alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daingerfield *et al. v.*The State.

Judgment on the forfeiture of a recognizance for appearance, will be reversed, if there is a material variance between the recognizance, the *scire fadas,*and the judgment of the court.

IN ERROR to the circuit court of the county of Jefferson.

Clark, for the "plaintiffs in error.

Attorney General, *.contra.*

Mr. Justice Turner

delivered the opinion of the court.

At the December term, 1837, of the circuit court of Jefferson county, Henry M. Jones was presented by the grand jury, for stealing a negro woman, named Louisa, and her child, named Rachael, of the value of $1200, of the goods and chattels of one George Torry. A Bench warrant issued to bring in the body of said Jones, which was returned executed during said term, and he was admitted to bail, and entered into recognizance, himself in the sum of $500, and his bail, Young & Daingerfield, in the sum of $250, each, for the appearance of said Jones at the (then) next term of said court. At the June term, 1838, the accused, Jones, was called out, together with his bail, and forfeitures taken, according to the recognizance, *nisi.*

Oh the 18th September, 1838, a *scire facias*issued, reciting, that at the *June term,*1838, the said Jones was presented for the offence aforesaid, that a Bench warrant issued, the accused arrested, who gave bail in $500, with the above securities, conditioned for the appearance of said Jones at the court of said county to be holden on the 2d *Monday of December,*1837, that at the *June term,*1838, Jones was called to appear, &c. but wholly failed to do so, and requiring the said Jones and Young to appear on the 2d Monday of December (then) next, 1838, to show cause *659why the state should not recover of them and each of them, the sum of $500, &c. which *sci.fa.*is endorsed by the sheriff, «made known to Young and Daingerfield on the 11th October, 1838.”

At the December term, 1838, the said Young and Daingerfield were called out, making default, whereupon it was ordered that the judgment heretofore entered against said.defendants, to wit: at the June term, 1838, on a forfeiture of their recognizance « for the sum of five hundred dollars, be made final, and that the state recover against said defendants the sum of $500, the penalty named .in said *scire facias,*also the costs of suit, &c.”

The said Young and Daingerfield sued out this writ of error, to the December term, 1839, of this court.

The above statement of the case, shows such palpable variance, between the recognizance, the *scire facias*and the judgment of the court thereon, that the same must he reversed, the *scire facias*be quashed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in the court below.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 12, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 12, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0103. TERRY ANTHONY SARGENT v. OCTAVIA M. JOHNSON-SARGENT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV307751
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the  annual report of INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA NETWORK, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Verdiramo, 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 to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.







Date:  July 14, 2004

By: /s/ Richard J. Verdiramo

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

Richard J. Verdiramo, President
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3906 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3906

 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to eliminate 
   the cap on qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues that may be 
    received by Gulf producing States under that Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2020

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to eliminate 
   the cap on qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues that may be 
    received by Gulf producing States under that Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Offshore Cap Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTED QUALIFIED 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES.

    Section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 
U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended by striking subsection 
(f).
                                 <all>
```
§ 125.111 General. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no certificate holder may use an airplane powered by airplane engines rated at more than 600 horsepower each for maximum continuous operation unless that airplane meets the requirements of §§ 125.113 through 125.181.
( b ) If the Administrator determines that, for a particular model of airplane used in cargo service, literal compliance with any requirement under paragraph (a) of this section would be extremely difficult and that compliance would not contribute materially to the objective sought, the Administrator may require compliance with only those requirements that are necessary to accomplish the basic objectives of this part.
( c ) This section does not apply to any airplane certificated under— ( 1 ) Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in effect after October 31, 1946;
( 2 ) Part 25 of this chapter; or
( 3 ) Special Civil Air Regulation 422, 422A, or 422B.
#### § 125.241 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes rules, in addition to those prescribed in other parts of this chapter, for the maintenance of airplanes, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, each item of survival and emergency equipment, and their component parts operated under this part.
180208 FINCA MATILDE LIFT STAY SCH ORDER VERSION FEBRUARY 8, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

 The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Relief from Stay (the 

“Motion”) filed by Finca Matilde, inc (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 2436.) Opposition 

papers to the Motion must be filed by February 21, 2018. Movant’s reply papers must be filed 

by February 28, 2018. The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party 

thereto requests a hearing. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Debtors in these title III cases, along with each Debtor’s respective title III case number listed as a 

bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax 

identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Employees Retirement 

System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (iv) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2438 Filed:02/08/18 Entered:02/08/18 11:06:56 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
        32.1
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 8 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 Element 21 Golf Company (the
        "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Nataliya
        Hearn, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, and John Grippo, Chief
        Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
        The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Registrant.
 
  Date:
                  February 14, 2007
              
              By:  /s/
                  Nataliya Hearn, Ph.D.President
                  and DirectorDate:
                  February 14, 2007
              
              By:  /s/
                  John GrippoChief
                  Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 390 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 390

    To clarify that funding for the Securities Investor Protection 
              Corporation is not subject to the sequester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2019

   Mr. Enzi introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify that funding for the Securities Investor Protection 
              Corporation is not subject to the sequester.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION.

    Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does not apply with respect to the funding 
of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.
                                 <all>
```
SEAN JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3638

Opinion filed March 3, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Sean Jenkins, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel; Sheron Wells and Beverly Brewster, Assistant 

General Counsels, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

THOMAS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held May 10, 2000 at 11 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1014, Washington, DC. 20590.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Jones, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-9822; fax (202) 267-5075; e-mail Regina.Jones@faa.gov.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Executive Committee to be held on May 10, 2000, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1014, Washington, DC 20590. The agenda will include:
    - Use of proxy votes
    - ARAC Chair and Vice Chair
    - New ARAC members

Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to the space available. The public must make arrangements by May 3, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.

