alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50289 Conference Calendar

TYLER ELLIS CUMMINGS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus L.E. FLEMING, Warden - Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-735

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tyler Cummings (federal prisoner #56469-065) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that the application of amended 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 and Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5330.10 to him violated the Ex Post Fact Clause by rendering him ineligible for a sentence reduction. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM. Cummings was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine through January 1993. Subsection (e) of 18 U.S.C. § 3621, whichNo. 98-50289 -2- created the program giving the BOP the discretion to reduce the sentences of eligible prisoners who complete a comprehensive drug-abuse treatment program, was not enacted until September 13, 1994, approximately 21 months after Cummings conspired to distribute cocaine. See Royal v. Tombone , 141 F.3d 596, 603 (5thCir. 1998). A sentence reduction for participation in a drugabuse treatment program was not even available to Cummings when he conspired to distribute cocaine. Accordingly, amended § 550.58 and Program Statement 5330.10, as applied to Cummings, did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because they are not “more onerous than the law in effect on the date of [Cummings’] offense .” See Weaver v. Graham , 450 U.S. 24, 30-31 (1981) (emphasis added); see also Royal , 141 F.3d at 603; Wottlin v. Fleming , 136 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
SUMMARY STATEMENT REGARDING THIS DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry is made pursuant to DOE’s and APGA’s unopposed joint motion to vacate in 

part and remand for further rulemaking the 2011 direct final rule setting energy conservation standards 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the lawsuit American Public Gas Association v. U.S. Department 

of Energy, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 23, 2011). The motion was granted by the court on April 

24, 2014. In the motion, DOE agreed, in relevant part, to the following:

As DOE develops the administrative record on remand for the 

rulemaking to set energy conservation standards for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, the agency agrees at a minimum to include in that record the 

data gathered for the direct final rule under review in this case (in DOE 

Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011) concerning the impact on consumers 

resulting from the trial standard levels considered in the Technical 

Support Document for that proceeding for non-weatherized gas furnaces.

The placement of the materials in this docket entry constitutes compliance with the above 

requirement.
#### In the Matter of William N. Mairs, Jr., Petitioner, v Albert B. Lewis, as New York State Superintendent of Insurance, et al., Respondents.

—Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance, dated January 11, 1978, denying petitioner’s application for issuance of a license as a life insurance agent unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We conclude from our review of the record that respondent’s determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and, accordingly, requires confirmation. We note the public policy embodied in subdivision (1) of section 752 of the Correction Law, which should be given appropriate consideration in cases of this nature. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00236-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., A.M., N.G., D.Q., V.Q., MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-7-75036-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against the party incurring the same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 15, 2015
#### 1336.270 Special requirements for ship construction

*See* 48 CFR 1371 for special requirements for acquisition involving ship construction and ship repair.
219

Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

Individual Data and Quality Assurance Results

CASE NARRATIVE

Toxicopathic Conditions in Flatfish

Biliary FACs

Composites of bile samples from English and rock sole captured for the Hylebos Waterway

Fish Injury Studies were analyzed by BFLC with fluorescence detection. In addition to

benzo(a)pyrene- (BaP) and naphthalene- (NPH) like compounds, fluorescence responses were

also measured for phenanthrene- (PHN) like compounds. In accordance with the Sampling and

Analysis Plan (SAP), analytical quality control (identified by QCBatch) was assessed with each

analysis set. For the Toxicopathic Conditions Study, the QCBatch identification for the analysis

set is “HylPathol04”.

Method Blank

Results of HPLC analysis of the method blank for HylPathol04 showed fluorescence responses

at BaP, NPH, and PHN wavelengths met the following criteria: BaP, NPH, or PHN equivalents

in the method blanks were less than 10% of concentrations in any bile sample analyzed in the

same set.

Initial Calibration Standards

An initial calibration standard consisting of known concentrations of BaP, NPH, and PHN

was analyzed in duplicate at the start of each sample set. The relative standard deviation

(RSD) for each individual PAH for the two analyses met the criteria (515%) set in the quality

control section (Table 4) of the SAP.

Continuing Calibration Standards

The calibration standard was. analyzed periodically throughout the sample sets. The RSD

for the analyses in HylPathol04 was within the 25% RSD limit set for each individual PAH

(Table 4, SAP).

