alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Crosser, *v.*McDonough et al., Deputy State Supervisors and Inspectors of Elections of Cuyahoga County.

*Elections■*— Contest *of nomination■*— Remedies — *Statutory provisions exclusive, when*— *Mandamus to compel election board to rescind action*— Writ *will not lie, when.*

(No. 16793

Decided October 5, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Henderson, Quail, Siddall & Morgan*and *Mr. Edzvard Blythin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. R. A. Baskin*and *Mr. Albert Lawrence,*for defendants in error.

By the Court.

This was a proceeding in mandamus against the deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections of Cuyahoga county. The proceeding was brought in the court of appeals of that county and was heard on a demurrer to the amended petition. The demurrer was sustained, judgment was entered for the defendants, and this proceeding is brought to reverse that judgment.

After allegations setting out the official position of the defendants, that the relator, Robert Crosser, was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress in the 21st District, that John J. Babka was also a candidate for that nomination, and that following the primary election the defendants announced that Babka had a plurality of one vote over the relator; after alleging with great detail certain irregularities which occurred during the election in different precincts and wards in the district, *364and that certain votes were illegally cast for Babka ; and, after further allegations that the declaration of defendants that Babka had a plurality over the relator was untrue and fraudulent, the petition prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the defendants to rescind their action in reference to the different irregularities specifically set out in the petition, to rescind their action declaring said Babka to be the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 21st District, and to place the name of the relator on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for Congress on the regular ticket.

Before the writ of mandamus will be issued it must be shown that the act to be required is one especially enjoined by law as a duty resulting from and attaching to the office of the defendants.

We think it clear that the case presented by the allegations of the amended petition is one for a contested election, and the general assembly, in obedience to . the mandatory provisions of Section 21, Article II of the Constitution, having prescribed the tribunal and the manner in which contested elections may be conducted, the court of appeals correctly sustained the demurrer to the petition, therefore, for the reasons given in the opinion this day filed in *State, ex rel. Wood,*v. *Russell et al., post,*365, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Wanamaker and Avery, JJ., concur. <

Nichols, C. J., and Robinson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
§ 600.200 Federal program compliance reviews and audits. ( a ) *Federal compliance review of the State BHP.* To determine whether the State is complying with the Federal requirements and the provisions of its BHP Blueprint, HHS may review, as needed, but no less frequently than annually, the compliance of the State BHP with applicable laws, regulations and interpretive guidance. This review may be based on the State's annual report submitted under § 600.170, or may be based on direct Federal review of State administration of the BHP Blueprint through analysis of the State's policies and procedures, reviews of agency operation, examination of samples of individual case records, and additional reports and/or data as determined by the Secretary.
( b ) *Action on compliance review findings.* The compliance review will identify the following action items: ( 1 ) Requirements that need further study or data to assess continued State compliance with Federal law, regulations and the terms of the State's certified Blueprint. Such findings must be addressed in the next State annual report due no more than 120 days after the date of the issuance of the Federal compliance review.
( 2 ) Requirements with which the State BHP does not appear to be in compliance that could be the basis for withdrawal of BHP certification. Such findings must be resolved by the State (either by substantiating compliance with the standards for certification or submitting revisions to the Blueprint). If not resolved, such action items can be the basis for a proposed finding for withdrawal of BHP certification.
( 3 ) Requirements with which the State BHP does not appear to be in compliance and are not a basis for withdrawal of BHP certification but require revision to the Blueprint must be resolved by the State. If not resolved, such action items can be the basis for denial of other Blueprint revisions.
( 4 ) *Improper use of BHP trust fund resources.* The State and the BHP trustees shall be given an opportunity to review and resolve concerns regarding improper use of BHP trust funds, including failure to use these funds as specified in § 600.705. As indicated in § 600.715(a) through (c), the state may do this either by substantiating the proper use of trust fund resources as specified in § 600.705(c) or by taking corrective action, which include changes to procedures to ensure proper use of trust fund resources, and restitution of improperly used resources to the trust fund.
( c ) The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) may periodically audit State operations and standard health plan practices as described in § 430.33 of this chapter. Final reports on those audits shall be transmitted to both the State and the Secretary for actions on findings. The State and the BHP trustees shall be given an opportunity to resolve concerns about improper use of BHP trust funds as indicated in § 600.715(a) through (c): either by substantiating the proper use of trust fund, or by taking corrective action that includes changes to procedures to ensure proper use of trust fund resources, and restitution of improperly used resources to the trust fund.
§ 83.16 How will the Secretary decide the outcome(s) of a petition? ( a ) The Director of NIOSH will propose a decision to add or deny adding any class or classes of employees to the Cohort, including an iteration of the relevant criteria, as specified under § 83.13(c), and a summary of the information and findings on which the proposed decision is based. This proposed decision will take into consideration the evaluations of NIOSH and the report and recommendations of the Board, and may also take into consideration information presented or submitted to the Board and the deliberations of the Board. In the case of a petition that NIOSH has determined encompasses more than one class of employees, the Director of NIOSH will issue a separate proposed decision for each separate class of employees.
( b ) The Secretary will make the final decision to add or deny adding a class to the Cohort, including the definition of the class, after considering information and recommendations provided to the Secretary by the Director of NIOSH and the Board. HHS will transmit a report of the decision to the petitioner(s), including an iteration of the relevant criteria, as specified under § 83.13(c), and a summary of the information and findings on which the decision is based. HHS will also publish a notice summarizing the decision in the Federal Register.
( c ) If, under § 83.15(e), the Board recommends that the Secretary designate a class covered by the petition as an addition to the Cohort, and if, under paragraph (b) of § 83.16, the Secretary decides to deny adding the class, as defined by the Board, to the Cohort, then the Secretary will submit to Congress a determination that the statutory criteria specified under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b)(1) and (2) have not been met for adding the class to the Cohort. The Secretary will submit this determination to Congress within 30 calendar days following receipt by the Secretary of the recommendation of the Board.
[70 FR 75953, Dec. 22, 2005]
§ 62.23 How will individuals be selected to participate in the Loan Repayment Program? ( a ) In determining which applications from eligible individuals for participation in the Loan Repayment Program will be accepted for consideration, the Secretary will apply the following criteria: ( 1 ) The extent to which an individual's training is in a health profession or specialty determined by the Secretary to be needed by the National Health Service Corps;
( 2 ) The individual's commitment to serve in medically underserved areas;
( 3 ) The availability of the individual for service, with highest consideration being given to individuals who will be available for service at the earliest dates;
( 4 ) The length of the individual's proposed service obligation, with greatest consideration being given to persons who agree to serve for longer periods of time; and
( 5 ) The individual's academic standing, prior professional experience in a health manpower shortage area, board certification, residency achievements, peer recommendations, depth of past residency practice experience and other criteria related to professional competence or conduct.
( b ) Among qualified applicants, the Secretary will give priority to applications from individuals whose health professions or specialties are most needed by the NHSC and who are, in the Secretary's judgement, most committed to practice in medically underserved areas.
( c ) By notice published in the Federal Register from time to time, the Secretary will specify the professions and specialties most needed by the National Health Service Corps.
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Richard E. Stoddard, Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.
The amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2001 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
and



