alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INDUSTRIAL COMM v SULTAN, et.

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist., Mahoning Co.

Decided Oct. 12, 1928.

Kennedy, Manchester, Conroy & Ford, Youngstown, for Indust. Comm.

Metcalf & Cannon, Youngstown, for Sultan, et.

*38FARR, J.

An examination of the bill of exceptions discloses such to be the fact, that no testimony was offered upon the trial below,at least this is the situation disclosed by the record presented in this court, and it is well settled that the burden of proof in any cause is upon the party who asserts .the affirmative of the issue. Ferguson v Gilbert, 16 OS, 88; Ginn v Dolan, 81 OS, 121. Commissioners v Whitslar, 82 OS, 234; Brady vs Conservancy District, 11 O App., 40.

And, as reflecting upon this issue, attention is called to Section 11447 of the General Code. A trial to a jury was waived and the matter submitted. to the court, and, (as above stated, the record does not disclose any testimony to sustain the judgment. Therefore, extended discussion would be superfluous and unnecessary.

A number of matters were suggested in the brief of counsel for defendant in error but they do not appear in the record. Therefore, it follows that in the absence of any testimony, that the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and it is so ordered.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12257]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00-921; MM Docket No. 99-338; RM-9746]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Shiner, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule making; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a petition for rule making filed by 
Elgin FM Limited Partnership requesting the allotment of Channel 232C3 
at Shiner, Texas. See 64 FR 68662, December 8, 1999. Elgin FM Limited 
Partnership withdrew its interest in the allotment of Channel 232C3 at 
Shiner, Texas. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MM Docket No. 99-338, adopted April 19, 2000, and released 
April 25, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the 
Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-12257 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*George Small and Norman Goldstein, Appellants.

Argued April 28, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*David R. Siegel, Samuel Hassen*and *David H. Shapiro*for Norman Goldstein, appellant.

*Samuel Hassen*for George Small, appellant.

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

As to each defendant: judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1604.1 General principles. ( a ) References to “employer” or “employers” in this part 1604 state principles that are applicable not only to employers but also to labor organizations and to employment agencies insofar as their action or inaction may adversely affect employment opportunities.
( b ) To the extent that the views expressed in prior Commission pronouncements are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, such prior views are hereby overruled.
( c ) The Commission will continue to consider particular problems relating to sex discrimination on a case-by-case basis.
#### Briggs *et al. v.*Clark *et al.*

The presumption will always be in favor of the regularity of the judgment of the court.

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

Winchester for plaintiff in error.

Garrett *contra.*

*Per Curiam.*

It appears that the original judgment in this case was rendered against five defendants, on which a *fi. fa.*issued, which being levied, a forth-coming bond was given, and forfeited. At a subsequent term, a motion was made to quash the bond, because it does not recite all the names of the parties defendants in the judgment and execution, *“*and for other faults apparent upon the bond.” This motion was sustained, and the defendants below bring the case up by writ of error to reverse the judgment on the motion.

We cannot interfere with the judgment, for every presumption must be indulged in favor of the judgments of inferior courts, and it devolves on the party seeking to reverse, to show the error. Neither the bond nor execution are set out in the record, by bill of exceptions, or otherwise. We cannot therefore know that the causes so assigned in the motion were unsupported by the evidence. The case falls within the rule laid down in Kerr *v.*Robertson, 5 Howard, 278. Even if the parties’ names were properly recited in the bond, there may have been other causes which operated on the mind of the court.

The judgment must be affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


I Michael J. Wallace, the Chief Financial Officer of Intrepid Capital
Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

      1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
            ended September 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with
            the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; 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:  November 14, 2002


                                              /s/ Michael J. Wallace
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Michael J. Wallace, Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
#### § 18.93 Motion for reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration of a decision and order must be filed no later than 10 days after service of the decision on the moving party.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0329 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0329

**2000/329/EC: Commission Decision of 18 April 2000 amending Decision 97/467/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (notified under document number C(2000) 1032) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 114 , 13/05/2000 P. 0035 - 0036 *

Commission Decision

of 18 April 2000

amending Decision 97/467/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat

(notified under document number C(2000) 1032)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/329/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/467/EC(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 2000/212/EC(4).

