alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Writ of right.*

#### Sanders’ Heirs *vs.*Buskirk.

[Messrs. Sanders and Depew for appellants: Mr. Owsley for.appellee.-]

From the Circuit Court eor Owen County.

*April*24.

Upon the death of one of several joint demandants in a writ court may, *officio,*abate the

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The only question in this case, is whether, when it apPeared from an entry made on the order book by consent, that one of a plurality of joint *demandants*in a writ 0f right, had died during the pendency of the suit, the Circuit Court, whilst the case was still pending there, had a right, *ex officio,*to abate the writ?

And this question we consider as rightly and authoritatively settled in the affirmative in the case of *Gaines vs. Conn’s Heirs,*2 *Dana,*231.

Wherefore, the judgment abating the writ in consequence of the death of one of the demandants must be affirmed.
§ 4274.346 Agency IRP loan closing. ( a ) At the time the Agency IRP loan is closed, the intermediary must certify to each condition identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. ( 1 ) No major changes have been made in the work plan except those approved in the interim by the Agency.
( 2 ) All requirements of the letter of conditions have been met.
( 3 ) There has been no material adverse change in the intermediary's financial condition, nor any other material adverse change in the intermediary, for any reason, during the period of time from the Agency's loan approval to loan closing regardless of the cause or causes of the change and whether or not the change or causes of the change were within the intermediary's control. Any material adverse change must be explained by the intermediary. The Agency, at its sole discretion, will consider any such change and determine if it is significant enough to prevent the loan closing or disbursement of IRP loan funds to the intermediary.
( 4 ) There are no claims or liens of laborers, materialmen, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers of machinery and equipment, or other parties pending against the security of the intermediary, and that no suits are pending or threatened that would adversely affect the security of the intermediary when the security instruments are filed.
( 5 ) Certification that the intermediary has received Agency staff training on how to distinguish a required environmental review from a categorical exclusion in accordance with § 4274.305(b).
( b ) The Agency will consider all requested changes submitted in writing to the Agency but will only approve changes that do not materially affect the IRP project, its capacity, employment, original projections, or credit factors.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

USA, 

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01055-MP All Defendants

DOUGLAS A FLYNN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 66, Request for Copies of Judgment &

Commitment and Sentencing Transcripts by Douglas A. Flynn. The Court contacted the Office

of the Federal Public Defender to inquire whether the defendant has been provided the

requested documents. The Office of the Federal Public Defender responded to the defendant’s

request, and provided him with a copy of the Judgment & Commitment, Doc. 53. However, the

Office of the Federal Public Defender no longer has the Sentencing Transcripts, Doc. 59. The

file was archived by the Court in 2002. Nevertheless, the defendant may obtain a copy of the

transcript at his expense by contacting the court reporter, Judy Nolton, at the United States

Courthouse,111 N. Adams St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s request for a copy of his Judgment & Commitment, Doc. 66, is

DENIED as moot.

2. Defendant’s request for a copy of his Sentencing Transcripts, Doc. 66, is

DENIED on the grounds that the file has been archived.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2011.

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01055-MP Document 68 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 1
2006-0189.

#### Uddin v. Embassy Suites Hotel.

Franklin App. No. 04AP-754, 2005-Ohio-6613.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
----

|   | 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 operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| Mel G. Riggs                                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing General Partner of                       |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI          |
|                                              |
| March 29, 2011                                    |
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ Michael L. Pollard                            |
| Michael L. Pollard                                |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing General Partner of                       |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI          |
|                                              |
| March 29, 2011                                    |
#### § 4279.207 [Reserved]
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 Epolin,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended  February 28, 2010, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  the undersigned certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, 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.

Dated: May 28, 2010                     By:     /s/ Greg Amato
       ------------                             ------------------------------
                                                Greg Amato,
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: May 28, 2010                     By:     /s/ James Ivchenko
       ------------                             ------------------------------
                                                James Ivchenko,
                                                President
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Castalia Ortega et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted June 25, 2007;

decided June 27, 2007

Reported below, 35 AD3d 422.

