alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v RHOADES STATE v HISE STATE v KROHMER

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Crawford Co

No 1207.

Decided May 9, 1929

Louis H. Kreiter, Galion and J. D. Sears, Bucyrus, for State.

• Edward J. Myers, W. J. Schwenck and Arden W. Wisman, all of Bucyrus, for Rhoades, et.

HUGHES, J.

It is claimed by the defendants, that their constitutional rights and privileges have been denied them, while it is answered by the state that there is no constitutional ri°ht tak<=>n fro^i them because the constitution guarantees- a jury only in felony cases.

It is not a constitutional right involved, but (if there be a right at all) it is a statutory right.

Section 13424 GC provides that the probate court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas in all misdemeanors.

*512It will be observed that there is no jurisdiction given the probate court in felonies.

Section 13451 GC, does not, in specific terms, give the right to the defendant to a jury trial, but implies that the probate court shall proceed and hear the case only in the event the defendant does not demand a jury. But 13452 GC, provides specifically that before any testimony is taken, the defendant may demand a jury and if such demand is made, a jury shall be impaneled.

There can be little doubt but that the statute gives to the defendant being being tried before a probate court, a right to demand a jury trial in misdemeanor cases, because such cases are the only ones the probate court is given jurisdiction over. The law is uniform in that it applies to all probate courts of the state, and we hold that the defendants in these cases were deprived of a right to a jury trial given them by statute upon demand therefor.

The argument of the state that 13452 GC must have been passed to insure aj'ury trial in felonies only, overlooks the ’ fact that the legislatura has given to the probate court no jurisdiction in felonies, and that if .effect is to be given the statute at all, it must be held to apply to misdemeanor cases.

The sentences, failing, to add “stand committed until paid or otherwise discharged by law”, are erroneous, but do not call for reversals of the convictions. This error would be corrected by re-sentence were the convictions not reversed for other reasons.

We hold that, the affidavits upon which the informations are founded, are good in law. The addition that affiiant believes the defendant guilty of the facts charged, may be treated as surplusage. Nor were the affidavits bad for duplicity.

Triplett v. State, 22 C. C. (N. S.) 172.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.
Searched for **http://www.flra.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.flra.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# REGISTRATION

69361-27

Vol.2______________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 167 through 180 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

I dentity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ _ _ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ _ _ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__ __ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _

____ .

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Attorney

- c lient pr ivileged communication

.

__ X __ Claimed c onfidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

The information not included is gene rally considered confidential

by product registrants. If you have any questions, please

contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 186 through 187 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

I dentity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ _ _ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ _ _ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__ __ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _

____ .

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Attorney

- c lient pr ivileged communication

.

__ X __ Claimed c onfidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

The information not included is gene rally considered confidential

by product registrants. If you have any questions, please

contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
#### § 297.1 Purpose.

This part establishes registration procedures and operating rules for foreign air carriers that engage indirectly in interstate or foreign air transportation of property. It relieves these carriers from certain provisions of Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation), and establishes simplified reports for them.

[ER-1294, 47 FR 19684, May 7, 1982, as amended at 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995]
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 Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Alan D. Gordon and Shelley Goff, certify, pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date:April 15, 2008By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:April 15, 2008By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 65.89 Display of certificate.

Each person who holds a mechanic certificate shall keep it within the immediate area where he normally exercises the privileges of the certificate and shall present it for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.

[Doc. No. 7258, 31 FR 13524, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended by Doc. No. 8084, 32 FR 5769, Apr. 11, 1967]
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Centracan Incorporated, a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Ken Roberts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original 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.











/s/ Ken RobertsKen
      RobertsChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      13, 2009
AMENDMENT TO MICROSOFT OPERATIONS DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
 
 AMENDMENT SUMMARY AND SIGNATURE PAGES
 This Amendment (Amendment) to the Microsoft Operations Digital Distribution Agreement is entered into between:
 Microsoft Corporation
 Microsoft
 AND
 Digital River, Inc.
 Company
 Amendment Effective Date and
Expiration Date:
    
    This Amendment shall become effective on the latter of the two signature dates
set forth below. Unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement, this Amendment shall expire on September 1, 2011 (the Amendment
Expiration Date).Purpose and Scope:
    
    Company and Microsoft are parties to a Microsoft Operations Digital Distribution
Agreementdated September 1, 2006 (as the same may have been amended,
supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the Agreement), pursuant
to which Company has provided E-Commerce Activities to Microsoft in accordance
with the terms of the applicable SOWs.In addition to the E-Commerce Activities originally contemplated in the
Agreement, Company resells and distributes, as a seller of record, certain
Microsoft Products to End-Users under the terms of a Direct Reseller Addendum to
the Agreement dated September 1, 2006 (as the same may have been amended,
supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the Direct Reseller
Addendum).[*] This Amendment may be referred to by the Parties in other agreements between
the Parties as the 2009 Pricing Amendment (NA/LATAM).
 This Amendment consists of the following:
 
    
    This Amendment Summary and Signature Page
    
    The Amendment Terms and Conditions
    
    Attachment 1: [*]
 Microsoft and Company enter into this Amendment by signing below.
 MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    
    
    
    DIGITAL RIVER, INC.Signature:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Signature:Print Name:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Print Name:Title:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:Date:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Date:
 
 *
    
    Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this agreement. The copy
filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are
designated as *. A complete version of this agreement has been filed separately with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.




---



##### 



AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 1. [*]
 2. Definitions
 3. No Further Amendment.
 4. Counterparts .
 END OF AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 
 *
    
    Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this agreement. The
copy filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are
designated as *. A complete version of this agreement has been filed separately with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.




---



##### 



ATTACHMENT 1
 
 *
    
    Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this agreement. The
copy filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are
designated as *. A complete version of this agreement has been filed separately with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
128 STAT. 1172 PUBLIC LAW 113–111—JUNE 9, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1228 (S. 2185): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 24, 26, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–111 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 South 

9th Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JUSTIN D. ROSS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 123 South 9th Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Justin D. Ross 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office Building’’. 

Approved June 9, 2014. 

June 9, 2014 

[H.R. 1228] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00152 - CV JICELA S. GONZALEZ AND LUIS F. GONZALEZ , A PPELLANT S V. ZENON SOTELO, PATRICIA AGUILAR, AND RAY GONZALEZ , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 425th Judicial District Court

Williamson County, Texas 1 Trial Court No . 18 - 0679 - C425 , Honorable Betsy F. Lambeth , Presiding



### August 1 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant s , Jicela S. and Luis F. Gonzalez , appeal from the trial court ’ s judgment. Now pending before this Court is the parties ’ “Agreed Motion of Voluntary Dismiss ial (sic) and Settlement. ” The Court finds that the motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) & (2) and that granting the motion will not prevent any

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Cour t has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. T he motion reflect s that the parties have agreed to have all c osts be assessed against the party incurring them . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be en tertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Per Curiam
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Herbert Lindo,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Kenilworth SystemsCorporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Kenilworth Systems Corporation.

 
| By:    | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Herbert Lindo           |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:  | March 12, 2010     |   |

 

***Remainder of page intentionally left blank***

 

1

----
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|---------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of ETI Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Lanham, President and Principal Accounting 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:



(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.





|\s\               Paul Lanham
|-----------------------------
|Paul Lanham                  
|President                    



August 14, 2002

---
§ 1601.11 Charges by members of the Commission. ( a ) Any member of the Commission may file a charge with the Commission. Such charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.
( b ) A Commissioner who files a charge under paragraph (a) of this section may withdraw the charge with the consent of the Commission. The Commission may withdraw any charge filed under paragraph (a) of this section by a Commissioner who is no longer holding office when it determines that the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA are no longer served by processing the charge. Commissioner charges may not be withdrawn pursuant to this section after a determination as to reasonable cause has been made. This paragraph does not apply to a charge filed by a Commissioner which is on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved within the meaning of § 1601.7 unless such person submits a written request for withdrawal to the Commission.
[43 FR 30798, July 18, 1978, as amended at 56 FR 9624, Mar. 7, 1991; 74 FR 63982, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024]
#### KECHELEY v KECHELEY et.

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Wood Co

No. 451.

Decided May 6, 1929

William Dunipace, Bowling Green and Leían S. Middleton, for plaintiff.

Earl D. Bloom, Bowling Green, for defendant.

WILLIAMS, J.

Henry T. Kecheley and his wife, Catherine E. Kecheley, have three children, Harold M. Kecheley, 23 years of age, Mable Kecheley who will be 21 years of age May, 1929, and Helen E. Kecheley, 19 years of age. Plaintiff’s son, Harold M. Kecheley and his wife Carrie E. Kecheley, have executed and delivered deeds of conveyance of their interest to the plaintiff. By reason thereof plaintiff claims to own an estate in fee simple in an undivided one-third of the premises. If plaintiff’s claim is well founded he would be entitled to partition. Tabler vs. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St., 201.

Did the estate vest in the children of Henry Kecheley at the death of the testator?

The remainder after the termination of the life estates goes to the children of Henry Kecheley share and share alike subject to the contingency that “if such issue fail” the remainder shall go to the surviving grandchildren, share and share alike. Under the terms of this will if, at the time of the termination of the prior life estates, the children of Henry Kecheley were all dead, such “issue” would fail within the meaning of the language of the will and the grandchildren of Henry Kecheley living at the time of the termination of the life estates would take the property. If is true thát the law favors the vesting of estates, and unless it is apparent from the four corners of the will that the intention of the testator is otherwise, the estate ■ devised will vest at the time of the testator’s -death. But where the intention of the testator, as shown by the will, is that the vesting of the estate shall be postponed, such intention will control.

> Tax Commission vs. Trust & Savings Bank, 24 Ohio App., 231;

> Bolton vs. Bank, 50 Ohio St., 290, 293.

The will in question provides for the gift of the remainder to a class, namely: plaintiff’s children in the first instance, but upon the happening of a certain contingency it shall pass to another class, namely the surviving grandchildren. If all of the children of the plaintiff should be dead at the termination of the fife estates, the remainder would go to the grandchildren then surviving. Those who constitute the class that will take the remainder can not be determined until the termination of both of said life estates.

As the remainder did not vest in the children of plaintiff, his son had no estate to convey to him and the plaintiff is only owner of his life estate and life interest of his wife, which was transferred by her to him..

The remainder therefore did not vest and the plaintiff is not entitled to partition.

Richards and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 24

                          DIRECTORS AND/OR OFFICERS OF
                               PENTON MEDIA, INC.

                           ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THERE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of Penton Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby constitutes and
appoints David B. Nussbaum and Preston L. Vice, and each of them, as the true
and lawful attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact, with full power of
substitution and revocation, for each of the undersigned and in the name, place
and stead of each of the undersigned, to sign on behalf of each of the
undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and to
sign any and all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including,
without limitation, a Form 12b-25, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to said attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact, and each of them, full
power and authority to do so and perform each and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or
their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

Executed as of this 15th day of April 2005.

   /s/ DAVID B. NUSSBAUM                                  /s/ HANNAH C. CRAVEN
   ---------------------                                  ---------------------
   David B. Nussbaum                                      Hannah C. Craven
   Chief Executive Officer and Director                   Director
   (Principal Executive Officer)

   /s/ PRESTON L. VICE                                    /s/ PERRY A. SOOK
   -------------------                                    -----------------
   Preston L. Vice                                        Perry A. Sook
   Chief Financial Officer, Secretary                     Director
   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

   /s/ ROYCE YUDKOFF
   -----------------
   Royce Yudkoff
   Chairman

   /s/ VINCENT D. KELLY
   --------------------
   Vincent D. Kelly
   Director

   /s/ PENI A. GARBER
   ------------------                                                  -
   Peni A. Garber
   Director

   /s/ R. DOUGLAS GREENE
   ---------------------
   R. Douglas Greene
   Director
#### § 1602.12 Records to be made or kept.

The Commission has not adopted any requirement, generally applicable to employers, that records be made or kept. It reserves the right to impose recordkeeping requirements upon individual employers or groups of employers subject to its jurisdiction whenever, in its judgment, such records (a) are necessary for the effective operation of the EEO-1 reporting system or of any special or supplemental reporting system as described above; or (b) are further required to accomplish the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA. Such record-keeping requirements will be adopted in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c) of title VII, section 107 of the ADA, section 207(a) of GINA, or section 104 of the PWFA, and otherwise prescribed by law.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0040)

[31 FR 2833, Feb. 17, 1966, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35755, July 26, 1991; 74 FR 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024]