alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 1 1

- 00 1 94

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAWN RENEE DAWSON

, § APPEAL FROM THE 7 TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant

and h er counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s

motion to dismiss is grante d, and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered July 20 , 2011

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )
[No. 26827-2-II.

Division Two.

October 25, 2002.]

#### Susan G.M. Case, *Respondent,*v. James J. West, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 00-2-30060-1, H. Christopher Wick-ham, J. Pro Tern., entered December 29, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
[No. 49412-1-I.

Division One.

December 9, 2002.]

#### Carl Josef, *Appellant,*v. The Seattle Police Department, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-29983-4, Suzanne M. Barnett, J., entered September 26, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Cox, A.C.J., and Ellington, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       UT
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      519,378
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     26,122
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         145,394
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       140,725
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 831,619
<COMMON>                                        20,744
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       61,809
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            199,848
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 282,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,923
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           204,323
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  84,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           35
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 258,314
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  831,619
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      491,588
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,361
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     430,099
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     444,460
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         47,128
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (473)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  46,655
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,593
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,062
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         97
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   25,965
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        24,459
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       13,966
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          43,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43

<FN>
Capital surplus, paid in includes $(24,017) treasury stock.







                                 103


</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00205

- CR

CHRISTOPHER JASON HA LL

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06

- 11

- 14071 BCCR

ORDER

The State’s brief in this appeal was originally due on March 30, 2015. The State

has requested and been granted two extensions of time to file its brief. It has now filed

a third motion for extension of time to file its brief.

The State’s motion is denied. Its brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 5:00

p.m. on August 20, 2015.

PER CURIAMHall v. State Page 2

Before Chief Just ice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed July 30, 2015
#### BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST PERKINS SPECIAL RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT v BECKLEY

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co.

No 335.

Decided Oct. 13, 1930

Hertlein & Schwer, Sandusky, for Board.

Krueger, Rosino & Moore, Sandusky, for Beckley.

WILLIAMS, J.

Hulls Corners’ school was an elementary school and under 7830 GC, she was required to have

> “from a certificating authority having legal jurisdiction a certificate * * * that he is qualified to teach orthography, reading, writing, arithmetic, ■ English grammar and composition, geography, history of the United States, ■, physiology, including narcotics, litera-:ture, and elementary agriculture, and,.that he possesses an adequate knowledge of the principles of teaching; except as provided in Sections 7807-9, 7807-10, 7807-6, 7852 and 7831-1.”

The sections last referred to in the above quoted passage have no bearing upon the instant case.

As the the only certificate possessed by the defendant in error was provisional in character and authorized her to teach Eng-, lish and History only, she did not have. a.' certificate which would authorize her to:teach in an elementary school such as thaji' at Hulls Corners’ was.

Under 7786 GC, the clerk of the Board.of .< Education can not lawfully draw an order for the payment of a teacher’s salary until the teacher files with such clerk a written .statement from the Superintendent of Schools showing that there has been filed with him a legal teacher’s certificate (or. a,' true copy thereof) to teach the subjects or grades taught. As the certificate on fiie authorized only' the teaching of English’ and History, in high schools of Ohio, it was not such ,a certificate as was required to teach in an elementary school. Withdut the required certificate, plaintiff below was not entitled to recover the unpaid portion of the salary.

This court finds, however, that a final judgment can not be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the reason that there was' no motion to direct a verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence;, nor was there any request submitted to the court for: an instructed verdict. Woodman vs. Stahl, 28, Oh Ap 464, 467.

Attention is called to the fact that there is a question whether mandamus was not' the proper remedy in the instant case..

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause. remanded for, further proceedings according to,.law.’

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.1
#### § 2530.204-4 Deferral of benefit accrual.

For purposes of section 204(b)(1)(E) of the Act and section 411(b)(1)(E) of the Code (which permit deferral of benefit accrual until an employee has 2 continuous years of service), an employee shall be credited with a year of service for each computation period in which he or she completes 1,000 hours of service. The computation period shall be the eligibility computation period designated in accordance with § 2530.202-2.
#### MERSHON v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided April 30, 1930

N. B. Gilliland, Portsmouth, for Mershon.

Dustin W. Gustin, Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, for State.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

• It seems to be the theory of the plaintiff in error in this contention that by analogy at least his former testimony was protected by the provisions of 13660 GC. This claim is not supported by the section in question. That section grants immunity only to witnesses called by the State of Ohio. The plaintiff in error was offered as a witness by the defendant. There is no realtion whatever between the two situations. One is a special immunity created by the state for its own protection and in its behalf the better to enfroce the law and bring the guilty to justice. The conditions under which the plaintiff in error testified were created by the defendant in the former case alone and his testimony was for the defense. Under such conditions the protection contended for, if allowed, would defeat the claims of the state rather than assist it in the administration of justice.

It follows that the objection of the plaintiff in error to the admission in the instant case of his testimony given in the trial of his father was properly overruled.

