alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PETITION IN ERROR.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1899.]

#### Clara T. Wilder et al v. Alex McDonald et al.

Time for Filing Runs from Date of Judgment.

The time within which a petition in error may be filed begins to run from the date of the rendition and entry of the judgment, notwithstanding the trial *A*court on a subsequent date overruled a motion for a new trial and made separate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

A. *T.*Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

*Maxwell & Ramsey,*contra.

Smith, J.

We see no reason to change the opinion heretofore expressed on the motion to strike from the files the petition in error in this case on the ground that it was not filed within six months from the day of the rendition and entry of the judgment which is sought to be reversed.

On June 26, 1897, the case was tried to the court, and a judgment entered dismissing the petition at the costs of the plaintiffs, to which they excepted. On June 29th a motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial was filed. At a subsequent term, viz.: on October 13th, the court entered an order, making a separate finding of facts and its conclusions of law, and overruled the motion for a new trial, but no entry was ever made by the court in any other respect modifying or vacating the original judgment of June 26th, nor was there any other judgment entered on October 13th other than that overruling the motion foi a new trial.

The petition in error was not filed until April 13, 1898, which was much more than six months from the entry of the judgment in the case, viz. : June 26th but was within six months from the overruling of the motion for a new trial and the entry of the finding of facts.

This question, we think, is conclusively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Young v. Shellenberger, 53 O. S., 291-9, and Daily v. Popple, 58 O. S., 395. If the court had in any way, by the entry of October 13th, modified or set aside the judgment entered on June 26th, there might have been some ground to believe that the petition in error might be filed within six months from that date; but this was not done, and if the plaintiff below allowed the six months from June 26th, to run without filing his petition in error, he can not do so afterwards.
EXHIBIT  32.1  --  CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF
FINANCIAL  OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002  AND  SECTION  1350  OF  18  U.S.C.  63.


I, Alex Genin, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
First  Capital  International,  Inc.  hereby  certify  that  First  Capital
International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10QSB and the financial statements
contained therein fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that
information  contained  in  the  periodic report on Form 10QSB and the financial
statements  contained  therein  fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial  condition  and  results  of  the  operations  of  First  Capital
International,  Inc.


Date: August 15, 2005          /s/ Alex Genin
                               Chief Executive Officer and
                               Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### PALMER v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 13, 1916.)

Appeal from Chilton Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

Curry & Walker, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1:
Certification of Chief Executive Officer regarding Form 10-K/A-1 for
year 2004 pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In
connection with the Annual Report of Specialty Trust, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A-1 for the
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Nello Gonfiantini III, Chairman of the Board and President of the Company
certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002:  (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. This Certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the
knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose. /s/ Nello Gonfiantini III
    
    Dated this
3rd day
of May 2005Name:
    
    Nello Gonfiantini IIITitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board and President
 100
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0347 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0347

**96/347/EC: Commission Decision of 24 May 1996 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues submitted by Austria (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 135 , 06/06/1996 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 24 May 1996 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues submitted by Austria (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/347/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 18 December 1995 Austria sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Austria is hereby approved.

Article 2

Austria shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall apply to the Republic of Austria.

Done at Brussels, 24 May 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Patrick G. Yount, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of River Holding Corp.;



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



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 16, 2004 |  | /s/ Patrick G. Yount   
|                     |  | Patrick G. Yount       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 27 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

WD75967 Charles A Mahone vs. State of Missouri

WD76042 William A Turner, Jr. vs. State of Missouri

WD76426 Andrew Brown vs. State of Missouri

WD76483 Bobbi Jean Bissell vs. Thi C Mai

WD76517 Consolidated with WD76483

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76889 State of Missouri vs. James L. Vann

