alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Application of Nash M. Abloff to Examine Bar Examination Papers.

Submitted March 1, 1937;

decided March 4, 1937.

*Per Curiam.*

The above applicant having applied through letter for permission to see the papers of other candidates at the bar examination given in October, 1934, the court unanimously denied the application.

It appears from his correspondence and the communication of the State Bar Examiners that the applicant has examined his own questions and answers, and as to these makes no request. He desires to examine the papers of others who took the examination with him for the purpose of comparison.

This cannot be done.

The motion should be denied.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.
Phone: (304) 926-0440Fax: (304) 926-0446

July 9, 2008

RECEIV ED

Mr. Donald S. WelshRegional Administrator

U.S. EPA, Region III (3RAOO)

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

JUL ‘ ZOOB

oct& (a)

Re: Certification of Clean Air Act Section 11 0(a)(2)(G) State Implementation Plan Element

Dear Administrator Welsh:

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) herein certifies how the West Virginia

State Implementation Plan (SIP) satisfies a specific “infrastructure” element for state SIPs

required under section 110(a)(2)(G) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). West Virginia does have a

contingency plan under the provisions of 45CSR11 (Prevention of Air Pollution EmergencyEpisodes), which has been approved as part ofthe West Virginia SIP and meets the regulatory

requirements of 40 CFR § 51.152. West Virginia’s authority comparable to that in Section 303 ofthe CAA was addressed in a previous SIP revision.

If you have any questions regarding this confinnation, or require additional information,

please contact John A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality, at (304) 926-0462.

RCH/jlm

cc: John A. Benedict, Director WVDAQ

Sincerely,

Randy C. Huffman

Cabinet Secretary

Promoting a healthy environment.
§ 417.415 Post-launch and post-flight-attempt hazard controls. ( a ) A launch operator must establish, maintain and perform procedures for controlling hazards and returning the launch facility to a safe condition after a successful launch. Procedural hazard controls must include: ( 1 ) Provisions for extinguishing fires;
( 2 ) Re-establishing full operational capability of safety devices, barriers, and platforms; and
( 3 ) Access control.
( b ) A launch operator must establish procedures for controlling hazards associated with a failed flight attempt where a solid or liquid launch vehicle engine start command was sent, but the launch vehicle did not liftoff. These procedures must include the following: ( 1 ) Maintaining and verifying that each flight termination system remains operational until verification that the launch vehicle does not represent a risk of inadvertent liftoff. If an ignition signal has been sent to a solid rocket motor, the flight termination system must remain armed and active for a period of no less than 30 minutes. During this time, flight termination system batteries must maintain sufficient voltage and current capacity for flight termination system operation. The flight termination system receivers must remain captured by the command control system transmitter's carrier signal;
( 2 ) Assuring that the vehicle is in a safe configuration, including its propulsion and ordnance systems. The flight safety system crew must have access to the vehicle status. Re-establish safety devices and bring each pressurized system down to safe pressure levels; and
( 3 ) Prohibiting launch complex entry until the launch pad area safing procedures are complete.
( c ) A launch operator must establish procedural controls for hazards associated with an unsuccessful flight where the launch vehicle has a land or water impact. These procedures must include the following provisions: ( 1 ) Evacuation and rescue of members of the public, to include modeling the dispersion and movement of toxic plumes, identification of areas at risk, and communication with local government authorities;
( 2 ) Extinguishing fires;
( 3 ) Securing impact areas to ensure that personnel and the public are evacuated, and ensure that no unauthorized personnel or members of the public enter, and to preserve evidence; and
( 4 ) Ensuring public safety from hazardous debris, such as plans for recovery and salvage of launch vehicle debris and safe disposal of hazardous materials.
§ 1614.601 EEO group statistics. ( a ) Each agency shall establish a system to collect and maintain accurate employment information on the race, national origin, sex and disability of its employees.
( b ) Data on race, national origin and sex shall be collected by voluntary self-identification. If an employee does not voluntarily provide the requested information, the agency shall advise the employee of the importance of the data and of the agency's obligation to report it. If the employee still refuses to provide the information, the agency must make visual identification and inform the employee of the data it will be reporting. If an agency believes that information provided by an employee is inaccurate, the agency shall advise the employee about the solely statistical purpose for which the data is being collected, the need for accuracy, the agency's recognition of the sensitivity of the information and the existence of procedures to prevent its unauthorized disclosure. If, thereafter, the employee declines to change the apparently inaccurate self-identification, the agency must accept it.
( c ) The information collected under paragraph (b) of this section shall be disclosed only in the form of gross statistics. An agency shall not collect or maintain any information on the race, national origin or sex of individual employees except when an automated data processing system is used in accordance with standards and requirements prescribed by the Commission to insure individual privacy and the separation of that information from personnel record.
( d ) Each system is subject to the following controls: ( 1 ) Only those categories of race and national origin prescribed by the Commission may be used;
( 2 ) Only the specific procedures for the collection and maintenance of data that are prescribed or approved by the Commission may be used;
( 3 ) The Commission shall review the operation of the agency system to insure adherence to Commission procedures and requirements. An agency may make an exception to the prescribed procedures and requirements only with the advance written approval of the Commission.
( e ) The agency may use the data only in studies and analyses which contribute affirmatively to achieving the objectives of the equal employment opportunity program. An agency shall not establish a quota for the employment of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
( f ) Data on disabilities shall be collected using a method permitted under § 1614.203(d)(6)(ii) and § 1614.203(d)(6)(iii).
( g ) An agency shall report to the Commission on employment by race, national origin, sex and disability in the form and at such times as the Commission may require.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 74 FR 63984, Dec. 7, 2009; 82 FR 681, Jan. 3, 2017]
#### § 1602.31 Preservation of records made or kept.

