alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40731

CITY OF LONGVIEW, I. J. PATTERSON,

DAVID McWHORTER, LARRY RISINGER, GAYLON BUTLER,

MALCOLM PHILLIPS, and DAVID BRABHAM,

Defendants-Appellants,

VERSUS

JAMES W. HUNT and TONY POWELL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-555)

July 10, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Hunt (“Hunt”) and Tony Powell (“Powell”), members of the
2

Longview, Texas City Council, brought suit against the City of

Longview and various individuals (referred to collectively in this

opinion as “the City”) seeking a declaratory judgment that section

2.03(e) of the Longview City Charter is unconstitutional, as well

as temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring quo warranto

proceedings arising out of their alleged violation of § 2.03(e).

The district court, after hearing, denied the City’s motion to

dismiss and granted Hunt’s and Powell’s request for a temporary

injunction.

On appeal, the City challenges both rulings, contending that

the district court should have abstained and dismissed the action

and that Hunt and Powell were not entitled to an injunction.

Having considered the briefs and arguments of counsel, we

conclude that the challenged rulings should be affirmed for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Hunt v.

City of Longview, 6:95cv555 (E.D.Tx., August 18, 1995).
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

----

 

Exhibit 21

 

Subsidiaries of Cobalt

 

Blue Cross & Blue ShieldUnited of Wisconsin — a Wisconsin stock insurance corporation

UnitedGovernment Services, LLC — a Wisconsin limited liability company

AmericanMedical Security Group, Inc. — a Wisconsin insurance holding company

 

Compcare Health ServicesInsurance Corporation — a Wisconsin stock insurance corporation

CC Holdings,LLC — a Wisconsin limited liability company

MeridianResource Company, LLC — a Wisconsin limited liability company

UnitedWisconsin Proservices, Inc. — a Wisconsin corporation

InnovativeResource Group, LLC — a Wisconsin limited liability company

CNR Partners,Inc. — a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of IRG

ComprehensiveReceivables Group, Inc. — a Michigan corporation

MichiganHealthcare Collections, Inc. — a Michigan corporation, a subsidiary of CRG

Family HealthSystems, Inc. — a Wisconsin for-profit stock corporation

HeartlandDental Plan, Inc. — a Wisconsin stock insurance corporation, a subsidiary ofCompcare

HeartlandDental Plan of Michigan, Inc. — a Michigan corporation, a subsidiary ofHeartland Dental

UnitedWisconsin Insurance Company — a Wisconsin stock insurance corporation

UnitedHeartland Illinois, Inc. — an Illinois corporation, a subsidiary of UWIC

UnitedHeartland Life Insurance Company — a Wisconsin stock life insurance company

 

Meridian Marketing Services,Inc. — a Wisconsin corporation

 

Valley Health Plan, Inc. — aWisconsin stock insurance corporation

 

United Heartland, Inc. — aWisconsin corporation

 

HMO-W, Incorporated — aWisconsin corporation

Unity HealthPlans Insurance Corporation — a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of HMO-W

HometownInsurance Services, Inc. — a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of HMO-W

 

----
§ 93.215 Initial allocation of slots. ( a ) Each air carrier and commuter operator holding a permanent slot on December 16, 1985, as evidenced by the records of the air carrier and commuter operator scheduling committees, shall be allocated those slots subject to withdrawal under the provisions of this subpart. The Chief Counsel of the FAA shall be the final decisionmaker for initial allocation determinations.
( b ) Any permanent slot whose use on December 16, 1985 is divided among different operators, by day of the week, or otherwise, as evidenced by records of the scheduling committees, shall be allocated in conformity with those records. The Chief Counsel of the FAA shall be the final decisionmaker for these determinations.
( c ) A carrier may permanently designate a slot it holds at Kennedy International Airport as a seasonal slot, to be held by the carrier only during the corresponding season in future years, if it notifies the FAA (at the address specified in § 93.225(e)), in writing, the preceding winter seasons or by October 15 of the preceding year for summer seasons.
( d ) Within 30 days after December 16, 1985, each U.S. air carrier and commuter operator must notify the office specified in § 93.221(a)(1), in writing, of those slots used for operations described in § 93.217(a)(1) on December 16, 1985.
( e ) Any slot not held by an operator on December 16, 1985 shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of §§ 93.217, 93.219 or 93.225 of this subpart.
[Doc. No. 24105, 50 FR 52195, Dec. 20, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 93-52, 51 FR 21717, June 13, 1986]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

         KMART CORPORATION
         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Kmart
Corporation for the period ended January 30, 2002, I, James B. Adamson, Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Kmart Corporation, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         1. this Form 10-K/A for the period ended January 30, 2002 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 this Form 10-K/A for the period ended
January 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Kmart Corporation.