WD76189 State of Missouri vs. Clifton S Sparkling
Appendix K 

Sendout Pipeline Route Alternatives 
Proposed Downeast

LNG Import Terminal

Baileyville Compressor

Station Maritimes & Northeast

Pipeline

End Moosehorn/

Railway Alternative

Western

Alternative

Proposed

Route

Howard Lake

Alternative

Start Howard Lake

Alternative

End Howard Lake

Alternative

Start Moosehorn/

Railway and Western

Alternative

Moosehorn/

Railway Alternative

Maine

Figure K-1

Downeast LNG Project

Moosehorn Pipeline Route Alternatives

Legend

Baileyville Compressor Station

Proposed Downeast LNG Import Terminal

Downeast Pipeline Route

Original Proposed Route (Option 4)

Howard Lake Alternative

Moosehorn/Railway Alternative

Western Alternative

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\Figure1-1.mxd
§ 377.2 Applicability of part. ( a ) This part implements the last sentence of 5 U.S.C. 558(c) with regard to temporary authorizations granted by the Department. Note:
The last sentence of 5 U.S.C. 558(c) provides: “When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.”
( b ) Nothing in this part prevents the Department from terminating at any time, in accordance with law, any authorization or any extension of an authorization.
( c ) Nothing in this part constitutes a determination that any given authorization is a “license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 558(c).
[SPR-184, 47 FR 7212, Feb. 18, 1982, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
Date: April 1 6 , 20 1 5

To: Docket , EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 4 - 0738 From: Andrew Bouchard Subject: Meeting Record for April 1 6 , 2015 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and The Dow

Chemical Company On April 16 , 2015 , representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a conference call with The Dow Chemical Company . The purpose of the call was to discuss Dow’s comments that were submitted to the docket on the initial MPGF AMEL notice . See **Attachment 1** for the names and affiliations of the m eeting participants .**Attachment 1 Participants in**  **April 16 , 2015**  **EPA/ Dow**  **Meeting** The Dow Chemical Company Representatives Russell Wozniak Jarod Davis Vance Varner Cheryl Steves U.S. EPA Representatives Andrew Bouchard Brenda Shine
§ 29.685 Control system details. ( a ) Each detail of each control system must be designed to prevent jamming, chafing, and interference from cargo, passengers, loose objects, or the freezing of moisture.
( b ) There must be means in the cockpit to prevent the entry of foreign objects into places where they would jam the system.
( c ) There must be means to prevent the slapping of cables or tubes against other parts.
( d ) Cable systems must be designed as follows: ( 1 ) Cables, cable fittings, turnbuckles, splices, and pulleys must be of an acceptable kind.
( 2 ) The design of cable systems must prevent any hazardous change in cable tension throughout the range of travel under any operating conditions and temperature variations.
( 3 ) No cable smaller than 1 ⁄ 8 inch diameter may be used in any primary control system.
( 4 ) Pulley kinds and sizes must correspond to the cables with which they are used. The pulley-cable combinations and strength values specified in MIL-HDBK-5 must be used unless they are inapplicable.
( 5 ) Pulleys must have close fitting guards to prevent the cables from being displaced or fouled.
( 6 ) Pulleys must lie close enough to the plane passing through the cable to prevent the cable from rubbing against the pulley flange.
( 7 ) No fairlead may cause a change in cable direction of more than three degrees.
( 8 ) No clevis pin subject to load or motion and retained only by cotter pins may be used in the control system.
( 9 ) Turnbuckles attached to parts having angular motion must be installed to prevent binding throughout the range of travel.
( 10 ) There must be means for visual inspection at each fairlead, pulley, terminal, and turnbuckle.
( e ) Control system joints subject to angular motion must incorporate the following special factors with respect to the ultimate bearing strength of the softest material used as a bearing: ( 1 ) 3.33 for push-pull systems other than ball and roller bearing systems.
( 2 ) 2.0 for cable systems.
( f ) For control system joints, the manufacturer's static, non-Brinell rating of ball and roller bearings may not be exceeded.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55471, Dec. 20, 1976]
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 18, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00742-CR

