alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRADSHAW v. MYERS.

No. 30691.

Nov. 24, 1942.

*131 P. 2d 79.*

Date Crawford and John W. Hunt, both of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

Kerr, Lambert & Conn, of Ada, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action in replevin in the justice of the peace court and the matter, was appealed to the district court, whereupon defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which motion was sustained by the trial court.

Plaintiff has appéaled from the order of dismissal by petition in error with bill of exceptions attached.

On October 28, 1924, defendant in error filed a motion in this court confessing error .and moving that the case be reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

In such case we have held that we will examine the 'record, and where the allegations of error appear to be sustained the confession of error will be taken as true and the order entered as in the prayer of the petition in error. See O’Dell v. Sharp, 182 Okla. 534, 78 P. 2d 810.

The cause is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the order of dismissal and proceed in accordance with the confession of error and the prayer of the petition in error.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, and HURST, JJ., concur. RILEY, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 198 (Thursday, October 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
Federal Trade Commission's Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leydon, Director of Human 
Resources, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
3633.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the Performance Review Board 
(PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4). The PRB reviews 
and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance 
by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance 
ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to 
the Chairman.
    The following individuals have been designated to serve on the 
Commission's Performance Review Board:

    <bullet> Charles H. Schneider, Executive Director, Chairman
    <bullet> Willard K. Tom, General Counsel
    <bullet> Pauline M. Ippolito, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economics

    By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark
Secretary
[FR Doc. E9-24731 Filed 10-14-09: 9:55 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S
#### § 368.1 Scope.

This part is applicable to state nonmember banks and insured state branches of foreign banks that have filed notice as, or are required to file notice as, government securities brokers or dealers pursuant to section 15C of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-5) and Department of the Treasury rules under section 15C (17 CFR 400.1(d) and part 401).
#### Garrett *v.*Garrett.

No. 8789.

August 15, 1932.

Atkinson, J.

Where a defendant was adjudged in contempt for failure to pay temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, to which order no exception was taken; and where he was set at liberty until further order of the court, as a result of having been put into involuntary bankruptcy; and where contempt proceedings were again filed against him, to which he answered under oath, alleging inability to pay alimony, and contending that the original order was improvidently granted and should be modified, the trial judge was authorized to find that no bona, fide attempt had been made to comply with the order of the court, and to adjudge the defendant in contempt. *Duke*v. *Duke,*157 *Ga.*899 (122 S. E. 685); *Andrews*v. *Andrews,*169 *Ga.*97 (149 S. E. 870).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*456
      *Harris & McMaster,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. D. Godfrey,*contra.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3268 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3268

    To amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that the health 
 benefits program for Federal employees covers screening for glaucoma.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2003

 Mr. Cummings introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that the health 
 benefits program for Federal employees covers screening for glaucoma.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Health Benefits 
Glaucoma Screening Act''.

SEC. 2. SCREENING FOR GLAUCOMA.

    (a) In General.--Section 8902 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p)(1) A contract may not be made or a plan approved which does 
not provide coverage for screening for glaucoma for individuals 
determined to be at high risk for glaucoma, individuals with a family 
history of glaucoma and individuals with diabetes.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `screening for 
glaucoma' shall have the same meaning as under title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act, including the provisions relating to the frequency 
of any such screenings for which coverage may be provided.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
#### ANTHONY v. COVINGTON et al.

No. 30967.

Nov. 17, 1942.

' John R. Miller, L. O. Lytle, and Roy T. Wildman, all of Sapulpa, for plaintiff.

Pierce & Rucker, of Oklahoma City, Johnson & Jones, of Bristow, and Dale ,P. Rainey, of Okmulgee, for defendants.

CORN, V. C. J.

Plaintiff has filed an original action in this court against Pauline Covington and other named defendants, her attorneys, as an ancillary proceeding to case No. 29213, S. W. Anthony v. E. L. Covington et al., 187 Okla. 27, 110 P. 2d 461.

. By this action plaintiff alleges that he seeks to protect the judgment of this court in that case. The petition sets forth at length the earlier proceedings, both in the lower court and on appeal to this court, and closes with the prayer that the defendant or any person who might appear for her, be forever enjoined from instituting any further action against S. W. Anthony upon the cause of action pleaded by Pauline Covington.

June 30, 1942, we rendered an opinion in case No. 30692, Pauline Covington et al v. S. W. Anthony, 191 Okla. 266, 128 P. 2d 1012, affirming the judgment of the superior court of Creek county, Bristow division, wherein judgment was rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff, Pauline Covington, was enjoined from proceeding further in any suit based upon this same cause of action.

Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to consider the matters sought to be presented herein, inasmuch as the questions sought to be raised are now moot by reason of such judgment, and the affirmance of said judgment by this court is sufficient to afford this plaintiff the relief sought in the present action.

Action dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY and BAY-LESS, JJ., absent.
§ 190.101 State criminal usury statutes. ( a ) Section 501 provides that “the provisions of the constitution or laws of any state expressly limiting the rate or amount of interest, discount points, finance charges, or other charges shall not apply to any” Federally-related loan secured by a first lien on residential real property, a residential manufactured home, or all the stock allocated to a dwelling unit in a residential housing cooperative. 12 U.S.C. 1735f-7 note (Supp. IV 1980). The question has arisen as to whether the Federal statute preempts a state law which deems it a criminal offense to charge interest at a rate in excess of that specified in the state law.
( b ) Section 501 preempts all state laws which expressly limit the rate or amount of interest chargeable on a Federally-related residential first mortgage. It does not matter whether the statute in question imposes criminal or civil sanctions; section 501, by its terms, preempts “any” state law which imposes a ceiling on interest rates. The wording of the Federal statute clearly expresses an intent to displace all direct state law restraints on interest. Any state law that conflicts with this Congressional purpose must yield.
#### § 308.144 Scope.

