alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HEFFERNAN v MILWAUKEE MECHANICS INS CO

Ohio Appeals 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9917.

Decided April 29, 1929

VICKERY, PJ.

As a proposition of criminal law, we would at once concede that this is true.

But now does it follow that, because the husband could not be convicted in a criminal court of stealing his wife’s automobile, that an insurance company would not be liable upon a theft policy?

If the Insurance Company who made this policy wanted to guard against the taking of an automobile by a man who in the eyes of the law is the husband, but as a matter fact is not a resident or an inmate of the family, either by service or living in the family, it might do so by putting such a provision in the policy. Not having done so, it resolves itself down to this; that this car was stolen from the possession of the insured, the plaintiff in error, and the mere fact that the thief was the husband and, because of the relation existing between them, he cannot be prosecuted successfully *315in a criminal prosecution, does not release the insurance company from liability upon its policy where, as a matter of fact, the thief, although the husband, was not a member of the household.

We do not think that it is necessary to construe the word theft in this policy as an act so in violation of the law that the one who commits the act must necessarily be convicted of the crime of larceny. In other words, there may be a theft without necessarily subjecting the person who steals the article to the punishment for larceny.

Now there is nothing in this record to show that there was any collusion between the husband and wife, on the contrary, it is definitely stated that there was no collusion.

In our judgment, this theft was complete and it was not taken by one who comes within the exception, and it makes no difference whether the person who stole this car could be successfully prosecuted or not. It was a theft within the meaning of this policy and the Insurance Company having paid the money, we think there was error in the court’s permitting it to maintain a suit to recover.

We think the verdict and the judgment based thereon is contrary to the weight of the evidence and is contrary to the law; that the court should have granted a new trial or entered up a judgment for the defendant below upon this record. That having been the judgment which the court ought to have rendered, we will reverse this case and enter up final judgment for the plaintiff in error.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Editorial Note on Part 183
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 183.25 Technical personnel examiners. ( a ) A designated mechanic examiner (DME) (airframe and power plant) may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, mechanic, oral and practical tests necessary for issuing mechanic certificates under part 65 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary mechanic certificates to qualified applicants.
( b ) A designated parachute rigger examiner (DPRE) may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, oral and practical tests necessary for issuing parachute rigger certificates under part 65 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary parachute rigger certificates to qualified applicants.
( c ) A designated air traffic control tower operator examiner may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, written and practical tests necessary for issuing control tower operator certificates under part 65 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety issue temporary control tower operator certificates to qualified applicants.
( d ) A designated flight engineer examiner (DFEE) may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, oral and practical tests necessary for issuing flight engineer certificates under part 63 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary flight engineer certificates to qualified applicants.
( e ) A designated flight navigator examiner (DFNE) may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, oral and practical tests necessary for issuing flight navigator certificates under part 63 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary flight navigator certificates to qualified applicants.
( f ) A designated aircraft dispatcher examiner (DADE) may— ( 1 ) Accept applications for, and conduct, written and practical tests necessary for issuing aircraft dispatcher certificates under part 65 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary aircraft dispatcher certificates to qualified applicants.
[Doc. No. 1151, 27 FR 4951, May 26, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 183-9, 54 FR 39296, Sept. 25, 1989; Doc. No. FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. No. 183-18; 87 FR 75849, Dec. 9, 2022]
§ 100.610 Written demand for payment. ( a ) The NLRB will promptly make written demand upon the debtor for payment of money or the return of specific property. The written demand for payment will be consistent with the requirements of 31 CFR chapter IX § 901.2. The date by which payment is due to avoid any late charges will be 60 days from the date that the demand letter is mailed or hand-delivered.
( b ) The failure to state in a letter of demand a matter described in 31 CFR chapter IX § 901.2 is not a defense for a debtor and does not prevent the NLRB from proceeding with respect to that matter.
( c ) When necessary, to protect the Government's interest, written demand may be preceded by other appropriate action, including immediate referral for litigation. It may be appropriate to contact a debtor or his representative or guarantor by other means (telephone, in person, etc.) to discuss prompt payment, the debtor's ability to repay the debt, and to inform the debtor of his rights and the affect of nonpayment or delayed payment.
( d ) When the NLRB learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, the NLRB will cease collection action immediately unless it has been determined that the automatic stay imposed at the time of filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362 has been lifted or is no longer in effect.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE - CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE : : : : : No. 743 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

**ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 18 th d ay of July , 2017, John P. Krill, Jr., Esquire , is hereby designated as Chair , and th e Honorable Bradford H. Charles is designated as Vice Chair, of the Committee on Rules of Evidence, com mencing October 1, 2017

.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John S. Wilks, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by
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.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
         results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
         by the report.





