alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appeal No. 74-174.

#### Atlantic Paint & Coatings, Inc. *v.*Crescenzo Conti.

*Quinn, Cuzzone & Geremia, John F. Cuzzone, Jr.,*for plaintiff-appellee. *Hodosh, Spinella, Hodosh & Angelone, Gerard McGovern DeCelles,*for defendant-appellant.

Motion of appellee to affirm the order of the Superior Court under Rule 16(g), as amended, is granted.

Paolino and Joslin, JJ. not participating.
#### 1301.000 Scope of part.

This part sets out general Department of Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR) policies, including information regarding the maintenance and administration of the CAR, acquisition policies and practices, and procedures for deviation from the CAR and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This part describes the Commerce Acquisition Regulation in terms of establishment, relationship to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, arrangement, applicability, and deviation procedures.
EXHIBIT 23


<PAGE>

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 33-65017 and 333-01599 and Form S-4 No. 333-12353) 
of First Commercial Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report 
dated January 30, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
of First Commercial Corporation incorporated by reference in this Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1987 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock 
Option Plans of First Commercial Corporation (No. 33-79462), and the Employee 
Stock Ownership Credit and 401(k) Plan of First Commercial Corporation (No. 
333-02565) of our report dated January 30, 1997, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements of First Commercial Corporation incorporated 
by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 
1996.



                                                     /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 11, 1997
NUMBER 13-14-00597-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

AGUA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

CARMELO ALVAREZ JR., Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 

8 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CCD-0136-H. Appellant has filed an 

amended motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds it no longer wishes to pursue the 

appeal. The certificate of conference reflects that appellant was unable to confer with 
2

appellee because appellant does not have a valid phone number or electronic mail 

address or facsimile number for appellee.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 

42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellant. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs 

against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion 

for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

5th day of March, 2015.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard A. Santa, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

October 30,2009

 

 
|   | /s/  Richard A. Santa                              |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard  A. Santa                                  |   |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation                  |   |
|   |                                               |   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### 1336.602-4 Selection authority.

Each contracting office shall designate the selection authority based on the complexity of each procurement.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 March 3, 2020 s0224

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2020

159694

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159694

COA: 340802

Macomb CC: 2015-001079-FH

JOHN PATRICK CAFARELLI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §2263. Transfer of funds

Subject to limitations applicable with respect to each appropriation concerned, each appropriation available to the Department of Agriculture may be charged, at any time during a fiscal year, for the benefit of any other appropriation available to the Department, for the purpose of financing the procurement of materials and services, or financing activities or other costs, for which funds are available both in the financing appropriation so charged and in the appropriation so benefited; except that such expenses so financed shall be charged on a final basis, as of a date not later than the close of such fiscal year, to the appropriations so benefited, with appropriate credit to the financing appropriation.

(Pub. L. 89–106, §8, Aug. 4, 1965, 79 Stat. 432.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 579 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
#### New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Appellant, v. Marie C. Kuziak, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs. Memorandum: Upon the argument of this appeal the parties agreed that plaintiff might amend its petition to set forth its present claims and contentions. It was also agreed that upon such amendment the defendant would he entitled to serve an amended answer so that the issues, if any, might be tried. Upon this stipulation the parties agreed that the appeal might be dismissed. In view of the agreement of the parties, the appeal has become academic. (Appeal from certain parts of an order of Steuben Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of condemnation, *nunc pro tune.)*Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|  |  |                                               |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------|
|  |  | More ResourcesHigh Priority Performance Goals |  |  |
|  |  |                                               |
|  |

ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.  

Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979).  Under this law, ED's mission is to:
                - Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
                - Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;
                - Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;
                - Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through Federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;
                - Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;
                - Improve the management of Federal education activities; and
                - Increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the public.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Florence Salkind, Deceased. Robert C. Salkind, Appellant; Seymour Finkelstein, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for leave to prosecute his appeal on an abridged record, denied without prejudice. It appears that the Trial Justice has rendered his decision settling the appeal record and denying the abridgement, but that *1060no order has been entered on such decision. If appellant feels aggrieved by the decision, proper practice would require the entry of an order in conformity with the decision and an appeal to this court from such order (cf. *Boylan*V. *Southern Pacific Co.,*253 App. Div. 195 ; *People*v. *Foote,*241 App. Div. 846; *Hopper*v. *Comfort Coal-Lbr. Co.,*276 App. Div. 869). On such an appeal this court would entertain a motion to dispense with the printing and to prosecute the appeal on the original papers. Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal, denied on condition that, within 30 days after the entry of the order hereon, appellant shall file the undertaking prescribed by statute (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 298). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette 'and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 15








TXU Gas Company:

We have made a review,  in accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited condensed
consolidated  interim financial  information of TXU Gas Company and subsidiaries
(TXU Gas) for the three and nine month  periods  ended  September  30,  2002 and
2001,  as indicated in our report  dated  November 13, 2002;  because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report  referred  to above,  which is included in TXU
Gas' Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, is
incorporated   by   reference  in   Registration   Statements   No.   333-85769,
333-85769-01, 333-85769-02 and 333-85769-03 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the  aforementioned  report,pursuant  to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities  Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP
Dallas, Texas
November 13, 2002
Exhibit 10.5

WAIVER  CONVERTIBLE NOTE

This Waiver is given
with respect to the Convertible Note Due January 2013 identified at the foot of this Waiver (the Note), by the person whose signature appears at the foot of this Waiver, who is the holder of the Note (the Holder), to Oxygen
Biotherapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company). The Company is the successor to Synthetic Blood International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, which originally issued the Note. Capitalized terms used herein that are not
otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Warrant.