The procedures of this subpart shall be followed when an investigation is instituted and conducted in connection with any open or failed insured depository institution, any institutions making application to become insured depository institutions, and affiliates thereof, or with other types of investigations to determine compliance with applicable law and regulations, pursuant to section 10(c) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(c)) or section 5(d)(1)(B) of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(1)(B)). The Uniform Rules and subpart B of the Local Rules shall not apply to investigations under this subpart.

[80 FR 5013, Jan. 30, 2015]
42326.

#### ANDREWS v. STANTON.

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*

Argued September 9, 1966

Decided January 27, 1967.

Pannell, Judge.

Where in defense to a suit on a note the defendant files a cross action alleging that the plaintiff contracted to supervise the construction of a dwelling for the defendant and breached the contract in certain particulars by failing to supervise the construction of the dwelling, and the cross action shows that the defendant is entitled to some, if not all, of the items claimed as damages in the cross action, it is error for the trial judge to sustain a motion to dismiss the cross action. *Blalock v. Barrett,*28 Ga. App. 444, 446 (111 SE 697); *Bailey & Carney Buggy Co. v. Guthrie,*1 Ga. App. 350 (3) (58 SE 103). Under these circumstances the judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*106*Ross Arnold,*for appellant..

*Archer, Patrick & Sidener, James H. Archer, Jr.,*for appellee.
#### §§ 3.13-3.19 [Reserved]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 25, 2010 

Order 

 

January 25, 2010 

140263(7) 

IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

_______________________________________ 

KAREN WAESCHLE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 SC: 140263 

v US Dist: 08-10393 

OAKLAND COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, 

and OAKLAND COUNTY, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for temporary admission to practice of 

Patrick J. Perotti and John H. Metz is considered and it is GRANTED.
§ 28.51 Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart: ( a ) *Banking institution* means a national bank.
( b ) *Federal banking agencies* means the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC.
( c ) *International assets* means those assets required to be included in banking institutions' *Country Exposure Report* forms (FFIEC 009).
( d ) *International loan* means a loan as defined in the instructions to the *Report of Condition and Income* for the respective banking institution (FFIEC 031, 032, 033 and 034) and made to a foreign government, or to an individual, a corporation, or other entity not a citizen of, resident in, or organized or incorporated in the United States.
( e ) *Restructured international loan* means a loan that meets the following criteria: ( 1 ) The borrower is unable to service the existing loan according to its terms and is a resident of a foreign country in which there is a generalized inability of public and private sector obligors to meet their external debt obligations on a timely basis because of a lack of, or restraints on the availability of, needed foreign exchange in the country; and
( 2 ) The terms of the existing loan are amended to reduce stated interest or extend the schedule of payments; or
( 3 ) A new loan is made to, or for the benefit of, the borrower, enabling the borrower to service or refinance the existing debt.
( f ) *Transfer risk* means the possibility that an asset cannot be serviced in the currency of payment because of a lack of, or restraints on the availability of, needed foreign exchange in the country of the obligor.
[61 FR 19532, May 2, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 57048, Oct. 26, 1998; 73 FR 22251, Apr. 24, 2008]
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00442-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A., M.A., AND 

P.G., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 360th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (360-699440-21)

March 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
#### HIGGENBOTHAM V. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA.

(two cases.)

(Decided April 24, 1913.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of assignment of error.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40888 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYNALDO QUIROZ-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-123-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Quiroz-Escobedo appeals his guilty plea conviction for importation of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Quiroz-Escobedo argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) . Quiroz-Escobedo concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000), which rejected a broad Apprendi -based attack on the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.No. 03-40888 -2- § 841. He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany , 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Slaughter exists. Accordingly, Quiroz-Escobedo’s argument is indeed foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 10.28.3

                                                             REDACTED VERSION


                          [SERACARE LETTERHEAD]

     *** Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of
     this agreement. Such omitted confidential information has been designated
     by an asterisk and has been filed separately with the Securities and
     Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations
     promulgated under the Freedom of Information Act, pursuant to a request
     for confidential treatment.***


November 6, 2000

Sr. Ramon Riera
Managing Director
Grifols International, S.A.
Torre Maffre-Planta 26
C/de la marina
Barcelona, Spain 08005

Dear Ramon:

Sorry for the delay. I am committed to supplying Grifols with *** liters of
plasma in calendar year 2001 and I continue to believe that the current
plasma price for delivery in 2001 is US *** per liter (non-pcr tested);
however, I would like to propose the following:

     Base Price per liter = US ***
     30 day inventory hold
     payment 30 days from date of shipment

Pricing adjustment: using a base Euro/Dollar exchange rate of .855, for every
5% improvement in the Euro against the dollar exchange rate the price would
increase by US $.50 adjusted quarterly.

If you have any questions, I will be in the office the rest of the week.

Best regards,


/s/ Barry
----------------------
Barry D. Plost
Chief Executive Officer


BDP:ds

Cc: Dr. Javier Jorba


          1935 Century Park East, Suite 1970, Los Angeles, CA 90067


-------------------------------
*** Confidential information omitted and filed separately with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
283-LTS Doc#:22325-2 Filed:09/16/22 Entered:09/20/22 15:19:19 Desc:

Envelope Page 1 of 1
December 14, 2015 

Dear Mr. Pettis: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3543). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/28/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Vanessa A. Wittman,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Adelphia Communications Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  August  14, 2006 | /s/ Vanessa A. Wittman  |   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                         | Vanessa A. Wittman      |   |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----

----