Date:  November 5, 2002             By:   /s/ John S. Wilks
      ------------------                 ----------------------------------
                                         John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnP. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ John P. Crowley                |     |
|------------------------------------|----------|
| John P. Crowley                    | * * |
| *Chief*  *Financial  Officer* | * * |

 

March 13, 2006

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
NO. 03-15-00290-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-PRADO,

Appellant

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court

Cause No. 9767A

Burnet County, Texas

The Honorable J. Allan Garrett, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Gary E. Prust

State Bar No. 24056166

1607 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 469-0092

Fax: (512) 469-9102

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

03-15-00290-CR

6414289

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/7/2015 6:11:13 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/7/2015 6:11:13 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE BRIEF

Appellant, Rafael Harnandez-Prado, files this, his “First Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief,” and in support thereof shows as follows.

I.

1. Appellant's Motion is brought pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P 10.5(b).

2. Appellant has not requested previously an extension of time within which to 

file his brief.

3. Appellant's brief was due on July 30, 2015. 

4. Appellant's attorney had a very busy trial schedule in July and August 2015. 

Counsel has maintained a busy appellate schedule including authoring three 

appellate briefs in unrelated appeals during this same time period. Additionally, 

Appellant’s attorney had an unexpected death in his immediate family in June 

2015 and took time off to manage those affairs.

5. In order to address the issues raised in the present appeal thoroughly, 

Appellant's attorney will require more time to complete his brief. Appellant’s 

attorney will require until September 30, 2015 to complete his brief.

6. Accordingly, Appellants request that this Court allow him until September 

30, 2015 to file his brief.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust

SBN 24056166

1607 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 469-0092

Fax: (512) 469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 9.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

the undersigned attorney certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Motion was served Mr. Gary Bunyard of the 33rd and 424th District Attorney’s 

Office via electronic service through efile.txcourts.gov on this 7th day of August

2015.

 /s/ Gary E Prust 

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

In compliance with Rule 10.1(a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, the undersigned attorney certifies he conferred with the 33rd and 424th 

District Attorney’s Office via email communication concerning this motion on the 

5th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Gary Prust 

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify this brief contains 

165 words. This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft word, 

using 14-point typeface. In making this this certificate, I rely on the word county 

provided by the software use to prepare the document.

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11910]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Parts 563, 563c, and 563g

[No. 2000-43]
RIN 1550-AB38


Transfer and Repurchase of Government Securities

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury.

ACTION: Direct Final Rule: confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule removing the Office of Thrift Supervision's regulation on the 
transfer and repurchase of government securities. We did not receive 
any written adverse comments in response to the direct final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule, published on March 28, 2000 (65 
FR 16302-305), is effective May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed O'Connell, (202) 906-5694, Project 
Manager, Supervision Policy: or Teresa Scott (202) 906-6478, Counsel 
(Banking and Finance), Regulations and Legislation Division, Chief 
Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., 
Washington DC 20552.

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 375b, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1468, 
1817, 1820, 1828, 1831i, 3806; 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78p, 
78w; 42 U.S.C. 4106.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Ellen Seidman,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-11910 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
STEVEN R. MATZKIN, D.D.S. OPTION AMENDMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the "Amendment Agreement") is made as of      , 2001 by and between INTERDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation
("InterDent"), and Steven R. Matzkin ("Holder") to (i) April 20, 1999 Stock Option Award Agreement ("Option Agreement No. 1") under the InterDent 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"1999 Plan"), (ii) May 23, 2000 Stock Option Award Agreement ("Option Agreement No. 2") under the 1999 Plan and (iii) May 23, 2000 Stock Option Award Agreement
("Option Agreement No. 3" and, collectively with Option Agreements No. 1 and 2, the "Option Agreements") under the InterDent 2000 Key Executive Stock Incentive Plan (the "2000 Plan").

WHEREAS,
Holder is the holder of (i) an option to acquire 75,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $6.06 per share of Common Stock issued pursuant to Option
Agreement No. 1, of which 39,062 are vested as of the date hereof, (ii) an option to acquire 175,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $4.00 per share of Common Stock issued
pursuant to Option Agreement No. 2, of which 43,750 are vested as of the date hereof, and (iii) an option to acquire 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $4.00 per
share of Common Stock issued pursuant to Option Agreement No. 3, none of which are vested as of the date hereof;

WHEREAS,
InterDent and Holder wish to reduce the number of shares subject to Option Agreements;

WHEREAS,
for good and adequate consideration Holder agrees to the amendment and modification of the Option Agreements as provided herein on the terms and conditions contained herein;

NOW,
THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:



---



[Signature
Pages Follow]

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date set forth beside such party's signature.

| |  | INTERDENT, INC.
By: /s/ NORMAN R. HUFFAKERName: NORMAN R. HUFFAKERTitle: CEO
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ STEVEN R. MATZKIN                                                       
| |  | STEVEN R. MATZKIN, D.D.S.                                                   

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 12


                  BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION
                       (In thousands except ratio amounts)

<TABLE>

                                                 Year ended        For the Three Months
                                                December 31,             Ended
                                              1998        1997      December 31, 1996
                                           ----------------------  --------------------
<S>                                        <C>         <C>               <C>
EARNINGS:
   Pretax income (loss)                    $      584  $  (5,341)        $ 1,190
   Fixed charges                               23,008     20,038           5,500
                                           ----------  ---------         -------
           Earnings                            23,592     14,697           6,690
                                           ----------  ---------         -------
FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense                            17,728     15,422           4,504
   Interest portion of rental expense             513        444              90
   Accretion of preferred stock dividends       4,767      4,172             906
                                           ----------  ---------         -------
           Total fixed charges             $   23,008  $  20,038         $ 5,500
                                           ==========  =========         =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
     and preferred stock dividends                1.0         .7             1.2

</TABLE>
#### § 101.14 Judicial review of Board decision and order.

If the respondent does not comply with the Board's order, or the Board deems it desirable to implement the order with a court judgment, the Board may petition the appropriate Federal court for enforcement. Or, the respondent or any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board may petition the circuit court of appeals to review and set aside the Board's order. If a petition for review is filed, the respondent or aggrieved person must ensure that the Board receives, by service upon its Deputy Associate General Counsel of the Appellate Court Branch, a court-stamped copy of the petition with the date of filing. Upon such review or enforcement proceedings, the court reviews the record and the Board's findings and order and sustains them if they are in accordance with the requirements of law. The court may enforce, modify, or set aside in whole or in part the Board's findings and order, or it may remand the case to the Board for further proceedings as directed by the court. Following the court's judgment, either the Government or the private party may petition the Supreme Court for review upon writ of certiorari. Such applications for review to the Supreme Court are handled by the Board through the Solicitor General of the United States.

[53 FR 24440, June 29, 1988]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21943]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-48-Region 5]

Operating Permit Program: Notice of Reporting Requirements for 
Compliance Certifications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; reporting requirements for compliance certifications.

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

SUMMARY: Under the state operating permit programs compliance 
certification requirements, facilities subject to the Title V operating 
permit program are required to submit compliance certifications to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the permitting authority. EPA 
is providing notice that submittal of Title V compliance certifications 
to the Region 5 authorized State permitting authorities, except 
Michigan, fulfills the reporting requirements. This allows for EPA and 
the delegated State agencies to meet air quality goals while 
streamlining reporting requirements and eliminating the duplication of 
paperwork by regulated facilities.

DATES: This action is effective on September 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the following 
addresses:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Air, 1021 North 
Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276.
    Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air 
Quality, Indiana Government Center North, 100 Senate Avenue, 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Industrial Division, Land and 
Air Compliance Section, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 
55155-4194.
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution 
Control, P.O. Box 109, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049.
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air 
Management, 101 S. Webster Street, P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 
53707-7921.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rochelle Marceillars, Air Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reporting provisions in 40 CFR 
70.6(c)(5)(iv) requiring all compliance certifications be submitted to 
EPA and the permitting authority will be met by sending such 
submissions only to the authorized State Region 5 agency provided that: 
(1) Submissions do not contain or rely upon confidential information; 
(2) the State agency maintains authority to implement the 40 CFR part 
70 Operating Permit Program; and (3) EPA will have access to these 
reports and related documents via hard or electronic copy, as needed. 
This notice does not apply to Michigan.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-21943 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Exhibit 24.8


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint RONALD S. JENDRAS,  GERALD LUTERMAN,  JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J.
TAUNTON,  and each of them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with  power to
execute  in my name and  place,  and in my  capacity  as a  director  of KeySpan
Corporation,  said Report,  any amendment to said Report and any other documents
required in connection  therewith,  and to file the same with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  I have executed this power of attorney this 6th day of
March, 2003.




                                                    /s/Stephen W. McKessy
                                                    ---------------------
                                                    Stephen W. McKessy