Recital

The Company and Holder agree and acknowledge that the obligation to register the Conversion Shares pursuant to Section 6 of the Note
will divert financial and other resources from the Companys operations, which is contrary to the Holders desire to see long-term growth and development of the Company and an increase in shareholder value. The parties further acknowledge
that the obligation to register the Conversion Shares by January 2009 is of nominal value to the Holder in light of the Holders interest in the long-term growth of the Company and the Holders right to exercise its conversion rights under
Section 4 of the Note.

Waiver

In consideration of the foregoing Recital, the Holder, for itself and its successors and assigns, waives and releases the Company from any and all present and future duties, obligations and liabilities
set forth in Section 6 of the Note.

Except as specifically provided for herein, all terms of the original Note shall
remain in full force and effect.

EXECUTED by the Holder this  day of
 2008.



|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|                
|Holder Signature
|Name:            |  | 
|Title:           |  | 



|               |  | 
|-------------- |  | 
|               | 
|Holders Name: |  | 
|Note No.:      |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Myers, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 30, 1964, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered December 13, 1961, after a non jury trial, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, and imposing sentence; and (2) from an order of said court, made January 31, 1964 upon reargument, which adhered to the original decision. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (19 A D 2d 860) and leave to appeal was denied on December 6, 1963 by a Judge of the Court of Appeals. Appeal from order of January 30, 1964 dismissed. That order was superseded by the later order of January 31, 1964, granting reargument. Order of January 31, 1964 affirmed. It appears that on May 28, 1962, an order had been entered by this court granting the defendant permission to dispense with printing and assigning counsel to prosecute his appeal from the judgment of conviction. Notice of this order was sent to defendant, font such notice apparently did not reach him. However, upon the appeal from the judgment, defendant was represented by assigned counsel and, in addition, he submitted his own brief. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §419. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(12), 65 Stat. 701

Section, act May 5, 1945, ch. 109, 59 Stat. 143, related to sale by Secretary of Agriculture of products of agricultural experiment station in Puerto Rico, and disposition of moneys derived therefrom. Similar provisions had been carried in prior Department of Agriculture appropriation acts back to and including that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919 (40 Stat. 1000). Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

June 28, 1944, ch. 296, 58 Stat. 432.

July 12, 1943, ch. 215, 57 Stat. 400.

July 22, 1942, ch. 516, 56 Stat. 670.

July 1, 1941, ch. 267, 55 Stat. 413.

June 25, 1940, ch. 421, 54 Stat. 536.

June 30, 1939, ch. 253, title I, 53 Stat. 944.

June 16, 1938, ch. 464, title I, 52 Stat. 715.

June 29, 1937, ch. 404, 50 Stat. 399.

June 4, 1936, ch. 489, 49 Stat. 1425.

May 17, 1935, ch. 131, title I, 49 Stat. 251.

Mar. 26, 1934, ch. 89, 48 Stat. 471.

Mar. 3, 1933, ch. 203, 47 Stat. 1436.

July 7, 1932, ch. 443, 47 Stat. 614.

May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158.

Feb. 23, 1931, ch. 278, 46 Stat. 1246.

May 27, 1930, ch. 341, 46 Stat. 396.

Feb. 16, 1929, ch. 227, 45 Stat. 1192.

May 16, 1928, ch. 572, 45 Stat. 542.

Jan. 18, 1927, ch. 39, 44 Stat. 979.

May 11, 1926, ch. 286, 44 Stat. 502.

Feb. 10, 1925, ch. 200, 43 Stat. 824.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            8232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   135823
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2339
<INVENTORY>                                     210834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                379060
<PP&E>                                          770450
<DEPRECIATION>                                  379762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1048272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           186241
<BONDS>                                         558735
<COMMON>                                         83465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       70724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1048272
<SALES>                                         471184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                471184
<CGS>                                           350519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   427215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (22320)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               20682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  45607
<INCOME-TAX>                                     15748
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              29859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     29859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
___________

No. 96-1220

___________

Raymond Wahrman, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska

John A. Wahrman; Terry Ellinger; *

Mary Ellinger, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1996

 Filed: August 22, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Wahrman filed a complaint in the district court against John

Wahrman and Terry and Mary Ellinger. He alleged that, through a partition

action in Nebraska state court, the Ellingers had fraudulently obtained

title to land in which he had an interest, and he sought recovery of the

fair value of the property. The district court dismissed the complaint as

barred by res judicata. Wahrman appeals.

We must consider the issue of the district court's subject matter

jurisdiction if the record suggests it is lacking. Yeldell v. Tutt, 913

F.2d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 1990). We observe that the complaint did not

allege facts showing diversity jurisdiction, or identify a statutory or

constitutional basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1331-1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (pleading which sets forth claim for

relief shall contain short
-2-

plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction); Luecke v. Schnucks

Markets, Inc., 85 F.3d 356, 358 (8th Cir. 1996) (federal question generally

must appear on face of complaint); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214,

216 (8th Cir. 1987) (pleadings must state citizenship of parties to

establish diversity).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand with

directions to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.