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



|                       |  |                                       
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: December 2, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard E. Stoddard               
|                       |  | Richard E. Stoddard                   
|                       |  | Chairman of the Board, President & CEO



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2081 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2081

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to increase the salary 
      of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2007

   Ms. Norton (by request): introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to increase the salary 
      of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN SALARY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    (a) Increase.--
            (1) In general.--Section 424(b)(2)(E) of the District of 
        Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.24b(b)(5), D.C. Official 
        Code) is amended by striking ``the rate of basic pay'' and 
        inserting ``150 percent of the rate of basic pay''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Technical Correction.--The section 424 of the District of 
Columbia Home Rule Act added by section 202(a)(1) of the 2005 District 
of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act (Public Law 109-356; 120 Stat. 
2036) is redesignated as section 424a of the District of Columbia Home 
Rule Act.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.191 Appeal to Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) and (b) are conducted according to part 41 of this title.

[77 FR 46625, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.163 Man test for gases and vapors; Type C supplied-air respirators, demand and pressure-demand classes; test requirements. ( a ) The completely assembled respirator will be worn in a chamber containing 0.1 ±0.025 percent isoamyl acetate vapor, the intake of the hose will be connected to a suitable source of respirable air, and not more than 25 percent of the hose length will be located in isoamyl acetate-free air.
( b ) The test will be conducted at the minimum pressure with the maximum hose length and will be repeated at the maximum pressure with the minimum hose length.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     IMTEC, Inc., EX-27, FDS for 10-Q, December 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000730045
<NAME>                        IMTEC, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         92694
<SECURITIES>                                   54671
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1200596
<ALLOWANCES>                                   74397
<INVENTORY>                                    1603349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3968226
<PP&E>                                         4076616
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2810843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5586233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          945045
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15451
<OTHER-SE>                                     2449517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5586233
<SALES>                                        4197209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4197209
<CGS>                                          1438890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2217389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1554115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               74397
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                448846
<INCOME-TAX>                                   177118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            271728
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   271728
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.17
        


</TABLE>
Opinion issued August 2, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00468-CV

———————————

TEUDY R. MONTALVO & ANNA MONTALVO, Appellants and CrossAppellees

V.

METHODIST HEALTH CENTERS d/b/a METHODIST SUGAR LAND 

HOSPITAL, Appellee and Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-DCV-193065

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants and cross-appellant have filed agreed motions to dismiss their

respective appeals with prejudice. No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant
2

the motions and dismiss the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss

all other pending motions as moot. Costs of the appeals are taxed against the 

parties who incurred them, as specified in the parties’ agreed motions. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. MASON & HANGER COMPANY.

[56 C. Cls. 238; 260 U.S. 323.]

Judgment was rendered against the United States-in the court below: On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided :

A building contract, made through the War Department, provided that the contractor should be reimbursed for such actual net expenditures in the performance of the work as might be approved or ratified by the contracting officer, including “ such bonds, fire, liability, and other insurance as the contracting officer may approve or require;” that monthly statements of costs should be made, upon which, in case of disagreement, the decision of the contracting officer should govern; and that statements so made and all payments, made thereon should be final and binding on both parties. *Held,*that where a payment made by the contractor as a premium on its bond to secure the performance of the contract was thus approved and repaid as part' of the cost of the work, the decision and action of the officer were conclusive, and that the Comptroller of the Treasury was without power to deduct the amount from other moneys due the contractor, upon the ground that the expense was not among those for which the contract promised reimbursement.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 4, 1922.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James E. SMITH v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 65065.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re James E. Smith, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or ha-beas corpus. Tangipahoa Parish. No. 42077.

Granted. Out of time appeal ordered.
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT









|1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 15, 2020 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as seller, servicer (in
            such capacity, the “Servicer”), administrator and custodian, U.S. Bank National Association, as indenture trustee, BMW FS Securities LLC, as depositor, and BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2020-A, as issuer, and I have made, or have caused to be made
            under my supervision, a review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement during the period from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. | to the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2 above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during
            the period from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March 26, 2024




By:  /s/ Ole
        Jensen


Name:  Ole Jensen


Title:  Vice
      President – Finance & Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christopher M. Condron, Chairman of the Board, 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) 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 9, 2009


/s/ Christopher M. Condron
-------------------------------------
Christopher M. Condron
Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer