alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROGERS v. ROGERS.

October 17, 1912.

A non-resident of tlie State, voluntarily attending upon a city court to answer to an accusation for a misdemeanor against him, is not privileged from arrest under civil process nor exempt from service of civil process upon him.

Petition for discharge from custody, etc. Before Judge Sheppard. Tattnall superior court. January 15, 1912.

*Way & Bwrlchalter,*for plaintiff in error.

*804Evans, P. J.

Thomas H. Eogers, with his wife Edna C. Eogers, and their children, resided in Tattnall county, Georgia. The husband removed to the State of Florida, and his wife caused to be preferred, in the city court of Eeidsville, an accusation against him for abandoning his children. He voluntarily returned to Tattnall county to answer that charge. While in attendance upon the court he was served with a copy of a suit for divorce and alimony, instituted by his wife; in which petition the writ of ne exeat was prayed, and an order was granted commanding his arrest in the terms of the statute, by virtue of which he was taken into custody by the sheriff. He applied to the judge of the superior court for a vacation of the entry of service and for release from custody, on the ground that while attending and going from the city court of Eeidsville he was privileged from arrest under civil process, and exempt from the service of any writ upon him. The court issued a rule to show cause, and, upon hearing evidence, passed an order setting aside the service of the petition for divorce and alimony on the defendant and discharging him from custody.

A witness in attendance upon the trial of any case is privileged from arrest under any civil process. Civil Code; § 5854. And this privilege is also said to extend to an exemption from the service of any writ or summons upon him. *Thornton*v. *Machine Company,*83 *Ga.*288 (9 S. E. 679, 20 Am. St. R. 320); *Fidelity etc. Company*v. *Everett,*97 *Ga.*787 (25 S. E. 734, 33 L. R. A. 821, 54 Am. St. R. 440). This privilege, however, is limited to witnesses, and does not apply to a defendant in a criminal case, who can not be a witness in his own case, under the laws of this State. “The jurisdiction of this State and its laws extends to all persons while within its limits, whether as citizens, denizens, or temporary ■sojourners.” Civil Code, § 2172. “A citizen of another State, passing through this State, may be sued in any county thereof in which he may happen to be at the time when served.” Civil Code, '§ 5531. The defendant voluntarily appeared to defend the criminal charge against himself, and he is liable to suit as others are, and must answer thereto in like manner.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         105,131
<SECURITIES>                                    98,608
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,134
<PP&E>                                          63,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 466,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,204
<BONDS>                                         13,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       581,728
<OTHER-SE>                                    (164,982)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   466,471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,808
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,587
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (79,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (79,275)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (79,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.70)
        

</TABLE>
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/11

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
### §5106a–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–252, title IV, §401(b)(2), May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 672

Section, Pub. L. 93–247, title I, §107A, as added Pub. L. 101–226, §21, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1937; amended Pub. L. 102–295, title I, §115(a), May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 195, related to emergency child abuse prevention services grants.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry Lee Hines, Appellant.

Time for argument of appeal enlarged and case set down for argument at March 1961 Term. District Attorney directed to file brief on or before March 16, 1961.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26132]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 20, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service 
Contract 178 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-28, CP2021-29.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-26132 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0131

SAT Date: 12/7/2012

Print Date: 4/1/2013

Related cases:

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: P2REC: SAT: Do not forward; this substance poses a high hazard for 

Ecotoxicity

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,MM,L; LUNG; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0131

FATE: Estimations for 

log Kow = 0.35 (M)

log Koc = 0.16 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)
log Fish BAF = 0.04 (E)

FATE: Estimations for typical 

log Kow = 7.35 (E)

log Koc = 5.36 (E)

log Fish BCF = 3.36 (E)

log Fish BAF = 1.65 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = low

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin, poor absorption from the 

GI tract; moderate absorption from the lung (analog). Concern for lung toxicity caused by 

interference with the surfactant balance of the lungs and irritation to eyes, lungs and mucous 

membranes from the 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.020

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.002

green algal 96-h EC50 0.001

fish _ chronic value 0.001

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.001

algal _ chronic 

value

0.001

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for 

with molecular weight adjustment; 

(P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, and BRIANA FREDRANIQUE

ANNETTE JACKSON, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge

# 275), C. SMITH, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge #

285), P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge #

291), WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually

and as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police

Department (Badge # 274), 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

AMENDED JUDGMENT

Based on the jury verdict in this case, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Frederick

Jackson and jointly and severally in the amount of $250,000.00 against Officer Cory Lee Smith,

Officer Sankara Reddy Dumpa, and Officer Gerald Vincent Lombardi. Additionally, further

judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Frederick Jackson and without joint and several liability

against Officer Cory Lee Smith in the amount of $6,500.00, Officer Sankara Reddy Dumpa in the 

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 220 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

amount of $2,500.00, and Officer Gerald Vincent Lombardi in the amount of $7,500.00. 

Judgment is otherwise entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. This amended

judgment does not change the deadline of August 20, 2010, for the parties’ post-trial motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 220 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

HonorableT. D. Sansing County Attorney Hansford.County s* zuman, Texas Dear Sir': Opinion No. O-7415 Are trucks o

Xe are in receipt of your wherein you request an opinion 0 to tho above captionedquesti

“The Federal Gove trucks to tha t; vation District and for its ex districtmad vehicles as ment has tak not come und ion Consert will entitle e letter from and the applithe district.