(2) Brazil has sent a list of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishment is in accordance with Community rules.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat can thus be drawn up for Brazil.

(4) Decision 97/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex of Decision 97/467/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 April 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 57.

(4) OJ L 65, 14.3.2000, p. 33.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

"País: Brasil/Land: Brasilien/Land: Brasilien/Χώρα: Βραζιλία/Country: Brazil/Pays: Brésil/Paese: Brasile/Land: Brazilië/País: Brasil/Maa: Brasilia/Land: Brasilien

>TABLE>"
#### § 102.78 Election procedure; method of conducting balloting; postballoting procedure.

If no agreement such as that provided in § 102.79 has been made, the regional director shall fix the time and place of the election, eligibility requirements for voting, and other arrangements for the balloting. The method of conducting the balloting and the postballoting procedure shall be governed, insofar as applicable, by the provisions of §§ 102.69 and 102.70 except that the labor organization on whose behalf picketing has been conducted may not have its name removed from the ballot without the consent of the regional director and except that the regional director's rulings on any objections or challenged ballots shall be final unless the Board grants special permission to appeal from the regional director's rulings. Any request for such permission shall be filed promptly, in writing, and shall briefly state the grounds relied upon. The party requesting review shall immediately serve a copy thereof on each other party. A request for review shall not operate as a stay of the regional director's rulings unless so ordered by the Board.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 25, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00756-CV

IN RE ALEX NEAL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-83919-2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Alex Neal has filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court 

challenging his conviction for attempted obstruction or retaliation. We do not have jurisdiction to 

consider an original application for writ of habeas corpus filed in a criminal proceeding. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 

356, 356–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

190756F.P05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
#### Chemical Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust Indentures Executed by Mary A. Ott, Deceased, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Margaret K. Ott, Individually and as Executrix of Henry L. Ott, Deceased, et al, Respondents and Appellants; Chemical Bank and Trust Company, as Administrator with the Will Annexed of Mary A. Ott, Deceased, et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

Argued April 29, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

*573
      *Alfred McCormack, Carl A. de Cersdorff*and *George B. Turner*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*Thomas B. Gilchrist, Henry W. Taft*and *Catherine Noyes Lee*for Alfred W. Ott et al., defendants, respondents and appellants.

*James Madison Blackwell*for infant defendants, respondents and appellants.

*Philip W. Lowry*for Margaret K. Ott, defendant, respondent and appellant.

*Paul A. Crouch*and *Joseph F. Mann*for Edith M. O. Meixner et al., defendants, respondents and appellants.

Judgment of the Appellate Division modified by reversing the provision thereof which charges the trustee with negligence for failure to sell stocks before it did and with interest on the Federal estate taxes, and as so modified affirmed, without costs, on the ground that under the peculiar facts of this case the trustee was not negligent in the exercise of its judgment. No opinion. (See 274 N. Y. 636.)

Concur: O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Crane, Ch. J., and Lehman, J., dissent and vote to affirm the decision of the referee.
§ 1471.940 Disqualified. *Disqualified* means that a person is prohibited from participating in specified Federal procurement or nonprocurement transactions as required under a statute, Executive order (other than Executive Orders 12549 and 12689) or other authority. Examples of disqualifications include persons prohibited under— ( a ) The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a));
( b ) The equal employment opportunity acts and Executive orders; or
( c ) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7606), Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368) and Executive Order 11738 (3 CFR, 1973 Comp., p. 799).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

JONATHAN E. HUGHES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3209

[ April 11, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 (a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03

- 004875CF10A

.
Jonathan E. Hughes, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for app ellee.

P ER C URI A M

.
We affirm without comment the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we reverse the order barring appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings. We find tha t the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to its order to show

cause. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47

, 48 (Fla. 1999); Davis v. State

, 198 So. 3d 995 , 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The court e ntered the final order before appellant’s time to file a response had run and did not consider appellant’s timely

- filed motion for an extension of time. On remand, the trial court is instructed to consider and rule on appellant’s motion for an extension o f time to file a response to the order to show cause.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

D AMOORGIAN , K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *2 Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

Norwalk Power LLC

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order 8184A

Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Norwalk Power

LLC ('Respondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and

Order 8184A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify

said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

1. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ('Regulations) are hereby

replaced with May 1, 2010.

2. Any references to October 1st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances

for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31,2007 and May 31,2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs, shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September 1, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order 8184A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall

comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of

the Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order 8184A, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm $lrcCI • Hanford. CT 06106 5127

http://www.CI.gov/dep

All Equal Opportunity Employer
•

Norwalk Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8184A

Modification No.3

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

Norwalk Power LLC ?

Signature: -----,p".fZ,-------,~F""----------

Name: L~L I c /2-.c. S 5

Title: f LA-J-..r"T )fl11,.JI! Gr-y...

Date: '-1- (s- 2.-00 Cj

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

Ga os

Director

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau ofAir Management

Date
§ 101.16 Backpay proceedings. ( a ) After a Board order directing the payment of backpay has been issued or after enforcement of such order by a court judgment, if informal efforts to dispose of the matter prove unsuccessful, the Regional Director then has discretion to issue a “backpay specification” in the name of the Board and a notice of hearing before an administrative law judge, both of which are served on the parties involved. The specification sets forth computations showing gross and net backpay due and any other pertinent information. The respondent must file an answer within 21 days of the receipt of the specification, setting forth a particularized statement of its defense.
( b ) In the alternative, the Regional Director, under the circumstances specified above, may issue and serve on the parties a notice of hearing only, without a specification. Such notice contains, in addition to the time and place of hearing before an administrative law judge, a brief statement of the matters in controversy.
( c ) The procedure before the administrative law judge or the Board, whether initiated by the “backpay specification” or by notice of hearing without backpay specification, is substantially the same as that described in §§ 101.10 to 101.14, inclusive.
|  | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 20, 2009 | /s/      Alex Chun Shan Yue                               |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                      |
|                    | Alex      Chun Shan Yue                                   |
|                    |                                                      |
|                    | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
   (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 Dated: August 6, 2009
    /s/ Gregory T. LucierGregory T. LucierChief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Life Technologies and will be retained by Life Technologies and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1450.17 Contracting for collection services. ( a ) FMCS has authority to contract for collection services to recover delinquent debts, provided that the following conditions are satisfied; ( 1 ) The authority to resolve disputes, compromise claims, suspend or terminate collection action, and refer the matter for litigation is retained by the agency;
( 2 ) The contractor shall be subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended to the extent specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m), and to applicable Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to debt collection practices, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692;
( 3 ) The contractor must be required to account strictly for all amounts collected;
( 4 ) The contractor must agree that uncollectible accounts shall be returned with appropriate documentation to enable FMCS to determine whether to pursue collection through litigation or to terminate collection efforts, and
( 5 ) The contractor must agree to provide any data contained in its files relating to paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (3) of § 105.2 of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (4 CFR part 105) upon returning an account to FMCS for subsequent referral to the Department of Justice for litigation.
( b ) Funding of collection service contracts: ( 1 ) FMCS may fund a collection service contract on a fixed-fee basis, that is, payment of a fixed fee determined without regard to the amount actually collected under the contract. Payment of the fee under this type of contract must be charged to available agency appropriations.
( 2 ) FMCS may also fund a collection service contract on a contingent-fee basis, that is, by including a provision in the contract permitting the contractor to deduct its fee from amounts collected under the contract. The fee should be based on a percentage of the amount collected, consistent with prevailing commercial practice.
( 3 ) FMCS may enter into a contract under paragraph (b)(1) of this section only if and to the extent provided in advance in its appropriation acts or other legislation, except that this requirement does not apply to the use of a revolving fund authorized by statute.
( 4 ) Except as authorized under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or unless the receipt qualifies as a refund to the appropriation, or unless otherwise specifically provided by law, FMCS must deposit all amounts recovered under collection service contracts (or by agency employees on behalf of the agency) in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3302.
( c ) FMCS will consider the use of collection agencies at any time after the account is 61 days past due. In all cases accounts that are six months or more past due shall be turned over to a collection agency unless referred for litigation or unless arrangements have been made for a workout procedure, or the agency has exercised its authority to write off the debt pursuant to § 1450.14.
( d ) FMCS will generally not use a collection agency to collect a delinquent debt owed by a currently employed or retired Federal employee, if collection by salary or annuity offset is available.