alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
162 So.2d 575

#### Haven P. BONNETTE and Roy Ducote v. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Department of Institutions, the State of Louisiana.

No. 47205.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Haven P. Bonnette and Roy Ducote applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. 162 So.2d 21.

Writ refused. Since we find that the notice' is sufficient the result reached is correct.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that the notice to employee is insufficient and that the writ should be granted.

HAWTHORNE, J., thinks the writ should be granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                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 Quarterly Report of Intervoice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended November 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rob-Roy
J. Graham, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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:

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

     4.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Date: June 10, 2003
                                     /s/ Rob-Roy J. Graham
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Rob-Roy J. Graham
                                     Executive Vice President and Chief
                                     Financial Officer
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 6 of 6
#### § 958.88 Amendments.

Amendments to this subpart may be proposed, from time to time, by the committee or by the Secretary.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:06CR202-WKW 

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on November 13, 2006 before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable Ronald Brunson,

counsel for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Schiff,

counsel for the government. As a result of the conference, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for January 8, 2007. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on January 8, 2007 before United States District Judge

William Keith Watkins and is expected to last four (4) trial days.

2. The following motion is currently pending: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count

One of the Indictment. The response of the United States is due on November 17, 2006, at

which time the motion will be under submission.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007.

Counsel should not include questions seeking information which is provided in the jury

questionnaire.

4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007. Motions in

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 45 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
Limine must be accompanied by a brief. Failure to file a brief will result in denial of the

motion.

5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before January 2, 2007.

6. The court will not consider a plea pursuant to Rule 11(c) (1)(A) or (C) unless

notice is filed on or before noon on December 27, 2006. The government and defendant

are informed that if a defendant waits until the last minute to enter a plea, and if that plea,

for whatever reason, is not accepted by the court, the defendant and the government will

be expected to be prepared to go to trial on January 8, 2007. The court will not continue

the trial of this case as to any defendant because a defendant’s plea was not accepted. In

other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last minute for a

defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government should all be

ready to go to trial on January 8, 2007, as to all defendants, even though a particular

guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 14 day of November, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 45 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0886

IN RE  HEI RESOURCES, INC., R.D. TUSETH, RICK STRATTON AND STEVEN HEARNE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief, filed October 20, 2008, is granted.  The order dated August 6, 2008, in Cause No. 42,339, styled *Antares Energy Company (USA), Andrew Maclachlan, Inc., Adelphi Energy Texas, Inc., Alpine Drilling Program, LP, Pacer Energy, Ltd., and Index Oil & Gas (USA) LLC v. S. Lavon Evans, Jr. Operating Co., Inc., S. Lavon Evans, Jr., HEI Resources East OMG Joint Venture, Heartland Energy Operating, LP, and HEI Resources, Inc.*, in the 23rd District Court of Wharton County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., November 24, 2008.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 24, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
32.008 Notification of overpayment.

If the contractor notifies the contracting officer of a duplicate payment or that the Government has

otherwise overpaid, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 32.604.

Parent topic: Part 32 - Contract Financing
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6
- Page 7
- Page 8
- Page 9
- Page 10
- Page 11
- Page 12

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T06:11:55-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
[875 NE2d 884, 844 NYS2d *166]*

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rasool Salaam, Appellant.

Decided September 18, 2007

*912APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Susan T. Aron,*Voorheesville, for appellant.

*Robert M. Carney, District Attorney,*Schenectady *(Alfred D. Chapleau*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, defendant’s plea vacated and case remitted to County Court, Schenectady County, for further proceedings on the indictments *(see People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541 [2007]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM D. BOWDEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 2:06-cv-665

)

MISSION PETROLEUM CARRIERS, )

ANTONIO MARTINEZ NAVARRO )

)

Defendants. )

DEPOSITION DISCLOSURE

Come now the Defendants, Antonio Navarro and Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., and

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure disclosed the following deposition testimony as

that which they may use at the trial of this matter:

1. Excerpts from the deposition of Plaintiff;

2. Any deposition taken by any medical expert in this matter, including but not

limited to, Drs. Ryan and Epperson;

3. The deposition testimony of any party’s vocational expert.

4. The Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list as allowed by law and is

necessitated by further discovery;

5. The Defendants reserve the right to use any deposition testimony identified by

Plaintiff; and

6. The Defendants reserve the right to use any deposition testimony necessary for

impeachment.

_/s/Caroline T. Pryor________________

VINCENT A. NOLETTO, JR. (NOL008)

CAROLINE T. PRYOR (PRY005)

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 26 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
OF COUNSEL:

CARR ALLISON

P.O. Box 1126

Daphne, AL 36526

251-626-9340

ctp@carrallison.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have on this 3rd of April, 2007, served a copy of the foregoing

pleading upon all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system.

James Bodin

McPhillips, Shinbaum & Gill, L.L.P.