You have not stated in your oninion request whether the vehicles in question.sre to be operatedupon the public highways of Texas or not, but, for the purpose of this opinion,we are presuming that they are to be so used.

Article 6675a-2, V.A.C.S.,providesin Dart as fol101.s: "Every owner of a motor **vehicle,** trailer or oeni-trailer

used or to be used upon the publichighmyo of thio :Itate sh:ill n:;,:,J.y each -year

to the SQlLe Hi&way I~epurtnlcn.~ i;!umr,h

the Cw1ty Tax Collector of the county in which he rosidos for the IW&tI'ation Of CclCh SUCh VC?hiCle OwlCd a* controZ].cd by kdm for the ensuing or current calendar year or I:nerpirodportion ti?oreof;.
. .!I Article G675a-3,v.i..c.i)., providea in part ns follows: '1.
. + .Ownersof notor vehicles,triloro and se:~L-trai1ers

which are the propertyof, snd used osclusivolyin the service of the i'nited States goverment, State of Tems, or cny comty , city or school districtthereof, shall ap$.y annual.l.y to register all such vehicles but shall not be required to pay the registration eos herein presoribcd.
. .n

1 The Iiansford

CountyYind ErosionConservation Districtwas orgmieed under Article l&a-2, V.A.CL?., an'd. such Article pmti&s that districtscreatedunder the i.ct shallbe go-vwmontal ngoncies and bodies politic and wm prcsum that the eppliccitlon for c:&npt re~;istration

submittedby such di.st.ri.ct is bacod on the proposition that bcinz a ::ovcrmental agency, it is e;ieapt from taxation. HOWever, the fee provided Sor in the re$stration statute is not a tz0z but is a license fee for the -privilege of ol>eruting

motor vehicles upon the public highways of this Stato. Atkins v. state IIi&ray Depmtment, 201 3, ;i4226.(mik of error refused.)

Article 6675~2, eupra, is FLU. inclusiveorid

does cot n&e any Tovision to exenpt vehiclesowned by political subdivisions of the state. Article 6675a-3, suprn exeqts from the pqment of re;;istration

Sees certain~;ov*rrment~ a&encios specifically therein mentioned. It is cla.ar from the wording of the two above mentioned statutestk&t t&o Logielaturehan providedthat all. o-err; of motor vehicle5which are operatedupon tho publichighways of this state shall pay the,lPcensefoes providedexcept those which are epecifitally enumertiedin Article 6675~1-3, and the rules of statutoryconstruction

will not perm4.t

us to ez&end the exenptioneto political subdivisions

of this FItato

~!hich are not specifically mentionedin saiti Article 6675a-3.
;;a k.vc previouslyheld in 0~in.3.0~1 80. 0-26Cl9 'that tihe Doxar-i.;edina-Ataocosa CountiesXater knrovement DistrictDo. 1 is not exempt, fmn the paymnt of motor voki,clc fees,enc?

we erc enclosing a copy of such opinion for your irGcormation.

_---.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Advanced Optics  Electronics,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Leslie Robins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.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; 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/ Leslie Robins
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         August 21, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
§ 2003.3 Requests for records. ( a ) A request from an individual for an OIG record about that individual which is not contained in an OIG system of records will be considered to be a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and will be processed under 24 CFR part 2002.
( b ) A request from an individual for an OIG record about that individual which is contained in an OIG system of records will be processed under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA in order to ensure maximum access under both statutes. This practice will be undertaken regardless of how an individual characterizes the request. ( 1 ) The procedures for inquiries and requirements for access to records under the Privacy Act are more specifically set forth in 24 CFR part 16, except that appendix A to part 16 does not apply to the OIG.
( 2 ) An individual will not be required to state a reason or otherwise justify his or her request for access to a record.
**Exhibit 13**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United Sates Code), each of the undersigned officers ofDesarrolladora Homex, S.A. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on form20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 20-F”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-Ffairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                      | /s/ Gerardo de Nicolás Gutiérrez |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: June 28, 2005 | Gerardo de Nicolás Gutiérrez     |   |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer                    |   |
|                      |                                       |   |
|                      | /s/ Cleofas Hinojosa Saenz                 |   |
| Dated: June 28, 2005 | Cleofas Hinojosa Saenz                     |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer                    |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)

COMBINED BALANCE SHEETS
COMBINED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                       139
<INVENTORY>                                      9,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,110
<PP&E>                                           7,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,423
<BONDS>                                            187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,467
<SALES>                                         60,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,325
<CGS>                                           45,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,847
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Roma Brett, Appellant, v. Jack Brett, Respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs, for the reason that the defendant’s statements as to payments *961made by bim to the plaintiff on account of unpaid alimony have not been controverted by plaintiff, and, therefore, the exact amount due has not been established by the moving papers. Present —■ Clarke, P; J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Rubel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Arc Communications
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant is made known to myself and others,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

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

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal controls
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: August 14, 2003


/s/ Michael Rubel
------------------------------------------
Michael Rubel, principal financial officer