, v. E. W. Bliss Company, Respondent.

— Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We think the case was for the jury. *(McGovern*v. *C. V. R. R. Co.,*123 N. Y. 280; *Rice*v. *Eureka Paper Co.,*174 id. 385.) Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.