Bile Reference Material

A bile reference material was analyzed near the beginning and end of each sample set and

compared to historical interlaboratory means of this reference material (see Quality Assurance

section in SAP). The measured fluorescence responses of this bile sample were within the

upper and lower control limits of the interlaboratory mean value for this reference bile (see

Quality Assurance Results).

Replicates

Selected bile samples were analyzed in duplicate for every ten fish analyzed. The RSDs

ranged from 1.7 to 23%, which is within the 50% RSD limit set in the SAP.
220
221
222
223
Exhibit 32(c)








CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd M. Yates, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/ Lloyd M. Yates


Lloyd M. Yates


President and Chief Executive Officer


August 7, 2009








This certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Hubert Kindle , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00133

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 188th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 50600

- A ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef 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 appe llant, Hubert Kindle , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 1, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
#### Mary Presti, as Executrix of Theresa P. Intrabartolo, Deceased, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1962, which denied her motion for “reconsideration and reargument” of her prior motion (theretofore reargued and denied) to vacate the dismissal of the action by reason of her default in appearance on a Pre-Trial Calendar *624Call, and to restore the action to the Trial Term Calendar of the court. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the order is appealable *(Acosta*v. *Miller Transp. Co.,*276 App. Div. 1005); and it was within the power of Special Term to pass on the merits of the plaintiff’s application *(Sanick*v. *Schauder,*15 A D 2d 801). However, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the motions. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
| Name                                                                                             |   | Percentage      owned                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Fushi      Holdings, Inc.( Fushi Holdings)                                                       |   | 100%                                                         |
|                                                                                             |   |                                                         |
| Fushi      International (Dalian) Bimetallic Cable Co., Ltd. (Fushi International      (Dalian)) |   | 100%                                                         |
|                                                                                             |   |                                                         |
| Dalian      Jinchuan Power Cable Co., Ltd.                                                       |   | 100%                                                         |
|                                                                                             |   |                                                         |
| Dalian      Fushi Bimetallic Wire Manufacturing, Co., Ltd. (Dalian    Fushi)                     |   | 0%      (control is through a contractual relationship only) |
|                                                                                             |   |                                                         |
| Copperweld      Bimetallic, LLC                                                                  |   | 100%                                                         |
|                                                                                             |   |                                                         |
| Copperweld      Bimetallic LLC, UK                                                               |   | 100%                                                         |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 4.8(d)

                UNANIMOUS CONSENT RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTORS OF
                         SHURFLO PUMP MANUFACTURING CO.

The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Directors of SHURflo
Pump Manufacturing Co., a California corporation (the "Company"), hereby consent
to the following actions without a formal meeting of the Board of Directors, or
notice thereof:

     WHEREAS, this Company maintains the SHURflo 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(hereinafter referred to as the "401(k) Plan" for the exclusive benefit of
participating employees and their beneficiaries; and

     WHEREAS, the Board deems it desirable to clarify certain items with respect
to the 401(k) Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, the Company is the Plan Administrator of the
401(k) Plan for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, Section 1.07(g) of the 401(k) Plan is amended to read as
follows effective for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999:

          For all purposes of the Plan, an employee is not eligible until the
          employee is credited with 1,000 hours of service during a 12-month or
          shorter period. After an employee is eligible, Article II applies as
          of the next entry date.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, Section 1.07(g) of the 401(k) Plan is amended to read as
follows effective January 1, 2000:

          For all purposes of the Plan other than the ability to make deferral
          contributions pursuant to Section 3.01(a), an employee is not eligible
          until the employee is credited with 1,000 hours of service during a
          12-month or shorter period. After an employee is eligible, Article II
          applies as of the next entry date.

Dated this 25th  day of April, 2000

------------------------------              --------------------------------
George E. Wardeberg                         Thomas F. Schrader


------------------------------              --------------------------------
Joseph P. Wenzler                           J. Russell Phillips
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage,  Inc.,  formerly Storage
Equities,  Inc.,  pertaining  to the 1990 Stock  Option Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-55541)  pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-13463)  pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-75327)  pertaining  to the  1994  Share  Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50270) pertaining to the PS 401(k)/Profit Sharing
Plan, the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-52400)  pertaining to the
2000   Non-Executive/Non-Director   Stock  Option  and   Incentive   Plan,   the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-81041) and in the related prospectus
and the  Registration  Statement on Form S-4 (No.  333-86899) and in the related
prospectus  of  our  report  dated   February  23,  2001  with  respect  to  the
consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Public Storage, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


March 16, 2001
Los Angeles, California
ACCEPTED 01-14-00265-cr FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/11/2015 12:00:00 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
On June 29, 2016, OCR announced that it has reached settlements with education organizations in seven states and one territory to ensure website accessibility for people with disabilities.

OCR had received complaints involving each of the education organizations, resulting in investigations.  But before OCR had completed its probes, each of the 11 parties expressed interest in resolving their cases voluntarily, resulting in the agreements announced today.  The settlements involved: Juneau, Alaska, School District; the Guam Department of Education; Montana School for the Deaf and Blind; Santa Fe, New Mexico, Public Schools; Washoe County, Nevada, School District; The Davidson Academy of Nevada; Nevada Department of Education; Oregon Department of Education; Granite, Utah, School District; Bellingham, Washington, School District; and the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Read full Press Release)

The following are  links to the resolution letters and resolution agreements for each education organization.
              -  Juneau School  District (AK) (10-16-1109)                         - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Guam  Department of Education (GU) (10-16-1098)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Montana School for the Deaf and Blind (MT) (10-16-1160)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Santa Fe  Public Schools (NM) (08-16-1189)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Washoe  County School District (NV) (10-16-1134)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  The Davidson  Academy of Nevada (NV) (10-16-1133)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Nevada Department of Education (NV)  (10-16-1101)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Oregon Department of Education (OR)  (10-16-1102)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Granite School District (UT) (08-16-1232)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Bellingham School District (WA)  (10-16-1108)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 
              -  Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (WA) (10-16-1103)                       - Read the  Resolution Letter    PDF
                - Read the  Resolution Agreement    PDF 

  

Top
#### Phillips, guardian, *v.*Atkinson.

April 18, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Daniel. Butts superior court. February 21, 1912.

Monroe Phillips, as guardian of Elizabeth Atkinson, a minor, instituted an equitable action against Mrs. Lottie C, Atkinson for the purpose of having title to undivided interests in certain real estate and personal property decreed to be in the ward, for an accounting as to rents, etc., and for a judgment for the amount to-which the ward might be equitably entitled, and for general relief. The petition alleged, in substance, that T. P. Atkinson died intestate, leaving property consisting of undivided interests in described- real estate and personal property. The sole heirs at law were the defendant, Mrs. Lottie C. Atkinson, a posthumous child, Tommie Atkinson, and petitioner’s ward, Elizabeth Atkinson, a child of a former marriage. The wido-w became administratrix of the estate, and made application to the court of ordinary *741for a year’s support-. The whole of the estate was set apart for such purpose. Iu setting it apart $500 in money and half of the kitchen furniture were set apart for the plaintiff’s ward, while the rest of the estate was set apart for defendant ánd the child Tommie Atkinson. The latter died after the property was so set. apart, leaving no debts other than for funeral ‘expenses, physician’s bills, or the like, and without heirs at law except her mother and petitioner’s ward. The defendant assumed exclusive possession and ownership of all of the property set apart to her for the use of herself and her child Tommie, and appropriated the rents, issues, and profits thereof to her own use, denying that the plaintiff’s ward had any interest therein. No attack was mad'e on the judgment setting apart the year’s support, but its validity was conceded, and the plaintiff’s action was predicated on the rights alleged to exist thereunder. The action was dismissed on general demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted.

*740Atkinson, J.

1. Where property of a decedent is set apart as a year’s support for the widow and her minor child by the decedent, and separate property is set apart for the support of a minor child of the decedent by a former marriage, the estates in the property so set apart are separate. Civil Code, § 4046.

2. In such a case, if the minor child of .the widow dies, the property set apart to the widow and such child vests in the widow alone for her support *(Miller*v. *Ennis,*107 *Ga.*663, 34 S. E. 302) ; and an equitable action will not lie against the widow, at the instance of the decedent’s child by the first marriage, for recovery of a distinct interest in the property set apart to the widow and her child, and mesne profits.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*741A. *Y. Clement,*for plaintiff. *H. M. Fletcher,*for'defendant.
Exhibit 32





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 HIA, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report).  I Alan C. Bergold, the President, Treasurer and Director of the Company, certify 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 Company.





____/s/____________________

Alan C. Bergold, President and

Treasurer and Director





---