Motion by County of Orange et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted. Three copies of the brief may be served and an original and 24 copies filed on or before July 31, 2007.
98-911.

#### Naragon v. Dayton Power & Light Co.

Shelby App. No. 17-97-21. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 1477, 696 N.E.2d 604. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, J., dissents.
Feb 17 10 02:39p Colleen McKaughan 520 498-1333



### Power 

# Cost of Pollution Controls for Navajo Generating Station

. Using Salt River Project high estimate for best pollution controls compared to National Park Service

### ~o....-dL.=**A~.** 

### \-.:.-**S~** __ 

### T.**c:;,...".-~** No •

### S'--=~"1'S .;

SRP est. Total Annual Cost 

### w/SCR 

### SRP share of

### Navajo plant SRP 

### share ofTAC 

### SRP retail sales 

### FY 2009 

### MWh SRP pollution control cost/M\Vh Divide by 1000 for kWh 

### Average monthly 

### SRP residential use (kWh) 

### Monthly increase in 

### SRP power rates/resident

Water BuRec share ofNGS 

### BuRec share ofSRP est. TAC 

### (S/yr.) CAP M&l and Indian water contracts (aflyr.) Cost ofNGS controls/affor M&I and Indian water CAP M&I and Federal subcontract rate 2010 Water 

### rate w ith NOS 

### controls Amount of increase 

### for CAP water 

### CAP component of Phoenix water 

### Rate of inc rease to Phoenix water rates (.43 x 

### .15) Amount increase/af 

### for Phoenix water user 

### Average**~hoenix** 

### water use (4-people, 135 gal/cap) $94,800,000 ($38,500 ,000- NPS) 21.7% $20 ,571,600 26,747,000 $0 .77 $0 .00077 1208 $0.93 ($0.38INPS)

24.3% $23,036,000 1,288,402 $17.88/af ($7. 151NPS) $118.00/af($108 /09, $91/08) 

### $135.88/af

. 15% (6%INPS) 

### 43% 6.5% $7 .67 197 ,100 gallons 

## = .6 af Average Phoenix household annual water cost increase 

### Monthly water increase/average Phoenix household $4.60 $0.38 ($O.16/NPS)
Compiled by Sierra Club. 602-254-8362.**r() ~~.'1** **J1.iJ. l:(ius** **ierm£ uh.()n!,**  November 2009
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 275
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 275.19 Monitoring and evaluation. ( a ) The State agency shall establish a system for monitoring and evaluating corrective action at the State and project area levels. Monitoring and evaluation shall be an ongoing process to determine that deficiencies are being substantially reduced or eliminated in an efficient manner and that the program provides responsive service to eligible households.
( b ) The State agency shall ensure that corrective action on all deficiencies identified in the State Corrective Action Plan and Project Area/Management Unit Corrective Action Plan is implemented and achieves the anticipated results within the specified time frames. The State agency shall monitor and evaluate corrective action at the State and project levels through a combination of reports, field reviews, and examination of current data available through program management tools and other sources.
( c ) In instances where the State agency and/or the project area/management unit determines that the proposed corrective action is not effective in reducing substantially or eliminating deficiencies, the State agency and/or the project area/management unit shall promptly reevaluate the deficiency, causes, and the corrective action taken, and develop and implement new corrective actions.
[Amdt. 160, 45 FR 15909, Mar. 11, 1980]
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Ray Zyk et al., Rocco Martino and Mike Martino, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. Nos. 37,520, 37,521.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Samuel A. Aronfeld, for plaintiffs in error; Elwyn E. Long, of counsel. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, J. Albert Woll and Henry E. Seyfarth, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
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 this Quarterly Report of Uniwell Electronic Corporation., on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luiz Brasil, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended April 30, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and April 30, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Uniwell Electronic Corporation.



