alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EAST OHIO GAS CO v DANIEL

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10272.

Decided November 13, 1929

Messrs. Tolies, Hogsett & Ginn, Cleveland, for Gas Co.

Mr. Irwin Greene, Esq., Cleveland, for Daniel.

(See also East Ohio Gas Co v Daniel, 7 Abs 691.)

VICKERY, PJ.

Since writing the opinion in this case and entering a reversal of the judgment on the ground of contributory negligence upon the part of the defendant in error, it is claimed by counsel for the defendant in error that, inasmuch as but two members of the court concurred in that opinion, it in effect amounted to a reversal on the weight of the evidence. Such a thought had not occurred to any member of the court. We do not intend nor did we think that we were reversing the case on the weight of the evidence, but inasmuch as that is the claim the court has seen fit to vacate the entry of October 21st, 1929 and make an entry as of the date of November 12th, 1929, basing the reversal upon two grounds, both of which existed at the time of the hearing. One is upon the admission of the testimony of the plumber who testified with respect to the control over the pipes after leaving the main into the dwelling house and testified that those pipáb were under the control of the Gas Company. Objection was made to this testimony but the testimony was admitted. It was clearly erroneous for the reason that the plumber was not in the employ of the Gas Company and he knew nothing about the matter and the admission of this testimony would tend to fix liability upon the part of the‘Gas Company by a witness who had no authority to bind it nor was in any way connected with it. and he as a matter of fact knew nothing about it.

This phase of the case was touched upon in the former opinion and so the reversal of the judgment of the Municipal Court is based upon the error of the court in the admission of the testimony of the plumber as Jo the control of the Gas Company over these pipes, and for' the further reason that there was contributory negligence as a matter of law on the part of the defendant in joining with his brother in searching for a gas leak when one of the parties lighted a match which caused the explosion. ,

For these two reasons the judgment of the court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the Municipal Court for further proceedings.

.Sullivan, J.. concurs. Levine, J., dissents.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 395 

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to include 

a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed rule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. RISCH, Mr. PETERS, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, 

to include a link to a 100 word plain language summary 

of the proposed rule. 

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 ‘‘Providing Account5 ability Through Transparency Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO 

7 REGULATIONS.GOV. 

8 Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 395 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) the Internet address of a summary of not 

8 more than 100 words in length of the proposed rule, 

9 in plain language, that shall be posted on the Inter10 net website under section 206(d) of the E-Govern11 ment Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly 

12 known as regulations.gov).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 61.11 Expired pilot certificates and re-issuance. ( a ) No person who holds an expired pilot certificate or rating may act as pilot in command or as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft of the same category or class that is listed on that expired pilot certificate or rating.
( b ) The following pilot certificates and ratings have expired and will not be reissued: ( 1 ) An airline transport pilot certificate issued before May 1, 1949, or an airline transport pilot certificate that contains a horsepower limitation.
( 2 ) A private or commercial pilot certificate issued before July 1, 1945.
( 3 ) A pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air or free-balloon rating issued before July 1, 1945.
( c ) An airline transport pilot certificate that was issued after April 30, 1949, and that bears an expiration date but does not contain a horsepower limitation, may have that airline transport pilot certificate re-issued without an expiration date.
( d ) A private or commercial pilot certificate that was issued after June 30, 1945, and that bears an expiration date, may have that pilot certificate reissued without an expiration date.
( e ) A pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air or free-balloon rating that was issued after June 30, 1945, and that bears an expiration date, may have that pilot certificate reissued without an expiration date.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-26661, 74 FR 42547, Aug. 21, 2009]
§ 450.163 Lightning hazard mitigation. ( a ) *Lightning hazard mitigation.* An operator must— ( 1 ) Establish flight commit criteria that mitigate the potential for a launch or reentry vehicle intercepting or initiating a direct lightning strike, or encountering a nearby discharge, using a means of compliance accepted by the Administrator; or
( 2 ) Use a vehicle designed to protect safety-critical systems in the event of a direct lightning strike or nearby discharge.
( b ) *Application requirements.* ( 1 ) An applicant electing to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section must submit flight commit criteria that mitigate the potential for a launch or reentry vehicle intercepting or initiating a direct lightning strike, or encountering a nearby lightning discharge.
( 2 ) An applicant electing to comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this section must submit documentation providing evidence that the vehicle is designed to protect safety-critical systems against the effects of a direct lightning strike or nearby discharge.
# Four th Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 21, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00417

- CV

Rigoberto SANCHEZ , Jr., Appellant

v.

COTT BEVERAGES, INC.

,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02505

Honorable Cathleen M . Stryker , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before December 15, 2022

. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han d and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of October, 2022

.

_________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of Horizon Holding Corporation. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2004, and its
results of operations for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: April 15, 2005



/s/ Allan WoodliefAllan WoodliefPresident and Chief Financial Officer




35
January 21, 2016

Mr. Carl W. Scholl

President Heritage of Eagles Air Museum 7000 Merrill Avenue, Suite 19 Chino, CA 91710

Dear Mr. Scholl:

This is in response to your October 19, 2015, letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2006- 24804) petitioning the Federal Avia tion Administration on behalf of the Heritage of Eagles Air Museum (HEAM) for an exemption fr om §§ 91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow HEAM to operate certain aircraft for the purpose of ca rrying passengers for compensation or hire for living history flight experiences (LHFE). A lthough you requested an extension of Exemption 8744, as amended, that exemption expired on No vember 30, 2015. As a result, the FAA must consider your request as a new request.

On July 21, 2015, the FAA released new polic y (80 FR 43012) changes regarding LHFE operations. This action lifted the 2011 mora torium on new LHFE exemptions, and set in place new parameters in which petitioners need to comply. Because your request does not include certain information required by the ne w policy, we are not able to process this request any further. You may, however, submit a new petition for an LHFE exemption that addresses the new policy requirements at any tim e. The information the FAA requires before considering an LHFE petition for exemp tion includes (but is not limited to):

1. A designated person whom the FAA can cont act for both operations and maintenance

functions.

2. An explanation of all supporting and hist orical safety-relate d data, such as:

a. Maintenance history;

b. Airworthiness status;

c. Conformity to the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS – for limited category airworthiness certificates);

d. Operational failure modes;

e. Aging aircraft factors; and2
f. Civilian and military accident rates.

3. Information supporting the existence of a ma nual system similar in terms of intent and scope of those in 14 CFR part 135.

In consideration of the forgoing, the FAA w ill take no further action on your request for exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21( a), and will close the docket on the petition. If you have any questions, you may call TJ Leahy, at (202) 267-0861, or email thomas.j.leahy@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

//s//

James M. Crotty Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division Office of Rulemaking
#### § 102.27 Review of granting of motion to dismiss entire complaint; reopening of the record.

If any motion in the nature of a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety is granted by the Administrative Law Judge before the filing of the Judge's decision, any party may obtain a review of such action by filing a request with the Board in Washington, DC, stating the grounds for review, and, immediately on such filing must serve a copy on the Regional Director and on the other parties. Unless such request for review is filed within 28 days from the date of the order of dismissal, the case will be closed.
January 21, 2016 

Mr. Carl W. Scholl 

President 

Heritage of Eagles Air Museum 

7000 Merrill Avenue, Suite 19 

Chino, CA 91710 

Dear Mr. Scholl: 

This is in response to your October 19, 2015, letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2006-

24804) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of the Heritage of Eagles 

Air Museum (HEAM) for an exemption from §§ 91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow HEAM to 

operate certain aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire for 

living history flight experiences (LHFE). Although you requested an extension of Exemption 

8744, as amended, that exemption expired on November 30, 2015. As a result, the FAA must 

consider your request as a new request. 

On July 21, 2015, the FAA released new policy (80 FR 43012) changes regarding LHFE 

operations. This action lifted the 2011 moratorium on new LHFE exemptions, and set in 

place new parameters in which petitioners need to comply. Because your request does not 

include certain information required by the new policy, we are not able to process this 

request any further. You may, however, submit a new petition for an LHFE exemption that 

addresses the new policy requirements at any time. The information the FAA requires before 

considering an LHFE petition for exemption includes (but is not limited to): 

1. A designated person whom the FAA can contact for both operations and maintenance 

functions. 

2. An explanation of all supporting and historical safety-related data, such as: 

a. Maintenance history; 

b. Airworthiness status; 

c. Conformity to the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS – for limited category 

airworthiness certificates); 

d. Operational failure modes; 

e. Aging aircraft factors; and 
2

f. Civilian and military accident rates. 

3. Information supporting the existence of a manual system similar in terms of intent 

and scope of those in 14 CFR part 135. 

In consideration of the forgoing, the FAA will take no further action on your request for 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a), and will close the docket on the 

petition. If you have any questions, you may call TJ Leahy, at (202) 267-0861, or email 

thomas.j.leahy@faa.gov.

 

Sincerely, 

//s// 

James M. Crotty 

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division 

Office of Rulemaking
§ 91.401 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating within or outside of the United States.
( b ) Sections 91.405, 91.409, 91.411, 91.417, and 91.419 of this subpart do not apply to an aircraft maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness maintenance program as provided in part 121, 129, or §§ 91.1411 or 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.
( c ) Sections 91.405 and 91.409 of this part do not apply to an airplane inspected in accordance with part 125 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-267, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 91-280, 68 FR 54560, Sept. 17, 2003]
#### JACKSON v. THE STATE.

(Decided February 10, 1916.)

Appeal from Russell Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State.

Brown, J.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
* 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 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40909 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFREDO LARRAGA-PEREZ, also known as Alfredo Lara-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-140-1

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo LarragaPerez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 No. 333-44680 dated August 28, 2000 pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and Form S-8 No. 333-50498 dated November 22, 2000 pertaining to
the Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of
ServiceWare Technologies, Inc., of our report dated January 24, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of ServiceWare Technologies,
Inc., included in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 27, 2001
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraSite, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stephen H. Clark, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to and for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

November 5, 2003

| |  |                                         
| |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  |                                         
| |  | /s/ STEPHEN H. CLARK                    
| |  |                                         
| |  | Stephen H. Clark
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

Securities
and Exchange Commission
50 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur
Andersen LLP has represented to Advanstar Communications Inc. by letter dated March 27, 2002, that its audit of the consolidated financial statements of Advanstar
Communications Inc. as of December 31, 2001 was subject to Andersen's quality control system for its U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability of national office consultation
and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

Very
truly yours,

|/s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERY                                             | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|David W. Montgomery
Vice PresidentFinance
Chief Financial Officer | 

---
#### FELLER et v MANSFIELD etc

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9490.

Decided Jan 14, 1929

Gordon & Gordon, Cleveland, for Feller.

Herman J. Nord, Cleveland, for Mansfield et.

Middleton, PJ and Mauck, J of the 4th Dist and Farr, J of the 7th Dist sitting.

FARR, J

It may be observed in this behalf, that waiving any question of regularity, complainants upon the hearing below, submitted their maters in controversy regardless of any claimed violation of the above rule, and having done so they cannot now be heard to complain, for the reason that they so elected, and it is disclosed that the trial court permitted testimony to be of*93fered by the parties relative to the allowance of such fees. The complainants cannot now, therefore, avail themselves of any benefit of any violation of the rule since they acted regardless of the same, and it should be further noted that the contention with reference to the violation of the rule is purely technical and does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Therefore that assignment of error cannot avail here.

Next and lastly, it is insisted that the fees allowed were expenses incurred by the receiver without the authority or sanction of the court making such appointment.

Plaintiffs in error contend that such allowance being unauthorized or not having been first authorized by. the trial court, that reasonable compensation might not thereafter be allowed.

It is too well settled to require extended discussion that the court appointing a receiver say direct the conduct of such officer, and has control of allowances to be made for such services. However, in the instant case, the trial court, after the allowances were claimed, and upon a hearing with reference thereto, approved and ratified the same and such approval rendered such allowances legal, in view of the principles announced in Clark on the Law of Receivership, at pages 604-605-609, especially 857, directing attention to the cases and authorities there cited -to sustain the text. It should also be noted that the services rendered were evidently beneficial to the estate and the conservation of its interests.

The situation here is analogous to the right of an administrator or executor to employ legal counsel in the administration of an estate which is very seldom, if ever, approved in advance of the services rendered, but if reasonable, are practically always allowed.

No difference is apparent in the rule to be applied in the instant case. True the Receiver took his chance in the course pursued, however these allowances having been approved by the court below, and there being nothing disclosed in the way of an abuse of discretion, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of Horizon Holding Corporation. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2004, and its
results of operations for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2004.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: April 15, 2005



/s/ Dwain BrannonDwain Brannon Chief Executive Officer and Secretary




34