We find no substantial error in the record and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ, concur.
|Exhibit 99.1


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 First Coastal Bancshares (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don M.
Griffith, CEO 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/ Don M. GriffithDon M. GriffithChief Executive Officer

|
|
#### § 2200.5 Extension of time.

The Commission or the Judge on their own initiative or, upon motion of a party, for good cause shown, may enlarge or shorten any time prescribed by these rules or prescribed by an order. All such motions shall be in writing and shall conform with § 2200.40, but, in exigent circumstances in a case pending before a Judge, an oral request may be made and shall be followed by a written motion filed with the Judge within such time as the Judge prescribes. A request for an extension of time should be received in advance of the date on which the pleading or document is due to be filed. However, in exigent circumstances, an extension of time may be granted even though the request was filed after the designated time for filing has expired. In such circumstances, the party requesting the extension must show, in writing, the reasons for the party's failure to make the request before the time prescribed for the filing had expired. The motion may be acted upon before the time for response has expired.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
hereby constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful
agent and attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution
and authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1997, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.
pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; hereby ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent
and attorney-in-fact as herein authorized.

Dated:  March 23, 1998                              /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                                                    Ronald J. Evans
#### BRIDGEPORT BANK CO v SHADYSIDE COAL CO TRUMBULL CO BD of ED v STATE ex DEBB et

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21821 & 21976.

Decided Feb 12, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Henry Cohen et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Cohen Dairy Company, Respondents.

Submitted May 24, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Isador Goetz*for motion.

*Joseph J. Celia*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4904 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4904

 To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to ensure crime victims are 
  not denied compensation because of rape kit backlogs, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2020

Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself and Mr. Toomey) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to ensure crime victims are 
  not denied compensation because of rape kit backlogs, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Rape Kit Backlog 
Survivors Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION.

    Section 1403(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
20102(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) beginning not later than 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, such program--
                    ``(A) provides a waiver for any application filing 
                deadline imposed by the program for a crime victim if--
                            ``(i) the crime victim is otherwise 
                        eligible for compensation; and
                            ``(ii) the delay in filing the application 
                        was a result of a delay in the testing or a 
                        delay in the DNA profile matching from a sexual 
                        assault forensic examination kit or biological 
                        material collected as evidence related to a 
                        sexual offense; and
                    ``(B) does not require the crime victim to undergo 
                an appeals process to have the application of the crime 
                victim considered for a filing deadline waiver under 
                subparagraph (A); and''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 28317-4-II.

Division Two.

October 18, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Virgil Philman Adkins, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 01-1-01788-8, Diane M. Woolard, J., entered January 17, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
Exhibit 32.02

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 on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended
April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods presented.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    ROBERT I. PENDER, JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Finance And
Administration, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial And Accounting
Officer)


Date:
June 14, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Serena
Software, Inc. and will be retained by Serena Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
§ 1690.307 Temporary waivers. ( a ) In the event that the proposed issuance is of great length or complexity, the EEOC may, at its discretion, grant a temporary waiver of the requirements contained in § 1690.303 or § 1690.304. Such waivers may be granted if: ( 1 ) The period of consultation and thorough review required for these documents would be so long as to disrupt normal agency operations; or
( 2 ) The initiating agency is issuing a document to meet an immediate statutory deadline; or
( 3 ) The initiating agency presents other compelling reasons why interim issuance is essential.
( b ) In the event of a waiver, the initiating agency shall clearly indicate that the issuance is interim, has been published pursuant to a wavier, and is subject to review. EEOC reserves the right, after publication, to review the document in light of the objectives of the Order. The initiating agency may make substantive conforming changes in light of comments by EEOC and other affected agencies.
[45 FR 68361, Oct. 14, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 71799, Oct. 30, 1980]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6606-2] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of time to comment on Agency Information Collection Activities: proposed collection; comment request. 

# SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an extension of time to comment on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan-Subpart J Information Collection Request renewal. 

# DATES:

Comments are due by June 12, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to EPA, 5203G, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460. Materials relevant to this ICR may be inspected from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by visiting the Public Docket, located at 1235 Jefferson-Davis Highway (ground floor), Arlington, Virginia 22202. The docket number for this notice is SPSUBJ. The telephone number for the Public Docket is (703) 603-9232. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William “Nick” Nichols, (703) 603-9918, Facsimile Number (703) 603-9116, e-mail:nichols.nick@epa.gov. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The EPA announces an extension of time to submit comments on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan-subpart J Information Collection Request renewal from May 17, 2000 to June 12, 2000. Subpart J of the NCP allows and regulates the use of chemical and biological oil spill cleanup and control agents. The information collected is supplied by the manufacturer of such products. This information and data are then analyzed by EPA to determine the appropriateness, and under which category, the product may be listed on the NCP Product Schedule. This product data are critical for EPA to assure effectiveness and toxicity data for these products are available to the oil spill community for their use. The original document for comment was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 65 FR 20451 (April 17, 2000).                 

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Stephen D. Luftig, 

Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 

[FR Doc. 00-12020 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P