|                  |     |                                                               | 
|----------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|September 5, 2013 | By: | /s/ Luiz Brasil                                               | 
|                  |     | Luiz Brasil                                                   | 
|                  |     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                  |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
15.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions. A contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures is a negotiated contract (see 14.101).    **Parent topic:** Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation
§ 3560.707 Program participation and corrective actions. ( a ) With Agency approval, a borrower or tenant, who has received unauthorized assistance, may continue to participate in the project if they have the legal and financial capabilities to do so. Approval considerations for such forbearance and repayment are in § 3560.705.
( b ) A borrower or tenant who was responsible for the circumstances causing the unauthorized assistance must take appropriate action to correct the problem within 90 days of the unauthorized assistance determination notice date, unless an alternative date is agreed to by the Agency.
( c ) When the interest rate shown in a debt instrument resulted in the receipt of unauthorized assistance, the debt instrument will be modified to the correct interest rate. All payments made by the borrower at the incorrect interest rate will be reapplied at the correct interest rate, and remaining payments due on the loan will be recalculated on the basis of the correct interest rate, plus any amounts due to the Agency as a result of the use of an incorrect interest rate, unless the Agency agrees to a separate repayment process.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2591 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2591 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE 

2 CARRIER BANKRUPTCY. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLAIM FOR RE4 FUND.—Section 1106(a)(3) of the FAA Modernization 

5 and Reform Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 408 note) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

7 (b) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—Section 

8 1106(c) of such Act is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i) by inserting ‘‘or filed 

10 on November 29, 2011,’’ after ‘‘2007,’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘terminated or’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘terminated,’’; and 

14 (B) by inserting ‘‘, or was frozen effective 

15 November 1, 2012’’ after ‘‘Pension Protection 

16 Act of 2006’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.01



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement Nos. 333-23175 and 333-48553 of Adelphia Communications Corporation on
Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos. 333-45061 and 333-38869 of Adelphia
Communications Corporation on Form S-4, and Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement Nos. 333-37087 and 333-26467 of Adelphia Communications Corporation on
Form S-4 of our report dated June 10, 1998 and our report dated March 6, 1998 on
our audits of the financial statements of Adelphia Communications Corporation
and subsidiaries and of Olympus Communications, L.P. and subsidiaries,
respectively, appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Adelphia Communications Corporation for the year ended March 31,
1998.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 25, 1998
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:99cr16-RH/WCS

4:05cv341-RH/WCS

MARK ANTHONY JONES,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 109), to which no objections have been filed. The

report and recommendation correctly concludes that defendant’s attacks on his

conviction and sentence, as before the court when the report and recommendation

was entered, were in substance second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C.

§2255 that could not be pursued absent authorization by the court of appeals. 

Since entry of the report and recommendation, defendant has filed yet another

attack on his conviction and sentence; it, too, is in substance a successive §2255

motion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 4:99-cr-00016-RH-CAS Document 111 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:99cr16-RH/WCS and 4:05cv341-RH/WCS

1. The report and recommendation (document 109) is ACCEPTED and

adopted as the opinion of the court. 

2. Defendant’s motion to strike (document 107) is treated as a motion for

leave to amend defendant’s (second) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255

(document 106). The motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

3. Defendant’s (second) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 filed

September 9, 2005 (document 106) and amended motion filed September 22, 2005

(document 108) are DENIED for failure to obtain authorization from the court of

appeals.

4. Defendant’s (third) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 filed

November 21, 2005 (document 110) is DENIED for failure to obtain authorization

from the court of appeals.

5. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s motions for relief

from his conviction and sentence (documents 106, 108, and 110), which are in

substance second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C. §2255, are DENIED for

failure to obtain authorization from the court of appeals.” The clerk shall close the

file.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:99-cr-00016-RH-CAS Document 111 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.16.2


 


March 16, 2009


 


Larry D. Zimpleman


President and Chief
Executive Officer


Principal Financial Group, Inc.


