alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.702 Policy. ( a ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will supplement and expand the national effort to assist in the location and recovery of missing children by maximizing the economical use of missing children information in domestic official mail and publications directed to members of the public and Department of Veterans Affairs employees.
( b ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will insert pictures and biographical information related to missing children in a variety of official mail originating at the Department of Veterans Affairs automation centers. In addition, pictures and biographical information are printed in self-mailers and other Department of Veterans Affairs publications (newsletters, bulletins, etc.).
( c ) The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (National Center) is the sole source from which the Department of Veterans Affairs will acquire the camera-ready and other photographic and biographical materials to be disseminated for use by Department of Veterans Affairs organizational units. The information is ordered and disseminated by Information Management Service.
( d ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will remove all printed inserts and other materials from circulation or other use within a three-month period from the date the National Center notifies the Department of Veterans Affairs that a child whose picture and biographical information have been made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs has been recovered or that permission of the parent(s) or guardian to use the child's photograph and biographical information has been withdrawn. The National Center is responsible for immediately notifying the Department of Veterans Affairs contact person, in writing, of the need to withdraw from circulation official mail and other materials related to a particular child. Photographs which were reasonably current as of the time of the child's disappearence shall be the only acceptable form of visual medium or pictorial likeness used in official mail.
( e ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will give priority to official mail that is addressed to: ( 1 ) Members of the public that will be received in the United States, its territories and possessions; and
( 2 ) Inter- and intra-agency publications and other media that will also be widely disseminated to Department of Veterans Affairs employees.
( f ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will avoid repetitive mailings of material to the same individuals.
( g ) All Department of Veterans Affairs employee suggestions and/or recommendations for additional cost-effective opportunities to use photographs and biographical data on missing children will be provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs contact person.
( h ) These shall be the sole regulations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and its component organizational units.
(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3220(a)(2), 5 U.S.C. 301).
[52 FR 10889, Apr. 6, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 48388, Sept. 19, 1995]
#### Lucy Hackett, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

H. A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

M. J. Joyce, for respondent.

*840
      *Per*Curiam.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The evidence '■shows that in crossing defendant’s tracks the plaintiff exercised 'due caution. ' The injuries complained of were severe. The verdict was a reasonable one, These injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence in turning the curve at Fifty-third street, and Plinth avenue. The evidence shows that defendant’s car was going very fast, in fact,, unreasonably fast,, thus running down plaintiff and injuring her.

Present: Fitzsimoys, Oh. J.; O’Dwyer and Schuchmay, J J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 73.2 Purpose and scope.

This part implements the provisions of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 setting forth the requirements for possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins. The biological agents and toxins listed in this part have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, to animal health, or to animal products. Overlap select agents and toxins are subject to regulation by both CDC and APHIS.
41371.

#### HYDE v. ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY.

Deen, Judge.

1. (a) It is well settled that the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, being an administrative body clothed with quasi-judicial functions, has no power save that conferred on it by statute, and that it does not have any power, even within the 30-day period following its award in which an appeal can be made, to vacate or modify its decision. *St. Paul Fire Ins. Co. v. Bridges,*106 Ga. App. 621 (127 SE2d 699); *Murdock v. Perkins,*219 Ga. 756 (3) (135 SE2d 869). Apparently this also precludes the board *137from re-opening the case on a petition for rehearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence. See *Gravitt v. Georgia Cas. Co.,*158 Ga. 613 (123 SE 897) citing Conner’s Case, 121 Me. 37 (115 A 520). See also 165 ALR, Anno., pp. 9, 449, n. 16.

Submitted June 7, 1965

Decided July 9, 1965

Rehearing denied July 21, 1965.

*Melvin Pazol, Henry N. Payton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jones, Bird & Howell, Ralph, Williams, Jr.,*contra.

(b) It is recognized that such a ruling is essentially unfair in a case where the newly discovered evidence would necessarily result in a different determination of the case, as where medical findings, not available at the time of the hearing before the hearing director or the board, show a mistaken diagnosis and the true facts would establish that the claimant’s injury was or was not related to the employment, contrary to the facts found. As stated in *Bridges,*supra, this is a matter which calls for legislative correction, but which is not otherwise subject to review, for at present the board has no power to vacate or modify its awards, and the appellate courts have no power to reverse an award because of newly discovered evidence.

2. The denial of compensation on the ground that no notice of accident was given the employer as required by *Code*§ 114-303 was proper under the evidence before the board at the time.

