alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRUNER v P U C

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Darke Co

No 339.

Decided May 16, 1929

S. E. Mote, Granville, for Bruner.

Albert M. Calland, Columbus, and H. F. Krickenberger and Mannix & Billingsley, Greenville, for P U C.

*517ALLREAD, J.

The evidence tends to prove that Bruner was a truck *&'r~'*with a closed truck and that he advertised for business. Several advertisements were offered in evidence and tended to prove that Bruner was soliciting business generally from the public, and the evidence of witnesses is also offered tending to prove that Bruner was engaged in business in pursuance to the advertisements aforesaid. There is no evidence in the record which in any way proves that Bruner rejected any business or contracted with reference thereto as a private carrier.

We think the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of the court below, and we further note the fact that Bruner was merely enjoined from business as a common carrier, and this injunction did not relate in any way to any private contracts that Bruner may have had.

We think, therefore, the judgment of the court below was in accordance with the evidence.

We have considere- the authority of the court to render ,any judgment in injunction at the suit of the Public Utilities Commission for a violation of the Public Utilities Act.

> Section 583 GC. provides that:- “In addition to other remedies provided in this chapter for the prevention and punishment of the violation of the provisions thereof and orders of the Commission, the Commission may compel compliance with ssuch provisions and its orders by proceedings in mandamus, injunction or by other appropriate civil remedies.”

This provision is broad and gives a remedy by injunction in addition to all other remedies provided for.

We have reached the conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was authorized and is therefore correct.

Kunkle and Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Larry Wilcox, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UC Hub, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in exchange act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;



c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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



Date: June 14, 2008



/s/ Larry Wilcox

Larry Wilcox,

Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00097-CR

DANIEL LYNN JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District 

Court

of Hood County (CR14353)

June 15, 2023

Opinion by Justice Wallach

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
#### § 1626.1 Purpose.

The regulations set forth in this part contain the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for carrying out its responsibilities in the administration and enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.3**
I, Derek Chang, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofRenaissance Media Group LLC, Renaissance Media (Louisiana)LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and Renaissance MediaCapital Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4.  The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  [Reserved];  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005
/s/ Derek Chang
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 1171 LT Case No. 2022

- CA

- 000693

_____________________________ D UANE M ICHAEL C OTTIER , Appellant,

v. S UNTAAC AND C OMPANY , I NC ., I NTERFIVE , I NC ., D IAMOND C ONSTRUCTION , S COTT W YCKOFF , AND R ONALD C HAPMAN , Appellee s
.

_____________________________
On appea l from the Circuit Co urt for Citrus County. Caroline Falvey , Judge. Duane Michael Cottier, South Bay, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee s
. October 3, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. W ALLIS , J AY , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
#### Emmons *et al. v.*Myers, use of Goff.

A plea of tender, that certain bank notes in pursuance of agreement, after suit brought, were procured and tendered, without bringing them into court, is bad.

A party who brings a suit for the use of another, cannot discharge the same by an agreement with the defendant.

Where the judgment of the circuit court overruling a motion for a new trial, on the ground that bank notes were not allowed as a payment or set-off, was assigned for error, it was held, that it should appear from the record that the notes were present on the trial.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Leake.

Hayes & Forrester for plaintiff in error.

Hughes, *contra.*

*Per Curiam.*

The action in this case was brought by Myers, for the use of Goff, on a promissory note. The defendants below filed a special plea, which is relied on as a plea of tender, to which a demurrer was sustained. The substance of the matter pleaded is, that Myers was agent of the Planters’ Real Estate Banking Company, and as such took the note sued on, which was discounted for bills or notes of the company. That some time after suit brought, Myers agreed to take in payment the notes of the company, and that in pursuance of said agreement, notes of the company were tendered and refused. This was no plea of tender. It was but an offer to fulfil an agreement made with Myers after suit brought. Now even if such a contract could be binding on Myers, still it was not binding on Goff, the party beneficially interested, of whose interest the defendants were informed, the suit having been brought for his use. The facts pleaded constituted no bar to Goff’s right of *376action, so that whether it be regarded as a plea of tender or special plea in bar, the demurrer was properly sustained.

When the demurrer was sustained, the cause was submitted to the jury on the general issue, and after verdict the defendants below moved for a new trial, and took exceptions to the opinion of the court in refusing to grant it. By the bill of exceptions it appears that the defendants admitted that they had acquired the notes tendered after the action brought; and it was proven that Myers, the payee, was agent for the company or association. That after- said company had stopped banking operations, Myers was employed to wind up the affairs, and Goff being the holder of their notes, received a transfer of the note sued on as collateral security. These facts constitute no reason for a new trial. Even if the defendants were entitled to make payment in the notes of the company, or to have them allowed as an offset, still we have no evidence that they had any such notes present at the trial. We are infornred by the bill of exceptions that they had acquired such notes after suit brought, but we are uninformed as to what they did with them.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D C 20460

APR 13 2012

OfFICE OF

AlA AND RADIATION

The Honorable Max Baucus

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Baucus:

Thank you for your letter of February 17, 2012, to Administrator Jackson, co-signed by Senator

Tester, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming actions on the

Montana Regional Haze Federallrnplementation Plan (FIP). The Administrator asked that I

respond on her behalf.

In your letter, you express concern about the possible economic impact from our FIP. You also

urge that our decisions on cost effectiveness of controls for Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) be consistent with the costs required to comply with health~based standards, and you

cite the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule costs as an example.

We understand your concerns and note that the Regional Haze Rule requires that a number of

factors be weighed in decisions on BART controls, including cost, available technology, energy

and non-air impacts, remaining useful life of equipment and visibility improvement. As EPA

Regional Administrator Jim Martin and his staff discussed in a briefing with your staff on March

20, the day the proposal was signed, we have endeavored to assess each of these factors to

support our preliminary decisions for BART controls included in the proposed Montana

Regional Haze FIP. I

In the FIP we are proposing nitrogen oxides (NOx) BART controls for two cement plants (Ash

Grove Cement and Holcim) and NOx and sulfur dioxide (S02) BART controls for two power

plant units (PPL Montana Colstrip Power Plant - Units 1 and 2). We are proposing reasonable

progress controls for NOx for two engines at the Devon Energy - Blaine County Compressor

Station. We estimate that our proposed FIP would reduce NOx emissions by about 6,600 tons

per year and S02 emissions by about 8,600 tons per year. The emission reductions will result in

perceptible visibility improvements at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park and at Gates ofthe

Mountains Wilderness Area.

Per our consent decree with WildEarth Guardians, the EPA is obligated to finalize the Montana

FIP by August 15, 2012. The proposed FrP will be open for public comment for 60 days

following publication of this rule and EPA will also hold two public hearings during this time.

I The FIP can be accessed online al http:www.epa.gov/region8/air

Internet Address (URL)' hlIpllwww epa go~

RecycledlRllcyclllble • Pnrtted wah Vegetable 0,1 Based Inks on 100% POSlconsumer Process Chlo';rte Free Recycled Pape,
We will put your letter in the docket for the proposed rule, and we welcome any additional

information or comments you may have on the proposal.

If you have further questions on the proposal, please contact me or your staff may call Josh

Lewis in the EPA's Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

ina McCarthy

Assistant Administrator
Pilot	Preflight	Checklist

1. Clear	Area	of	People 2. Transmitter	Power	On 3. All	Switches	Toward	Front 4. Range	Extender	ON 5. Phantom	Power	ON 6. Check – Flashing	Green	Lights 7. Nexus	or	Ipod	Switch	ON - WI	FI	ON – Select	Phantom	XXXX 8. DJI	Vision	Icon – Tap	Camera – Confirm	Picture 9. 1	Green	3	Red	light	flash	Switch	S2	to	Course	Lock	2	Green	3	Red	Confirm 10. Lift	off– Hover	about	3	feet – Rotate	90	degrees	Check	control right/left/forward/back 11. All	Confirm – Continue	Flight – otherwise	land	and	recheck
§ 1915.15 Maintenance of safe conditions. ( a ) *Preventing hazardous materials from entering.* Pipelines that could carry hazardous materials into spaces that have been certified “Safe for Workers” or “Safe for Hot Work” shall be disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method to prevent hazardous materials from being discharged into the space.
( b ) *Alteration of existing conditions.* When a change that could alter conditions within a tested confined or enclosed space or other dangerous atmosphere occurs, work in the affected space or area shall be stopped. Work may not be resumed until the affected space or area is visually inspected and retested and found to comply with §§ 1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14 of this part, as applicable. Note to paragraph ( b
):
Examples of changes that would warrant the stoppage of work include: The opening of manholes or other closures or the adjusting of a valve regulating the flow of hazardous materials.
( c ) *Tests to maintain the conditions of a Marine Chemist's or Coast Guard authorized person's certificates.* A competent person shall visually inspect and test each space certified as “Safe for Workers” or “Safe for Hot Work,” as often as necessary to ensure that atmospheric conditions within that space are maintained within the conditions established by the certificate after the certificate has been issued.
( d ) *Change in the conditions of a Marine Chemist's or Coast Guard authorized person's certificate.* If a competent person finds that the atmospheric conditions within a certified space fail to meet the applicable requirements of §§ 1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14 of this part, work in the certified space shall be stopped and may not be resumed until the space has been retested by a Marine Chemist or Coast Guard authorized person and a new certificate issued in accordance with § 1915.14(a).
( e ) *Tests to maintain a competent person's findings.* After a competent person has conducted a visual inspection and tests required in §§ 1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14 of this part and determined a space to be safe for an employee to enter, he or she shall continue to test and visually inspect spaces as often as necessary to ensure that the required atmospheric conditions within the tested space are maintained.”
( f ) *Changes in conditions determined by competent person's findings.* After the competent person has determined initially that a space is safe for an employee to enter and he or she finds subsequently that the conditions within the tested space fail to meet the requirements of §§ 1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14, of this part, as applicable, work shall be stopped until the conditions in the tested space are corrected to comply with §§ 1915.12, 1915.13, and 1915.14, as applicable.
[59 FR 37857, July 25, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 14219, Mar. 16, 1995; 67 FR 44541, July 3, 2002]
#### § 102.168 Federal income tax refund offset; purpose and scope.

The regulations in this subpart specify the Agency procedures that will be followed to implement the federal income tax refund offset procedures set forth in 26 U.S.C. 6402(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), 31 U.S.C. 3720A, and 301.6402-6 of the Treasury Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR 301.6402-6). This statute and the implementing regulations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at 26 CFR 301.6402-6 authorize the IRS to reduce a tax refund by the amount of a past-due legally enforceable debt owed to the United States. The regulations apply to past-due legally enforceable debts owed to the Agency by individuals and business entities. The regulations are not intended to limit or restrict debtor access to any judicial remedies to which the debtor may otherwise be entitled.

[82 FR 11785, Feb. 24, 2017]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Joseph J. Giannotti, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Bowlmor Times Square, LLC, Appellant, and Iadventure, LLC, Defendant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Nicholas Goodman &amp; Associates, PLLC (H. Nicholas Goodman of counsel), for appellant.Mallilo &amp; Grossman, Esqs. (Spencer R. Bell, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).McGaw, Alventosa &amp; Zajac (Andrew Zajac of counsel), for defendant (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered March 30, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of a motion by defendant Bowlmor Times Square, LLC seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branch of the motion by defendant Bowlmor Times Square, LLC seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.</p><p>In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, Bowlmor Times Square, LLC (defendant) appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Giannotti v Bowlmor Times Sq., LLC </i>(____ Misc 3d ____, 2019 <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2017-1320 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 03, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 7, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00591

- CV

IN RE David Gordon LEWIS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Relator, David Gordon Lewis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and alternative application for writ of habeas corpus and an emergency motion for stay on September 16, 2016. This court requested a response and issued a stay. Having considered Relator’s petition and the response filed by the real party in interest, this court has determined that Relator is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. The stay ordered by this court on September 16, 2016, is hereby LIFTED.

The Honorable William R. Palmer is ORDERED to vacate the September 16, 20 16 order granting real party in interest’s motion for enforcement. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge Palmer has not done as directed within fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2016

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of December, 2016

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15

- 521

- CCL, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of David Go rdon Lewis

and Debra Lewis and I n the Interest of W.G.L. and E.G.I., Children , pending in the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas, the Honorable William R. Palmer Jr. presiding.