DAVANTE CONWAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1518250

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Davante Conway appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery 

with a deadly weapon. Tex. Penal Code § 29.03(a)(2). Appellant’s appointed 

counsel filed a brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief 

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting 

a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant accompanied by a copy 

of the appellate record. Appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se response 

to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As 

of this date, more than sixty days have passed, and no pro se response has been 

filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the 

record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41159

GREGORY HILL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4

- 13

- CV

- 74

Before STEWART, Chief Judge , and JOLLY and GRAVES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Gregory Hill, a retired football player, sought bene fits from the Bert
Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (“the Plan”), which is an ERISA plan that provides disability benefits to former NFL players. The Plan administrator granted Hill’s claim for benefits but found that he was entitled

to a lower monthly benefit than Hill requeste d

. Hill sought review of the Plan administrator’s decision in federal court , arguing that he is entitled to a

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015No. 14

- 41159

2 greater monthly benefit

. Reviewing under the deferential abuse

- of

- discretion framework, t he district court ruled in favor of the Plan. Hill appealed. Having studied the record and briefs, and having heard the oral argument of the parties, we agree with the district court’s conclusions
that the Plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the
P lan or in deciding the ben efit to which Hill is entitled under the Plan. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 AFFIRMED.

1 “[I]f the language of the plan . . . grant[s] the plan administrator discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan or determine eligibilit y for benefits, a plan’s eligibility determination must be upheld by a court unless it is found to be an abuse of discretion.” Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan , 694 F.3d 557, 566 (5th Cir. 2012). “[F]actual determinations made by the plan administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id

. Case: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
§ 450.215 Post-flight reporting. ( a ) A licensee must submit to the FAA the information in paragraph (b) of this section no later than 90 days after a launch or reentry, unless the Administrator agrees to a different time frame in accordance with § 404.15 of this chapter.
( b ) A licensee must send the following information as an email attachment to *ASTOperations@faa.gov ,* or other method as agreed to by the Administrator in the license: ( 1 ) Any anomaly that occurred during countdown or flight that is material to public health and safety and the safety of property;
( 2 ) Any corrective action implemented or to be implemented after the flight due to an anomaly or mishap;
( 3 ) The number of humans on board the vehicle;
( 4 ) The actual trajectory flown by the vehicle, if requested by the FAA; and
( 5 ) For an unguided suborbital launch vehicle, the actual impact location of all impacting stages and impacting components, if requested by the FAA.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4670 

To amend the CARES Act to permit the Secretary of the Treasury to 

purchase, or to enable the purchase of, preferred equity positions in 

commercial real estate entities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. 

TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to permit the Secretary of the 

Treasury to purchase, or to enable the purchase of, preferred equity positions in commercial real estate entities, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Equity on 

5 Main Street Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4670 IS

1 SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE PREFERRED EQUITY 

2 INVESTMENTS. 

3 Section 4003(b)(4) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 

4 9042(b)(4)) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

6 and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(4)’’; 

8 (3) in subparagraph (A), as so redesignated— 

9 (A) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by 

10 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

11 (B) in clause (iii), as so redesignated, by 

12 striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

13 or’’; and 

14 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(iv) purchasing preferred equity positions 

16 in commercial real estate companies that re17 quire capital to satisfy outstanding debt obliga18 tions, which the Secretary, acting alone or in 

19 concert with the Board of Governors of the 

20 Federal Reserve System, may achieve by— 

21 ‘‘(I) directly purchasing those posi22 tions; or 

23 ‘‘(II) providing full or partial guaran24 tees of those positions to financial institu25 tions to enable the financial institutions to 

26 purchase those positions.’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4670 IS

1 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(B) If the appropriate Federal banking agency 

3 (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal 

4 Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) or the Na5 tional Credit Union Administration Board applies a 

6 risk-based capital requirement of the applicable 

7 agency to a preferred equity position for which there 

8 is a full or partial guarantee provided under sub9 paragraph (A)(iv)(II), that position shall receive a 

10 risk weight of zero percent for the purposes of the 

11 application of that requirement.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS