alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARHOLTZ v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9709.

Decided May 13, 1929

J A Klein, Cleveland, for Marholtz.

Ray T Miller and E J Hopple, both of Cleveland, for State.

*341SULLIVAN, J.

It will be observed that such declarations made by the injured person several days after the perpetration of the offense are competent providing an explanation is made as to a cause for delay. In the Dunn case supra, there was no explanation or excuse and that is the reason that the Supreme Court held that it was error to permit such statement to be given in evidence to the jurors. The use and purpose of such declarations are corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix given in open court and such declarations are not admissible as evidence in chief to prove the commission • of the offense. Therefore we examine the record to ascertain whether by inference, circumstance or evidence of any other character there is a reasonable explanation, which taken together with all the other evidence in the case, was sufficient to warrant the verdict.

Now we must remember that this is a criminal case and the rules of evidence in criminal cases apply. That is to say the evidence must be of such a substantive nature that the jury can rely upon it for the abiding conviction of guilt which is necessary' in order to reach a verdict of guilty beyond the existence of a reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the evidence excepting inferences and speculations as to any explanation or justifiable excuse for the delay of five or six days in making the declarations of the accusation by the prosecutrix. It seems to be disclosed from the record that there was no affirmative effort upon the part of the State to conform to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Dunn supra, and the inferences above noted are altogether too insubstantive upon the point under discussion to satisfy the authority in the Dunn case. As we understand that decision the declaration of the prosecutrix in order to be of legal avail as to furnishing a reason for delay, must be connected with a justifiable excuse therefor or else the testimony is incompetent. Whether there was a reason for such failure to excuse the delay or whether it was an oversight on the part of the State we are unable say but it is our unanimous conclusion that the absence of any testimony of a substantive nature showing a justification for the delay or a reasonable explanation thereof, that under the ruling of Dunn supra, plaintiff in error did not have that impartial trial that is guaranteed him by the Constitution.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower court is reversed for the reasons herein given and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
§ 1910.39 Fire prevention plans. ( a ) *Application.* An employer must have a fire prevention plan when an OSHA standard in this part requires one. The requirements in this section apply to each such fire prevention plan.
( b ) *Written and oral fire prevention plans.* A fire prevention plan must be in writing, be kept in the workplace, and be made available to employees for review. However, an employer with 10 or fewer employees may communicate the plan orally to employees.
( c ) *Minimum elements of a fire prevention plan.* A fire prevention plan must include: ( 1 ) A list of all major fire hazards, proper handling and storage procedures for hazardous materials, potential ignition sources and their control, and the type of fire protection equipment necessary to control each major hazard;
( 2 ) Procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials;
( 3 ) Procedures for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heat-producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials;
( 4 ) The name or job title of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires; and
( 5 ) The name or job title of employees responsible for the control of fuel source hazards.
( d ) *Employee information.* An employer must inform employees upon initial assignment to a job of the fire hazards to which they are exposed. An employer must also review with each employee those parts of the fire prevention plan necessary for self-protection.
[67 FR 67961, Nov. 7, 2002]
<PAGE>
                          BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION

               FORM 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended March 30, 2003

                                Exhibit No. 10.2

                        AMENDMENT TO STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

      WHEREAS, the Company executed Stock Option Agreements as of August 5, 1998
(the "1998 Agreements") that grant optionees stock options to purchase from the
Company shares of its common stock at $44.98 per share during the period
commencing on August 5, 2001 and ending on August 5, 2003,

      WHEREAS, the Company intends to publicly release its fiscal 2003 year-end
financial information on or about August 7, 2003, and immediately prior to that
date certain individuals will be prohibited from engaging in cashless exercises
with respect to these options under the Company's policy on insider trading, and

      WHEREAS, the Company desires to provide all optionees the opportunity to
exercise options under the 1998 Agreements for a limited period of time
following the public release of its year-end financial information,

      RESOLVED, the officers of the Company are authorized to amend the 1998
Agreements effective August 5, 2003 so that (a) the unexercised portion of any
incentive stock option granted under the 1998 Agreements shall be converted to a
non-qualified stock option, and (b) such option and any other unexercised option
granted under the 1998 Agreements shall expire on August 29, 2003.
(LOGO)
CENTEX
HOME EQUITY
CORPORATION






Anthony H. Barone
President and Chief Executive Officer



MANAGEMENT ASSERTION

As of and for the year ended  March 31,  2000,  Centex  Credit  Corporation  has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for  Mortgage  Bankers  (except for minimum  servicing  standards  I.4.,
III.3.,  III.4.,  V.3, and V.4., which apply only to those entities with service
contracts  covering  escrow accounts and therefore are  nonapplicable  to Centex
Credit Corporation).  As of and for this same period,  Centex Credit Corporation
had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of
$3,000,000.

Anthony H. Barone
President and Chief Executive Officer
Centex Credit Corporation

May 16,2000
Date
#### ARNSTINE BROS CO v PENN RD CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9163.

Decided Dec 24, 1928

Wells & Marks, Cleveland, for Arnstine.

Squire, Sanders &. Dempsey, Cleveland, for Rd.

VICKERY, J

The record shows that the goods were delivered and received by the consignee and the freight of the Pennsylvania Company had been paid by the consignee, and the only question is whether the railroad company is liable to the consignor for the price of the goods that were sold to the con*95signee. Under the curcumstances of this case we think not, and the judgment of the court below was not erroneous and was warranted by the facts in this case.

Finding no error in the judgment, it will be affirmed.

Sullivan, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
#### § 1425.6 Use of third-party mediation assistance.

If the parties should mutually agree to third-party mediation assistance other than that of the Service, both parties shall immediately inform the Service in writing of this agreement. Such written communication shall be filed with the regional director of the region in which the negotiation is scheduled, and shall state what alternate assistance the parties have agreed to use.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS FIRST QUARTER 1999 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE  MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    100,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,083
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,373,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,137,063)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,956
<SALES>                                        103,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,932
<CGS>                                           65,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
§ 99.17 Deviation from flight plans and ATC clearances and instructions. ( a ) No pilot may deviate from the provisions of an ATC clearance or ATC instruction except in accordance with § 91.123 of this chapter.
( b ) No pilot may deviate from the filed IFR flight plan when operating an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace unless that pilot notifies an appropriate aeronautical facility before deviating.
( c ) No pilot may deviate from the filed DVFR flight plan unless that pilot notifies an appropriate aeronautical facility before deviating.
[69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
#### UNITED STATES v. HENRY STANLEY WOOD

[84 C. Cls. 367; 302 U. S. 719]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 11, 1937.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ron Moskovitz, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited;

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

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

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

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

          (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
     contained in SEC Release 34-47986]

          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
     and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
     the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

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

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

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

Date: September 21, 2004

/S/  RON MOSKOVITZ
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Moskovitz,
Chief Financial Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Sorell, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Seung Nam
Yang, Chief Financial 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:   May 20, 2006        /s/Seung Nam Yang
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Chief Financial Officer
p. 1 

### OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

### 185 ) IV-E-58 Docket Number: 

### A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 185of 242P. 2 1 2 -G-S8 Publi c Worksho p Exces s Evaporative Emission s an

dTes t Procedure s Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y AnnArbor , Michiga n Jun e 30 , 198 8

Temperature s onHighOzon e Day s

Mar kA . Wolcot t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Denni s F . Kahlbaum Compute rScience s Corporatio nP. 3

Analysi s o

fTemperature s o n Hig h Ozon e Days

Data Source s 198 4 Nationa l Weathe rServic e Data 198 4 AIR S Ozon e Data 1985-198 7 Desig n Valu e Monitor sP. 4

198 4 Nationa l Weathe rServic e Dat a Diurna l Temperatur e = Maximu m - Minimu m Dail yTemperatur e

198 4 AIR S Ozon e Data Desig n Valu e Monitor s Fro m 42 Ou t o

f6 8 CMSA s Exceedin g th e Ozon e NAAQ S Durin g 1985-198 7P. 5

Averag e Maximu m Dail yOn e Hou rOzon e 12.0-26. 0 (pphm ) Mea n = 13. 7 (pphm )