         Date: January 14, 2003

     /s/ James B. Adamson
     -------------------------
     James B. Adamson
     Chairman of the Board and
     Chief Executive Officer
§ 91.1417 CAMP: Mechanical interruption summary report. Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP must mail or deliver, before the end of the 10th day of the following month, a summary report of the following occurrences in multiengine aircraft for the preceding month to the Flight Standards office that issued the management specifications: ( a ) Each interruption to a flight, unscheduled change of aircraft en route, or unscheduled stop or diversion from a route, caused by known or suspected mechanical difficulties or malfunctions that are not required to be reported under § 91.1415.
( b ) The number of propeller featherings in flight, listed by type of propeller and engine and aircraft on which it was installed. Propeller featherings for training, demonstration, or flight check purposes need not be reported.
[Docket No. FAA-2001-10047, 68 FR 54561, Sept. 17, 2003, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTREPID CAPITAL CORPORATION AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED.  THIS INFORMATION IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,382,033
<SECURITIES>                                   711,972
<RECEIVABLES>                                  221,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,540,487
<PP&E>                                         200,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                (126,247)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,834,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          637,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,155
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,125,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,834,901
<SALES>                                      1,432,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,387,951
<CGS>                                          708,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,920,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               270,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (532,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   200,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (331,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (331,995)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 854; 295 U. S. 762]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court June 3, 1935.
#### MAY v YUREK

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9377.

Decided March 4, 1929

Joseph L. Stern, Esq., Cleveland, for May.

Messrs- Locher, Green & Woods, Cleveland, for Yurek.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Plaintiff, a girl weighing about 125 pounds, engaged with a doctor, weighing 185, in some gymnastic exercises claimed to be of value in reducing weight. In some manner the doctor threw plaintiff over his head, dislocating plaintiff’s neck. There were two trials, each resulting in verdicts for the plaintiff, the latter being in the sum of $2,000.. It was held that the court properly charged the jury as to the negligence pf the .doctor; that the latter, although he may not have intended to injure the plaintiff, was liable for such injury which was the result of his own act; and the verdict was sustained by the evidence.

Opinion by

VICKERY, PJ.

SULLIVAN, J, concurs.

LEVINE, J, dissents.
§ 1400.735-60 Disciplinary actions. The Service shall take prompt disciplinary action against an employee committing prohibited activity, or whose conduct is prejudicial to the best interests of the Service, or of a nature to bring discredit to it. There are four major types of disciplinary action possible, following the above proceedings. ( a ) *Reprimand.* An official reprimand usually shall be issued to an employee or special Government employee for a first offense which is not serious.
( b ) *Suspension.* Under Civil Service and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service regulations, an employee or special Government employee may be suspended without pay during the course of an investigation of alleged criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct. Also, an employee may be suspended without pay for a definite period of time because of some offense of a less serious nature for which more drastic action is not justified.
( c ) *Demotion.* When such action will “promote the efficiency of the Service,” an employee or special Government employee may be demoted because of some offense for which more drastic action is not justified.
( d ) *Separation.* The Service is responsible for the prompt dismissal of unsatisfactory, incompetent, or unfit employees. Separation (dismissal or removal) can be the penalty for a single breach of conduct that is extremely serious in nature.
#### Thomas S. DONNELLY, Jr., Appellant v. Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.

No. 15457.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 9,1960.

Decided March 24, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied July 8,1960.

Mr. Robert G. Mentag, Detroit, Mich., with whom Mr. Albert W. Rinehart, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant.

Mr. David Kreider, Attorney, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C., Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before Fahy, Washington and Danahek, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from a judgment of the District Court dismissing Donnelly’s complaint filed under 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1958), by which he sought court authorization for the issuance of a patent to him on five claims of his application Serial No. 203,594, describing an electrode holder for use in electric arc welding. The Patent Office had denied the application on the basis of the disclosures of the prior art, namely, the patents of Beauregard, No. 2,455,108, of Niemann, No. 1,860,262, and of Smout, et al., No. 571,035. The District Court also concluded that in light of these disclosures the improvements claimed by Donnelly were not patentably inventive. We find no basis for disturbing the resulting judgment dismissing the complaint.

The principal contention of Donnelly is that he solved the problem of undue heating of that part of the holder where the operator grips it. Donnelly brings the electric cabling or wires through a hollow tubing to the forward part of the lower jaw which clasps the electrode, and attaches the cabling at or near that point. This avoids undue heating which occurs when the electric current from the cable passes a comparatively long distance from the point of connection in the holder to the location of the electrode. Since the holder is constructed of material of low conductivity in comparison with the wire of the cable, heat due to electrical resistance can he decreased by shortening the distance between the point at which the cable is connected and the location of the electrode. But whatever improvements Donnelly brought about in this and in other respects,1 *were changes, as the District Court found, of a mere mechanical nature when compared with the prior art. Donnelly’s electrode holder has too many resemblances to the reference patents, and too few differences therefrom, to entitle him to a ruling that the differences would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.2 For example, in Beauregard the cabling was brought quite far forward before being attached *854to any metal part of the holder; and for Donnelly to provide a somewhat clearer passage for air through the entire length of the lower jaw, than was done by Beauregard, does not amount to patentable invention.

Affirmed.

1

. Donnelly also claims that his holder solves problems of weight, balance and fraying of the cable.

2

. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1958).
#### AMERICAN SHIP BLDG CO v HUDZIECZKO

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No. 499.