Any personnel or employment record made or kept by a political jurisdiction (including but not necessarily limited to requests for reasonable accommodation application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the political jurisdiction for a period of 2 years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of 2 years from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Attorney General against a political jurisdiction under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the respondent political jurisdiction shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term “personnel record relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the person claiming to be aggrieved and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the person claiming to be aggrieved; and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the person claiming to be aggrieved applied and was rejected. The date of final disposition of the charge or the action means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which a person claiming to be aggrieved may bring an action in a U.S. district court or, where an action is brought against a political jurisdiction either by a person claiming to be aggrieved or by the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation is terminated.

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

[38 FR 12605, May 14, 1973, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991; 77 FR 5398, Feb. 3, 2012; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024; 89 FR 46021, May 28, 2024]
§ 5.95 SMS documentation. Any person required to have an SMS under this part must develop and maintain the following SMS documentation: ( a ) Safety policy.
( b ) SMS processes and procedures.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0671, Amdt. 5-1, 80 FR 1326, Jan. 8, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 5-2, 89 FR 33108, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### HOCKING CO. BD. of ED. v STATE ex PARKER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist., Hocking Co.

Decided Nov. 14, 1928.

Eugene Wright, Logan, for Bd. Ed.

Woolley & Rowland, Athens, for State ex.

Middleton, P J, and Mauck, J, concur.
[No. 49786-3-I.

Division One.

December 16, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. German Emilio Florez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-1-04484-0, Richard M. Ishikawa, J., entered November 16, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 13, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00748-CV

RHONDA FISHER, Appellant

V.

DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF DALLAS-BARBARA 

JORDAN APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-01419-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Garcia

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 20, 2021, 

we notified appellant the time for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant 

to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to file her brief by that time might result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an extension motion, nor 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).
–2–

200748f.p05 /Dennise Garcia/

DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RHONDA FISHER, Appellant

No. 05-20-00748-CV V.

DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY 

CITY OF DALLAS-BARBARA 

JORDAN APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-01419-

B.

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Myers and Partida-Kipness 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of May, 2021.
<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 June 30, 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. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2) 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
August 13, 2004
#### Edith A. Glasser, an Infant, by Irene Glasser, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, *v.*Camp Swatonah Co., Inc., Appellant.

Argued March 15, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*660
      *Alphonse J. D’Auria*for appellant.