                    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    .                

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2000.

Anthony F. Fazo,

Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 00-10852  Filed 4-27-00; 11:10 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### The Voorhees Rubber Manufacturing Company *vs.*Charles H. Cheeney.

Third Judicial District.

Argued June 2d

decided July 16th, 1915.

Action to recover a balance alleged to be due for merchandise sold and delivered, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, *Wolfe, J.;*facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for 8107, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*Cornelius J. Danaher,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Patrick J. O’Brien,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

No question of law is presented by this appeal. The plaintiff sued upon the common counts to recover for certain rubber tubes sold and repaired. The defendant, among other things set up in his answer and counterclaim, alleged that under “the oral agreement under which said items mentioned in the bill of particulars were furnished,” the tubes were to be “puncture proof, blow-out proof and free from any defect, latent or otherwise.” The court, found what the oral contract was under which the tubes were delivered and repairs made, that it did not conform in respect to warranty to that set up by the defendant, and that the plaintiff had complied with the contract which it is found was made. The only ground of error urged in the brief and argument of the defendant is, that no such agreement as the court has thus found was alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff might recover under the *715common counts for goods delivered and repaired under the special contract. The court properly found, and made a part of the record on appeal, the contract under which the goods and services were furnished. That was put in issue by the defendant’s answer and counterclaim, and because of his request for a finding for appeal, and of the questions of law which he proposed to raise thereunder, it became necessary for the trial judge to set out the contract between the parties.

There is no error.
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.319 Design changes. ( a ) *Classification of design changes.* ( 1 ) A “minor change” to the design of an article produced under a PMA is one that has no appreciable effect on the approval basis.
( 2 ) A “major change” to the design of an article produced under a PMA is any change that is not minor.
( b ) *Approval of design changes.* ( 1 ) Minor changes to the basic design of a PMA may be approved using a method acceptable to the FAA.
( 2 ) The PMA holder must obtain FAA approval of any major change before including it in the design of an article produced under a PMA.
**Exhibit 99**

**Reconciliation of Non-GAAP FinancialMeasures**

Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the third quarter of2003 includes "non-GAAP financial measures" as defined by SEC rules.Specifically, in Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Results ofOperations and Financial Condition," (MD&A) we refer to net revenues (revenuesfrom services less interest and other financial charges) of the CommercialFinance, Consumer Finance and Equipment Management segments. 

We provided reconciliations of net revenues to reportedrevenues. Because net revenues is a common industry measure of margin, thosedisclosures will enable investors to compare the results of our businesses toothers in the same industry.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

April 2, 2003

Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company
(formerly AUSA Life Insurance Company, Inc.)
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:   Separate Account VA BNY
      Registration on Form N-4  SEC File No. 33-83560

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Transamerica Landmark NY policy are those
deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)     the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
        policies,

(2)     the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
        policies,

(3)     the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and
        management of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides
        for a reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)     Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)    Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii)   Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)    Surrender Charge

(v)     Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company
April 2, 2003
Page 2

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Transamerica Landmark NY Variable Annuity,
to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.

       /s/ Tim Bennett
-------------------------------------------------
Tim Bennett, ASA, MAAA
Assistant Actuary
Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company
(formerly AUSA Life Insurance Company, Inc.)
#### Collier *et al. v.*City of Atlanta.

No. 8822.

September 14, 1932.

*T. B. Higdon*and *George & John L. Westmoreland,*for plaintiffs.

*J. L. Mayson, C. S. Winn,*and *J. G. Savage,*for defendant.

Beck, P. J.

Under the issues in this ease and the evidence applicable thereto, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an interlocutory injunction. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LANDLORD SERVICE BUREAU, INC.; 

MICHELLE WILLIAMS; COLLYER REALTY 

COMPANY, D/B/A GALASSO REAL 

ESTATE SERVICES; SANTO POLICICHIO; 

CROWN REAL ESTATE AND 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH AND 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH 

REALTORS ASSOCIATION OF 

METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH, A 

PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION NOT 

FOR PROFIT

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH APARTMENT 

ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN 

PITTSBURGH, A PENNSYLVANIA 

CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A HOME 

RULE CITY

PETITION OF: THE CITY OF 

PITTSBURGH AND COUNCIL OF THE 

CITY OF PITTSBURGH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 82 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court
ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court err when it held, in light of Pennsylvania Rest. 

& Lodging Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh, 211 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2019), that the City 

of Pittsburgh lacked home rule authority under 53 P.S. § 2962(f) to enact its 

Rental Registration Ordinance?