Averag e Maximu m Dail yTemperature 45. 0 °F-111. 0 ° F Mea n = 90. 6 ° FP. 6

Averag e Diurna l Temperatur e 7.0°F-41.0° F Mea n = 24. 8 F

Grou p b yAST M Clas s Ran k byMaximu m Dail yTemperatur e Select 90t h Percentil eP. 7

Clas s A Citie s Maximu m Dail yOn e Hou rOzon e To p 1 0 Percen t 14. 2 (pphm )

Clas s A Citie s Maximu m Dail yTemperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 104 ° FP. 8

Clas s A Citie s Diurna l Temperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 2 3 ° F

Clas s B Citie s Maximu m Dail yOn e Hou rOzon e To p 1 0 Percen t 12.0-15. 0 (pphm ) Mea n = 12. 5 (pphm )P. 9

Clas s B Citie s Maximu m Dail yTemperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 105. 0 °F-109. 0 ° F Mea n = 106. 7 ° F
Clas s B Citie s Diurna l Temperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 26. 0 ° F - 37. 0 ° F Mea n = 31. 7 ° FP.1 0

Clas s C Citie s Maximu m Dail yOn e Hou rOzon e To p 1 0 Percen t 12.0-24. 4 (pphm ) Mea n = 15. 0 (pphm )
Clas s C Citie s Maximu m Dail yTemperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 94. 0 ° F - 99. 0 ° F Mea n = 95. 8 ° FP.1 1

Clas s C Citie s Diurna l Temperatur e To p 1 0 Percen t 22. 0 ° F - 35. 0 ° F Mea n = 25. 3 ° F
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 24, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT: October 2, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

Karl Brooks and Mark A. Smith of EPA gave a summary presentation on October 2, 

2014, during the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities annual Energy Conference. The 

majority of the presentation centered on highlighting the four major building blocks in the 

Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7:

Karl Brooks

Mark A. Smith

Other Attendees included members of the 

Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities -

attendee list not available.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6671

FRANCISCO MARTE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; NANCY KOPP, Honorable, Treasurer of the 

State of Maryland; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of 

Maryland; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary, Department of Public 

Safety and Correctional Services; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, 

Commissioner Division of Correction, Department of Public 

Safety and Correctional Services; WILLIAM BLACKISTON, 

Warden, Division of Correction, Eastern Pre-Release Unit; 

SCOTT OAKLEY, Esq., Executive Director, Inmate Grievance 

Office; XYZ, or “JOHN DOE” Corp.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:08-cv-03309-WMN)

Submitted: December 10, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Marte, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Marte appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the Defendants and denying relief 

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Marte v. State of 

Maryland, No. 1:08-cv-03309-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 8, 2010). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00011

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 32179

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief or Alternatively to

Abate the Due Date for the Appellee’s Brief Until the Pending Motion to Dismiss Appeal for

Want of Jurisdiction is Decided is GRANTED, in part

.

The due date for appellee ’s brief will be reset by the Court upon resolution of Appellee’s

Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Date: February 20, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                    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, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
F. Schenkel, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Donald F. Schenkel
-----------------------------------------
Donald F. Schenkel
Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2004
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0202 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0202

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 202/98 of 26 January 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4056/87 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the export procedure for goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty **

*
Official Journal L 021 , 28/01/1998 P. 0005 - 0005 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 202/98 of 26 January 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4056/87 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the export procedure for goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2509/97 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas in order to ensure that goods subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 (3) receive uniform treatment on export throughout the Community, the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4056/87 (4) concerning determination of milk fats should be amended;

Whereas studies and tests carried out by the laboratories responsible for such testing indicate that the most appropriate procedure is the one laid down in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/87 is hereby replaced by the following text:

'3. Milk fat content

For the purposes of determining the milk fat content, a method based on extraction with light petroleum, preceded by hydrolysis with hydrochloric acid and followed by gas chromatography of the methyl esters of the fatty acids, shall be used. If the presence of milk fats is detected, the percentage proportion thereof shall be calculated by multiplying the percentage concentration of methyl butyrate by 25, multiplying the product by the total percentage fat content by weight of the goods and dividing by 100.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 January 1998.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 345, 16. 12. 1997, p. 44.

(3) OJ L 318, 20. 12. 1993, p. 18.

(4) OJ L 379, 31. 12. 1987, p. 29.