*Lazarus Joseph, Isidor Enselman*and *Gustave G. Rosenberg*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 13 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00602- CR

IN RE CHARLES GRABOW JR., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1303690



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 1, 2019, relator Charles Grabow J r

. filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Harris County
District Clerk to transmit certain documents and records to relator, including a transcript of relator’s trial

.2

This court ’ s mandamus jurisd iction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge o f a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex.
Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals ’ jurisdiction. Id . § 22.2 21(a).
The Harris County District Clerk is not among the parties specified in section 22.221(b). Moreover, relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See id

. § 22.221(a). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Harris County District Clerk in this case

. Accordingly, we dismiss relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Fros t and Justices Wise and Hassan

. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 31.1
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, David Guthrie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for
the period ending December 31, 2004;

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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 small business
issuer 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 small business issuer,
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) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: July 29, 2005

/s/David Guthrie
David Guthrie, President (Principal Executive Officer)
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map.Salmon-Challis National Forest. North Fork Ranger District**
 
2012 | 2014| 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:SA 3/21/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:0080-G (online)
 
February 12, 2018
§ 1471.840 How is fact-finding conducted? ( a ) If fact-finding is conducted— ( 1 ) You may present witnesses and other evidence, and confront any witness presented; and
( 2 ) The fact-finder must prepare written findings of fact for the record.
( b ) A transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings must be made, unless you as a respondent and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service agree to waive it in advance. If you want a copy of the transcribed record, you may purchase it.
#### THE REALTY BOND & MORTGAGE CO v BOGNAR et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9457.

Decided February 11, 1929

Messrs. Goulder, White & Garry, Cleveland, for Mortgage Co.

Messrs. S. B. Fitzsimmons and W. H. Munson, Cleveland, for Bognar et.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

The oral promise of a construction loan mortgagor to hold plaintiff harmless from mechanics’ liens, even though not considered within the statute of frauds, held not sufficiently proved because of insufficiency and conflicting character of eviclence.

Opinion by

SULLIVAN, J.

VICKERY, PJ, & LEVINE, J, concur.
#### George W. Ward and A. J. Gay, Appellants, v. German-American Lumber Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

One who purchases timber rights with actual notice of a prior contract for the sale thereof and has not paid the purchase price or any part of it, is not a *bona fide*purchaser for value and without notice and cannot hold as against one in possession under the prior contract.

This case was decided by Division A.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Washington County. • "

*583The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*D. J. Jones*and *Wm. W. Flournoy,*for Appellants;

*Blount*& *Blount*& *Carter,,*for Appellee.

Whitfield., C. J.

— This appeal is from a decree adjudging timber rights in certain lands to be in the appellee and enjoining the appellants from interfering therewith. Gay, the owner of the lands, entered into a bilateral contract with L. M. Ware by which Gay did “agree to bargain, sell and convey” to Ware certain timber rights. Ware assigned his rights under the contract to the German-American Lumber Company as the contract expressly authorized him to do. Subsequently Gay executed a deed to the timber rights in the lands to George W. Ward. The German-American Lumber Company brought a suit against Ward and Gay to enforce its rights. The defense made by Ward is that the contract between Gay and Ware is a conveyance of the timber rights from Gay to Ware, and though recorded, it is not binding on Ward since the instrument was nht attested by two subscribing witnesses. Gay sets up that he made the sale to Ward in good faith because of the complainant having violated the “contract between the said Gay and the said Ware by complainant’s persistent cutting and removing timber from said lands smaller” than that allowed by the contract. If the instrument executed by Gay and Ware was not a valid conveyance for want of two subscribing witnesses, it was a contract binding on the parties. It clearly appears that Ward had actual notice of the contract between Gay and Ware as to the timber rights in the land, before the purchase of the rights by Ward was completed, and it also appears that no actual payment has been made, and the *584only note given by Ward is past due and in the bands of Gay, the payee, and no effort has been made -to enforce its-payment. Manifestly Ward is not a bona fide purchaser for value. Even if the contract for the sale of the timber rights made between Gay and Ware, and assigned by Ware to the German-American Dumber Company, has been violated as to the timber taken under the contract, such violation does not dispose of the contract so as to authorize Gay to sell to Ward the timber rights involved in the contract.

The decree is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur.

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the the opinion.