Post Office Box 64

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0064

/s/Caroline T. Pryor______________

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 26 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 12.308 Agency review. ( a ) Either the applicant or the NRC counsel may seek review of the initial decision on the fee application, or the Commission may decide to review the decision on its own initiative, in accordance with the Commission's review procedures set out in 10 CFR 2.341. The filing of a petition for review is mandatory for a party to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. If neither the applicant nor NRC counsel seeks review and the Commission does not take review on its own initiative, the initial decision on the application shall become a final decision of the NRC 120 days after it is issued.
( b ) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other part of the Commission's regulations, the initial decision shall be inoperative (*i.e.*, the decision shall not be final and any award made shall not be paid) until the later of— ( 1 ) The expiration of the 120 day period provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) If within the 120 day period provided in paragraph (a) of this section the Commission elects to review the decision, the Commission's issuance of a final decision on review of the initial decision.
( c ) Whether to review a decision on its own motion is a matter within the discretion of the Commission. If review is taken, the Commission will issue a final decision on the application or remand the application to the adjudicative officer for further proceedings.
[59 FR 23121, May 5, 1994, as amended at 77 FR 46599, Aug. 3, 2012]
#### PEOPLE ex rel. HORNSTEIN, Appellant, v. MOSKOWITZ et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Abraham K. Hornstein, against Henry Mosko*1105witz and others. A. Cohen, of New York City, for appellant. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### § 983.57 Substandard pistachios.

The committee shall, with the approval of the Secretary, establish such reporting and disposition procedures as it deems necessary to ensure that pistachios which do not meet aflatoxin and quality requirements are not shipped for human consumption in those markets for which such requirements exist pursuant to § 983.50 and § 983.51.

[77 FR 36123, June 18, 2012]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. EDWARD V. ZEN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 166 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is DENIED
.
PART ll, ITEM 6, EXHIBIT II.




                               EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE



Computation of net loss per share:

The following data show the amounts used in computing net loss per share and the
effect  on net loss and the  weighted  average  number  of  shares  of  dilutive
potential common stock.

                                                        Six  Months Ended
                                                            June 30,
                                                       2001            2000
                                                       ----            ----


Net loss available to common stockholders          $   (157,194)   $   (290,372)
                                                   ============    ============


Weighted average number of common shares in
 primary EPS                                         19,646,652      19,233,575

Effect of dilutive securities                            72,000         200,000
                                                   ------------    ------------

Weighted average number of common shares and
 dilutive potential common stock used in
 fully diluted EPS                                   19,718,652      19,423,575
                                                   ============    ============

Net loss per common share:

 Basic and fully diluted                           $     (0.008)   $     (0.015)
                                                   ============    ============




For 2001 and 2000,  the  effect of  dilutive  securities  were not  included  in
computing fully diluted EPS because their effects are anti-dilutive.



                                       10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1507V

UNPUBLISHED

ELIZABETH HURLBUTT,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 24, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 30, 2019, Elizabeth Hurlbutt filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 28, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of 

the Office of Special Masters.

On March 24, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, Respondent “has determined that [P]etitioner’s medical course is 

consistent with a [SIRVA] as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 8. Respondent 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than 

six months. Id. at 9.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
314.407-4 Mistakes after award.

(c) The HCA has the authority to make administrative determinations in connection with alleged

post-award mistakes.

Parent topic: Subpart 314.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract
#### DRAZEN v. CURBY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Morris Drazen against James Curby, as president, etc., and others.

No opinion. Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
#### § 927.47 Research and development.

The Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish or provide for the establishment of production and post-harvest research, or marketing research and development projects designed to assist, improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, and consumption of pears. Such projects may provide for any form of marketing promotion, including paid advertising. The expense of such projects shall be paid from funds collected pursuant to §§ 927.41 and 927.45. Expenditures for a particular variety or subvariety of pears shall approximate the amount of assessments and voluntary contributions collected for that variety or subvariety of pears.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, *

*

PLAINTIFF, * 1:06-CV-00737.WKW

*

vs. *

*

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, *

*

DEFENDANT. *

MOTION TO STRIKE

THE DEFENDANT, the Dothan Rescue Mission, moves the

Court to Strike or Deny the Plaintiff s Amend Damages

Amount  served on December 8, 2006. In support of this

request, the Defendant states:

1. On November 2, 2006, the Court entered a

Scheduling Order setting forth a deadline to amend any

pleading for Tuesday, November 28, 2006. The Plaintiff did

not file her Amend Damages Amount  until December 8, 2006,

some 10 days after the deadline passed.

2. On or about September 20, 2006, the Court entered

an Order stating, in relevant part:

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff s

amended complaint was filed five days after

the deadline established by this court. While

the court will accept the amended complaint on

this occasion, plaintiff is advised that she

must comply precisely with the terms of any

order entered by the court in this matter and

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 23-2 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

that, if she fails to comply with any future

order of the court, this action may be

dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint

again after the deadline for such an amendment has passed

and despite the Court s clear warning that she must follow

orders precisely.

4. Parts, if not all, of the Plaintiff s Amend

Damages Amount  are unintelligible. The Defendant cannot

respond to motions or pleadings that are unintelligible.

WHEREFORE the Defendant moves the Court TO STRIKE or TO

DENY the Plaintiff s Amend Damages Amount.  

HARDWICK, HAUSE, SEGREST & WALDING

BY: /s/ Kevin Walding 

Kevin Walding (WAL036)

Attorney for Defendant

Post Office Box 1469

Dothan, Alabama 36302

Phone (334)794-4144

Fax (334)671-9330

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 23-2 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, this date, I have served a copy

of this document on the following individual(s) and/or

attorney(s) of record by placing same in the United States

Mail in a properly addressed envelope with prepaid postage.

Angela Denise Nails

342 South Saint Andrews Street

Apartment 808

Dothan, Alabama 36301

This the 13th day of December, 2006.

 /s/ Kevin Walding 

Of Counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 23-2 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Tom D. Kilgore, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Tennessee Valley Authority;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: July6, 2007                                  /s/ Tom D. Kilgore   Tom D. Kilgore   President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 13 of 13