The superior court did not err in affirming the award of the full board.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
#### CHRISCO BROS., Respondent, v. WILLIAM F. CARROLL, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

July 7, 1910.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR: Motion for New Trial: Time for Filing, When a trial was had on the 14th day of September and the motion for new trial was not filed until the 20th of September, the motion was not filed in the time required by statute.

2. -: -: Exception to Overruling Motion. If the bill of exceptions fails to show that an exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for a new trial the grounds assigned in said motion are not open for review on appeal.

Appeal from Shannon Circuit *Court.*— Son. *W. N. Evans,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*William- F. Carroll, pro se.*

GRAY, J.

This cause was tried before a jury in the circuit court of Shannon county, September 14, 1909, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $127.90, and defendant appealed.

The plaintiffs were the keepers of a livery stable in Eminence, and they hired to defendant a team of horses, harness and buggy. The defendant used the team about twenty-one days and during the time he had it, one of the horses was drowned, and plaintiffs claim the buggy and harness and other horse were damaged.

The suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, and the plaintiffs alleged their damages to be $219.50. The defendant filed a counterclaim of $220.20. On trial before the justice, plaintiffs recovered a judgment of $140.

The abstract of the record filed by the appellant and his bill of exceptions also, show that the case was *379tried on the 14th day of September, 1909, and the motion for new trial was not filed until September 20th, 1909. This was too late. [Section 803, Revised Statutes 1899; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 591, 5 S. W. 330.]

There is nothing in the abstract of the. record or in the bill of exceptions showing that any exception was saved to the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial. If the record fails to show an exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial, the grounds assigned in said motion are not open for review on appeal. [State v. Harris, 216 Mo. 392, 115 S. W. 968; State v. Crites, 215 Mo. 91, 114 S. W. 618; Wilbrandt v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 135 Mo. App. 220, 115 S. W. 497.]

For the reasons assigned, there is nothing for review on this appeal except the record proper. [State v. Crites, 215 Mo. 91, 114 S. W. 618.] And as there is nothing irregular in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.
August 9, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WOODY K. LESIKAR SPECIAL TRUST AND WOODROW V. LESIKAR FAMILY

TRUST, THROUGH THEIR TRUSTEE, WOODY K. LESIKAR, AND THE ESTATE 

OF WOODROW V. LESIKAR, DECEASED, THROUGH ITS EXECUTOR, WOODY 

K. LESIKAR, Appellants

NO. 14-10-00119-CV V.

CAROLYN ANN LESIKAR MOON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NAMED TRUSTEE 

OF THE CAROLYN ANN LESIKAR MOON SPECIAL TRUST, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the turnover order in favor of appellee, CAROLYN 

ANN LESIKAR MOON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NAMED TRUSTEE OF THE 

CAROLYN ANN LESIKAR MOON SPECIAL TRUST, signed January 29, 2010, was 

heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the 

judgment. We therefore MODIFY the turnover order of the court below by removing

those provisions (1) ordering the release of “all liens or encumbrances of any type 

recorded against property awarded to the Carolyn Ann Lesikar Moon Special Trust in the 

Final Judgment signed September 15, 2005 . . . ;” (2) ordering appellants to “sign or 

execute any other documents . . . to clear any title issues relating to the property . . . ;” 

and (3) prohibiting appellants from “executing, filing, placing, or recording any liens or 

encumbrances of any type against the property. . . .”

We order the turnover order of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified 

in this judgment. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs incurred because of

this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1218

MARY JANE SUGGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M&T BANK,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

MORTGAGE AMENITIES CORPORATION; GOVERNMENT NATIONAL 

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae 

Remic Trust 2001-10; Ginnie Mae,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00396-JAG)

Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Mary Jane Suggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Miltz Luck, III, REED SMITH, LLP, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Mary Jane Suggs appeals the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to 

dismiss her civil action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Suggs v. M&T Bank, No. 3:15-cv-00396-JAG (E.D. 

Va. Jan. 18, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2126 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the income threshold 

used to calculate the refundable portion of the child tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the income threshold used to calculate the refundable 

portion of the child tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Working Family Child 

5 Assistance Act’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2126 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF INCOME THRESHOLD USED TO 

2 CALCULATE REFUNDABLE PORTION OF 

3 CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to portion 

6 of credit refundable) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(i) the sum of— 

8 ‘‘(I) 10 percent of so much of the 

9 taxpayer’s earned income (within the 

10 meaning of section 32) taken into ac11 count in computing taxable income for 

12 the taxable year as exceeds $5,000 

13 but does not exceed $24,000, plus 

14 ‘‘(II) 15 percent of such earned 

15 income as exceeds $24,000, or’’. 

