alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. Toberg *et al. v.*The City of Chicago.

*Filed at Ottawa January 19, 1897.*

1. Special *assessments—certificate reciting that notice was published “five times” is insufficient.*A certificate of publication reciting that a notice of assessment and final hearing had been published “five times” is insufficient, as not showing a compliance with the statute requiring such notice to be published at least “five successive days.” (Laws of 1885, p. 62.)

2. S *ame—sufficient certificate of publication necessary to valid judgment of confirmation.*A judgment of confirmation cannot be sustained, on appeal, though the defendants were defaulted at the hearing, where the certificate of publication of notice required by statute is insufficient.

*573Writ of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. O. H. Carter, Judge, presiding.

Maher & Gilbert, for plaintiffs in error.

Per Curiam:

This record is brought before us by

plaintiffs in error to reverse the judgment of the county court of Cook county, entered in a special assessment proceeding against certain of their real estate, to pay the cost of curbing with curb-walls, filling, and paving with wooden blocks, Leavitt street, from West Eighteenth street to Blue Island avenue, in the city of-Chicago. Ho briefs have been filed by defendant in error. Plaintiffs in error did not appear in the court below, and judgment was entered by default.

It is pointed out that the certificate of publication of the notice of the assessment and of the final hearing is insufficient to show due publication of the notice as required by the statute. This point is well taken. The certificate states that the notice “has been published *five times*in,” etc., stating also the date of the first and last publications. The statute provides that the notice shall be published at least *‘‘five successive days,”*and as was said in *Evans*v. *People ex rel.*139 Ill. 552, “for aught that here appears this notice may have been published two or more times in different editions of the paper printed and published on the same day. The certificate should have followed the statute, and shown a publication on *five successive days.”*To the same effect is *Chandler*v. *People ex rel.*161 Ill. 41. For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10550 Conference Calendar

DANIEL GAUDETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K. J. WENDT; GORDON TRUEBLOOD; KAREN FERNANDERS; SCOTT CROWE; JOSEPH CAPPS,
Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-245

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Daniel Gaudette, federal prisoner # 04208-180, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and IFP complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We construe Gaudette’s motion as a challenge to the district court’sNo. 05-10550 -2- determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Gaudette argues that his appeal should proceed because he “made an honest mistake” by failing to provide all of his evidence to the district court. Gaudette does not, however, give any indication what evidence he failed to submit, nor does he allege that he was precluded from presenting such evidence. He argues only that because he was proceeding pro se, he thought that the district court would give him “some leniency.” Gaudette was allowed to develop his claims through his responses to the magistrate judge’s questionnaire. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Gaudette was provided with ample opportunity to provide evidence, and the record shows that he made use of that opportunity. His suggestion that the district court failed to afford his pro se pleadings liberal construction is without merit. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Gaudette has failed to establish that he seeks to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for IFP is denied, and the appeal dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH CIR . R. 42.2. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We caution Gaudette that he has accumulated two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). If he accumulates a total of three strikes, Gaudette may no longerNo. 05-10550 -3- proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g); Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1997). MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bu mgardner and Senior Judge Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1499-02-2 JUDGERUDOLPH BU MGARDNER, III OCTOBER 14, 2003 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY William L. We llons, Judge Michael J. Brickhill (M ichael J. Brickhill, P.C., on br ief), for appellant. Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorn ey General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Leon Parrish Marshall of rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. He contends the evidence is insuffici ent because the victim's testimony was incredible as a matter of law. Concluding the defendant di d not raise this issue at trial, we affirm. "[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the Comm onwealth's evidence is waived if not raised with some specificity in the trial court." Mounce v. Commonwea lth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). When the defendant made a motion to set aside the jury verdict, he simply stated, "we would make a motion to set asid e the verdict as contrary to the law." "A mere statement that the judgment or aw ard is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to be rule d upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18. The ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 does not apply to this case. The victim was fourteen years old and testified about the defe ndant's actions. The testimony established each

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - element of each charge. While her testimony c ontained conflicts and in consistencies, nothing suggested it was incredible as a matter of law. The jury resolved the differences and found the victim credible. That finding was not clearly e rroneous. Rule 5A:18 prev ents our review of this issue. See Parrish v. Commonwealth , 38 Va. App. 607, 616, 567 S.E.2d 576, 580 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.
### §2. Advisory commission

The Council of National Defense shall nominate to the President, and the President shall appoint, an advisory commission, consisting of not more than seven persons, each of whom shall have special knowledge of some industry, public utility, or the development of some natural resource, or be otherwise specially qualified, in the opinion of the council, for the performance of the duties hereinafter provided. The members of the advisory commission shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed actual expenses of travel and subsistence when attending meetings of the commission or engaged in investigations pertaining to its activities. The advisory commission shall hold such meetings as shall be called by the council or be provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the council for the conduct of its work.

(Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 418, §2, 39 Stat. 649.)

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

#### Termination of Advisory Commissions

Advisory commissions in existence on Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period following Jan. 5, 1973, unless, in the case of a commission established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such commission is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a commission established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. Advisory commissions established after Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of their establishment, unless, in the case of a commission established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such commission is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a commission established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See sections 1001(2) and 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
#### § 7.91 Post-approval product audit.

Upon request by MSHA, but no more than once a year except for cause, the approval holder shall make a diesel engine available for audit at no cost to MSHA.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1107 Fire suppression devices.

[Statutory Provisions]

On and after March 30, 1971, fire-suppression devices meeting specifications prescribed by the Secretary shall be installed on unattended underground equipment and suitable fire-resistant hydraulic fluids approved by the Secretary shall be used in the hydraulic systems of such equipment. Such fluids shall be used in the hydraulic systems of other underground equipment unless fire suppression devices meeting specifications prescribed by the Secretary are installed on such equipment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000029322
<NAME>                        Ethika Corporation

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         36,483
<SECURITIES>                                   135,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  62,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,623
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          227,344
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       83,795
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,139
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,835)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.001)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31-35**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 of TheDetroit Edison Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 33-8760, 34-47986 and 34-54942.  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR. Anthony F. Earley, Jr. Date: November 9, 2007 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  of The Detroit Edison Company
#### In the Matter of Hattie James, Appellant, against Wendell Saunders et al., Respondents.

The motion for leave to appeal as a poor person will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on a typewritten record (including the typed *703minutes) and on a typewritten brief. Appellant is directed to file two copies of the record and five copies of appellant’s brief, and to serve one copy of the record and the brief on the attorneys for respondents. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur,
§ 551.3 Authority and applicability of this part. BOEM authorizes you to conduct exploration or scientific research activities under this part in accordance with the Act, the regulations in this part, orders of the Director/Regional Director, and other applicable statutes, regulations, and amendments. ( a ) This part does not apply to G&G exploration conducted by or on behalf of the lessee on a lease in the OCS. Refer to 30 CFR part 250 if you plan to conduct G&G activities related to oil, gas, or sulphur under terms of a lease.
( b ) Federal agencies are exempt from the regulations in this part.
( c ) G&G exploration or G&G scientific research related to minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur is covered by regulations at 30 CFR part 580.
§ 57.22307 Methane monitors (II-A mines). ( a ) Methane monitors shall be installed on continuous mining machines, longwall mining systems, bench and face drills, and undercutting machines used in or beyond the last open crosscut.
( b ) The monitors shall— ( 1 ) Give warning at 0.5 percent methane;
( 2 ) Automatically deenergize electrical equipment, except power to monitoring equipment determined by MSHA to be intrinsically safe under 30 CFR part 18, and prevent starting such equipment when methane levels reach 1.0 percent; and
( 3 ) Automatically deenergize the equipment when power to a sensor is interrupted.
( c ) Sensing units of monitors shall be positioned at a location which provides for the most effective measurement of methane.
#### Margy Bielowsky, Respondent, v Sol Bielowsky, Appellant.

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 5, 1977, as directed him to pay to plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $10,000 as an additional counsel fee. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the additional counsel fee award to $7,000. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The additional counsel fee award was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### RE: BakkenFlare data Skiba, RebeccaK. (MRO) to: Eric Wortman 07/24/2012 12:21 PM Hide Details From: "Skiba, Rebecca K. (MRO)" <rkskiba@marathonoil.com> To: EricWortman/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Eric, With the caveatthatthe data you were provided was averaged and notsite-specific for any particular Marathon sites, we withdrawour claim ofConfidential Business Information with regard tothis data. Thanks, Rebecca 

### From: Eric Wortman [mailto:Wortman.Eric@epamail.epa.90v] 

### Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 AM 

### To: Skiba, Rebecca K. (MRO) 

### Subject: Fw: Bakken Flare data
Hello Rebecca, Below is the email I referenced in our phone conversation. As we discussed, Iwould like to reference the enclosed combustorand utility flare specifications in the airquality impact analysis discussions for an AQIA memo-to-file and technical support documentforthe Ft. Berthold FIP, specifically the heightand exit temperature.
Is Marathon able to withdraw the confidentiality claim on this document so that the specifications can be used in the AQIA discussions and a copy ofthe document can be included in the docket forthe rule? Please call me ifyou have any questions, Eric
Eric Wortman Environmental Scientist Air Permitting, Monitoring and Modeling Unit Office of Partnerships 

### & Regulatory Assistance EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street (8P-AR) Denver, CO 80202-1129 Phone: (303) 312-6649 Fax: (303) 312-6064

, . 0
Exhibit 32.1









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 Universal Detection Technology (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Date: April 15, 2011








By: /s/ Jacques Tizabi


Jacques Tizabi,


Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### NYCTL 1999-1 Trust et al., Respondents, v 573 Jackson Avenue Realty Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[833 NYS2d 74]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which, in this action to foreclose a tax lien, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s prior order dismissing the complaint as against defendant-appellant solely for lack of proper service did not purport to determine the merits of, and, accordingly, was not preclusive of plaintiff’s now reasserted claims against defendant-appellant *(see Espinoza v Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp.,*32 AD3d 326, 328 [2006]; *Mudry v Giannattasio,*8 AD3d 455, 456 [2004]). Respecting the merits, defendant-appellant is not excused from payment of the statutorily mandated compound interest because plaintiffs took partial payment of the total amount owed in the form of the original tax arrears. It is clear that defendant-appellant possesses no viable defense to plaintiffs’ claims, and it would not be appropriate to permit it to embark upon discovery based on nothing more than hope and speculation that the exercise would be productive of evidence raising a triable issue of fact *(see Belle-Oudry v Still,*1 AD3d 391, 392 [2003]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.