Decided October 4, 1929

F. M. Secrest, Cleveland, for Ship Bldg Co.

Cerrezin & Wilson, Cleveland, for Hudzieczko.

WASHBURN, J.

There was no evidence that said records were kept in the usual course of business or as to how said records were kept, or that the witness kept the same and refreshed his recollection therefrom, or that he had any personal knowledge in reference to the matter; and in the absence of some such evidence, said records were clearly mere hearsay and incompetent, regardless of whether or not the “best evidence” rule applied.

We hold that the record does not disclose any error in said ruling of the trial court. If there was error, it clearly appears that it was not prejudicial, because the company, without objection, had the full benefit of the witness’s testimony as to what the records which he had looked up, showed.

Under the rules governing reviewing courts, we find that the verdict is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and is sustained by sufficient evidence.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
dwsxex3202.htm


    EXHIBIT
32.02

    


    


    CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum
Currency L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter
Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     

    
      	
              (1)  

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

            


    

     

    
      	
              (2)  

            	
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.

            


    

     

    


     

    


     

    


     

    


    


    


    
      	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Christian Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Christian
      Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:

            	
              Chief
      Financial Officer of

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              Demeter
      Management LLC,

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              general
      partner of the registrant

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Date:

            	
              November
      13, 2009
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 Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Cahill, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.




/s/ Michael D. CahillMichael D. CahillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerApril 29, 2011
#### State of Florida *ex*rel. Railroad Commissioners, Relators, v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, Respondent—Original Proceeding.

Suit dismissed on praecipe of Counsel for Relators. „

L. C. Massey, for Relators;

Alex St. Clair-Abrams, for Respondents.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### § 1615.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the Commission. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by this Commission in 29 CFR part 1614, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities. As noted in 29 CFR 1614.203(b), the standards used to determine whether section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act has been violated in a complaint alleging non-affirmative action employment discrimination under part 1614 shall be the standards applied under Title I and Title V (sections 501 through 504 and 510) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101, 12111, 12201) as such sections relate to employment. These standards are set forth in the Commission's ADA regulations at 29 CFR part 1630. If a section 501 complaint is filed against the Commission in the part 1614 process and it is found to include a separate section 508 claim, the part 1614 process will be used to process the section 501 claim. The section 508 claim will be processed separately in accordance with the procedures set forth at § 1615.170.

[73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008]
§ 18.34 Format of papers filed. Every paper filed must be printed in black ink on 8.5 × 11-inch opaque white paper and begin with a caption that includes: ( a ) The parties' names,
( b ) A title that describes the paper's purpose, and
( c ) The docket number assigned by the Office of Administrative Law Judges. If the Office has not assigned a docket number, the paper must bear the case number assigned by the Department of Labor agency where the matter originated. If the case number is an individual's Social Security number then only the last four digits may be used. *See* § 18.31(a)(1).
From: Steve Body/R10/USEPA/US 

To: Aaron Worstell/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:17AM 

Subject: TransAlta BART for Washington Regional Haze SIP: Correction 

History: This message has been replied to.

Aaron... This e-mail to to notify you of a typo in Region 10's Federal Register notice proposing 

approval of the NOx BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia power plant. (77 FR 30467, 

May 23, 2012) In that notice we incorrectly stated the ammonia slip would be limited to 0.5 ppm. 

That limit is incorrect. The actual BART order issued to TransAlta by the Washington Department 

of Ecology on December 14, 2011, establishes an ammonia slip limit of 10 ppmdv. 

Page 1 of 1

https://epamailr811.epa.gov/mail/r8/aworstel.nsf/(%24Inbox)/86A9C37DCE8294A888257... 7/27/2012
Retention Incentive Award - Harold Ray



                                                  RETENTION AWARD
                                                   Harold B. Ray

                                                       Terms

Amount
$600,000 present value, equally divided between deferred cash and EIX stock units.

Vesting
The deferred cash and EIX stock units will vest 100% on the first day of the month in which HBR attains age 65
(August 2005).  The award is forfeited if HBR voluntarily terminates his employment earlier.

Deferred Cash
Deferred cash will be credited under the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (EDCP) on January 2, 2003.  This
retention award is not subject to the double death benefit provided in Article 8 of the EDCP.

Stock Units
$300,000 will be converted to EIX stock units based on the average of the closing prices of EIX common stock for
the last 60 days of 2002, and the EIX stock units will be credited to an unfunded bookkeeping account on January
2, 2003.  The EIX stock units will accrue dividend equivalents if dividends are paid on EIX common stock and will
accumulate without interest.  The EIX stock units and dividend equivalents will be paid in cash on the first day
of the month in which HBR attains age 65 at a value equal to the average of the closing prices of EIX common
stock for the 60 days prior to that date.  At least six months prior to the scheduled payment date, HBR may elect
to defer payment under the terms of the DCP.

Involuntary Severance, Death or Disability
In the event HBR's employment is terminated due to involuntary severance, death or disability, a pro rata portion
of the retention award will vest and be paid based on the number of full months worked prior to such termination
divided by the total number of months in the vesting period.  The EIX stock units so vested will be paid at a
value equal to the average of the closing prices of EIX common stock for the 60 days prior to the date employment
ends.