16 (b) REPEAL OF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 

17 24(d) of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (3). 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Opinion issued February 1 1 , 20 20

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 00 479
- CV

——————————— NORA ELISA LOPEZ , Appella nt

V. ROBERT AVILES , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2013
- 50408

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Nora Elisa Lopez , ha s not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).2

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman

.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 10, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00580

- CV

Francisco Ivarra, Rebecca Lugo, Juan Villareal, Neal Zabicki, Anahli Vasquez,

Willie Galvan, Helen Galvan, and Lee Rivas, Appellant s

v.

American GI Forum of the United States, Inc.; Gilberto Rodriguez; Antonio G. Morales and Paul Herrera, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPIN ION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE having this day come on to be considered, and the Court being of the opinion that

it is without jurisdiction of the cause and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction: IT IS ACCORDINGL Y considered, adjudged and ordered that the appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant s pay all costs

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified

below fo r observance.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2150 

To authorize appropriations to provide for South Pacific exchanges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations to provide for South Pacific 

exchanges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SOUTH PACIFIC EXCHANGES. 

4 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec5 retary of State $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

6 and 2009 for South Pacific exchanges carried out under 

7 the educational and cultural exchange programs of the De8 partment of State. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
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 Quarterly Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/David Mintz*
---------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2006


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
1 Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association 15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 Aurora, CO 80014 720.870.7987 fax – 720.870.7889 www.acaa-usa.org 

# ACAA 

# Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistan t Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
From: Thomas Adams CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager
Date: August 3, 2009 Re: Sulfate Wars

During our meeting of July 24, 2009 discussion of the negative impacts of a hazardous waste regulation for coal ash disposal on the beneficial use of fly ash in concrete raised interest in litigation known within the concrete industry as the “Sulfate Wa rs”. This litigation was initiated by allegations of potential damage on concrete foundations from sulfate attack from soils surrounding those foundations. While there were no actual damages proven in any of the cases, several large monetary awards went to plaintiffs until one judge eventually ruled in favor of the defendants essentially halting litigation under this theory. The concrete industry is fearful of having to defend itself on a much larger scale from similar frivolous litigation. Two articles describing this litigation from trade publications are available through the following links. http://www.concretemonthly.com/monthly/art.php?2331 http://concreteproducts.com/ mag/concrete_construction defect_lawsuits_justice/
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             FIRST FINANCIAL BANCORP
              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 First Financial Bancorp (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Allen
R. Christenson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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.



August 12, 2004                                 /S/ALLEN R. CHRISTENSON
                                                -----------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer


                                       24
§ 493.841 Standard; Routine chemistry. ( a ) Failure to attain a score of at least 80 percent of acceptable responses for each analyte in each testing event is unsatisfactory analyte performance for the testing event.
( b ) Failure to attain an overall testing event score of at least 80 percent is unsatisfactory performance.
( c ) Failure to participate in a testing event is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event. Consideration may be given to those laboratories failing to participate in a testing event only if— ( 1 ) Patient testing was suspended during the time frame allotted for testing and reporting proficiency testing results;
( 2 ) The laboratory notifies the inspecting agency and the proficiency testing program within the time frame for submitting proficiency testing results of the suspension of patient testing and the circumstances associated with failure to perform tests on proficiency testing samples; and
( 3 ) The laboratory participated in the previous two proficiency testing events.
( d ) Failure to return proficiency testing results to the proficiency testing program within the time frame specified by the program is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event.
( e ) ( 1 ) For any unsatisfactory analyte or test performance or testing event for reasons other than a failure to participate, the laboratory must undertake appropriate training and employ the technical assistance necessary to correct problems associated with a proficiency testing failure.
( 2 ) For any unacceptable analyte or testing event score, remedial action must be taken and documented, and the documentation must be maintained by the laboratory for two years from the date of participation in the proficiency testing event.
( f ) Failure to achieve satisfactory performance for the same analyte or test in two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
( g ) Failure to achieve an overall testing event score of satisfactory performance for two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of CalAmp Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 29,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Richard Gold, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Richard Vitelle, 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 to our knowledge:  (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/ Richard Gold
Richard Gold
Chief Executive Officer /s/ Richard Vitelle
Richard Vitelle
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer July 8, 2010 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.