711 High Street


Des Moines, Iowa 50392


 


Dear Larry:


 


You, Principal Financial
Group, Inc., Principal Financial Services, Inc. and Principal Life
Insurance Company (collectively “Companies”) and the Companies agree to amend
the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, by and between the Companies and
you dated May 1, 2008 (“Agreement”) as follows:


 


As of March 28,
2009, your Base Salary (as that term is defined in the Agreement) will be
reduced by 10% to $720,000.  Except as
provided in this Amendment, all of the other terms and conditions of the
Agreement will remain in full force and effect.


 


Principal Financial Group, Inc.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Chairman, Human
  Resources Committee of the Board of Directors

  



 


Principal Financial
Services, Inc.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Director

  	
   

  



 


Principal Life Insurance
Company


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  William T. Kerr

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Chairman, Human
  Resources Committee of the Board of Directors

  



 


 


Agreed to as of the 24th
day of March 2009:


 


 


	
  /s/ Larry D. Zimpleman

  	
   

  
	
  Larry D. Zimpleman

  	
   

  



 


1
14.201 Preparation of invitations for bids.

14.201-1 Uniform contract format.

14.201-2 Part I—The Schedule.

14.201-3 PartII-Contract clauses.

14.201-4 PartIII-Documents, exhibits, and other attachments.

14.201-5 PartIV-Representations and instructions.

14.201-6 Solicitation provisions.

14.201-7 Contract clauses.

14.201-8 Price related factors.

14.201-9 Simplified contract format.

Parent topic: Subpart 14.2 - Solicitation of Bids
§ 4279.260 Guarantee applications—general. ( a ) *Application submittal.* ( 1 ) For each guarantee request, the Lender or the Borrower must submit to the Agency a non-binding letter of intent to apply for loan guarantee not less than 30 calendar days prior to the application deadline as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The letter must identify the Borrower, the Lender and Project sponsors; describe the Project and Project location; describe the proposed feedstock, primary technologies of the facility and primary products produced; estimate the Total Project Cost and amount of loan requested; and any additional information specified in the annual Federal Register notice, if any. Applications that do not submit a letter of intent may be accepted by the Agency at the Agency's discretion.
( 2 ) For each guarantee request, the Lender must submit to the Agency an application that is in conformance with § 4279.261. The methods of application submittal will be specified in the annual Federal Register notice.
( b ) *Application deadline.* Unless otherwise specified by the Agency in a notice published in the Federal Register, application deadlines are October 1 and April 1 of each year. Complete applications must be received by the Agency on or before April 1 of each year to be considered for funding for that fiscal year. If the application deadline falls on a weekend or an observed holiday, the deadline will be the next Federal business day. The deadlines in this paragraph (b) relate to Phase 1 applications in accordance with § 4279.261.
( c ) *Incomplete applications.* Incomplete applications will be rejected. Lenders will be informed of the elements that made the application incomplete. If a resubmitted application is received by the applicable application deadline, the Agency will reconsider the application.
( d ) *Application withdrawal.* During the period between the submission of an application and closing, the Lender must notify the Agency, in writing, if the Project is no longer viable or the Borrower is no longer requesting financial assistance for the Project. When the Lender so notifies the Agency, the Agency will rescind the selection or withdraw the application.
( e ) *Application revisions and updates.* During the period between the submission of an application and closing, the Lender must notify the Agency, in writing, of revisions to the Project including but not limited to revisions to technology utilized in the Project, feedstock, Off-Take Agreements, ownership structure, and Project financing. The Agency may require submittal of updated application and supporting materials. The Agency will complete the application priority scoring in accordance with § 4279.266 based on the application materials received by the Agency prior to the application deadline. Subsequent changes to an application that result in a lower priority score could result in the Agency discontinuing processing of the application.