alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2022

No. 04-22-00232-CV

CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc.,

Appellants/ Cross-Appellees

v.

PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C.,

Appellees/ Cross-Appellants

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-10530

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED. The appellee’s brief is due on December 28, 2022. Further request for extension of 

time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### HOAGLAND, et v STATE ex PARKER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Pike Co

Decided May 17, 1930

Donald F. Smith, Columbus, for Hoagland, et.

Earl D. Parker, Morgantown, and Knepper & Wilcox, Columbus, for State ex.

*410PER CURIAM

In support of the motion, however, the respondents filed a number of affidavits, including their own, which have been incorporated in a bill of exceptions and which present to this court the only evidence adduced in the proceedings in the court below. It is sufficient at this time to say that the statements made in the affidavits, if true, indicate that the election as a whole was conducted in an irregular and unlawful manner; that in one instance at least a candidate for office at said election assumed the duties of a judge thereof and proceeded to perform the duties of such judge. These matters, however, are of no significance in this proceeding for the reason that after the Court of Common Pleas made the order quoted the respondents signed the election returns, one officer signing perhaps under protest which condition does not affect the situation one way or the other, and that after signing the returns they proceeded to prosecute error to this court.

It has long been the settled law of this state that in proceedings before the Supreme Court wherein the record shows that there is nothing left in the case on which the judgment of the court can operate the question so presented becomes a moot question only and the case is dismissed. The same rule has always been observed in the Court of Appeals. The authorities supporting this rule .are so numerous that it would be burdensome to refer to them. It is sufficient to call attention to the cases of Miner v. Witt, 82 OS. 237, Politz, et al v. Utilities Commission, 95 OS. 483, and State ex rel v. Forney, et al, 106 OS. 661. In the case before us we can render no judgment that will affect the rights of the respondents or restore to them any rights they surrendered under the judgment. If they intended to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to protect them in the privileges they claim, they should, without signing said election returns, have applied to this court for a suspension of the judgment rendered in the court below. This they failed to do but after complying with the judgment of the court below they bring proceedings in error with no issue pending between the parties which was not finally settled and determined when they signed the returns. For this reason the proceeding must be dismissed.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
Certification Of
                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                                                            32.2

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned, Samir N. Masri, who is
the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln International Corporation
(the "company"), hereby certifies that the company's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2006, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
company.


                                        /s/ Samir N. Masri
                                        --------------------------
                                Name:   Samir N. Masri
                                Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                Date:   September 21, 2006
EXHIBIT 12

KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY Computation of Ratios
 of Earnings to Fixed Charges(in thousands except ratio data)

|                                            | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
|Fixed Charges:                              |                        
|Interest on First Mortgage Bonds            |                        
|Interest on Other Long-term Debt            |                        
|Interest on Short-term Debt                 |                        
|Miscellaneous Interest Charges              |                        
|Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals |                        
|                                            |                        
|Total Fixed Charges                         |                        
|                                            |                        
|Earnings:                                   |                        
|Net Income Before Cumulative Effect         |                        
|of Accounting Change                        |                        
|Plus Federal Income Taxes                   |                        
|Plus State Income Taxes (Credits)           |                        
|Plus Fixed Charges (as above)               |                        
|                                            |                        
|Total Earnings                              |                        
|                                            |                        
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          |                        
|                                            |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32040-32041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 241

[DFARS Case 99-D309]


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Authority 
Relating to Utility Privatilization

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Director of Defense Procurement is adopting as 
final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 2812 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 
2812 provides that DoD may enter into utility service contracts related 
to the conveyance of a utility system for periods not to exceed 50 
years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa Rider, Defense Acquisition

[[Page 32041]]

Regulations Council, PDUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-4245; telefax 
(703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 99-D309.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    DoD published an interim rule at 65 FR 2058 on January 13, 2000. 
The rule added a new section at DFARS 241.103 to implement Section 2812 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public 
Law 106-65). Section 2812 amended 10 U.S.C. 2688 to provide authority 
for DoD to enter into utility service contracts related to the 
conveyance of a utility system for periods not to exceed 50 years. DoD 
received no public comments on the interim rule. The interim rule is 
converted to a final rule without change.
    This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review 
under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
because utility services generally are not provided by small business 
concerns.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does 
not impose any information collection requirements that require the 
approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, 
et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 241

    Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR part 241, which was 
published at 65 FR 2058 on January 13, 2000, is adopted as a final rule 
without change.

[FR Doc. 00-12418 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Order entered December 9 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00609
- CV
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMO URS AND COMPANY, Appellant V. VIRGIL HOOD AND LORR IE HOOD, Appellee s On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 03619



### O RDER Before the Court is the parties’ December 7, 2016 second joint motion to extend time for filing of briefs and to adopt modified briefing sche dule. We GRANT the parties’ motion. Appellees’ and cross

- appellee’s briefs shall be filed by January 16, 2017. Appellant’s and cross

appellants’ reply briefs shall be filed by February 15, 2017. We caution the parties that further

r equests for extensio ns of time will be disfavored.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Availability of the HRSA Preview: Cancellation of HIV/AIDS 
Programs, Special Projects of National Significance

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Cancellation of Notice of Availability of Funds.

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

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the Notice of Availability of funds in 
notice FR Doc. 99-21257, Part II, in the issue of Wednesday, August 18, 
1999 on the following page, 45016, in column 2, last line, ``Special 
Projects of National Significance. In the table on page 45019, in the 
section HIV/AIDS Programs, under ``Special Projects of National 
Significance (SPNS).'' On page 45032, in column 3, from heading 
``Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS)'' through to bottom 
of this column.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Claude Earl Fox,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-12753 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
#### BOWERS v KERMAN

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1804.

Decided April 10, 1930

Donald Gottwald, Akron, for Bowers.

Charles Sacks, Akron, for Kerman.

Funk, PJ and Washburn, J., concur.
#### Special Tax School District No. 1, of Palm Beach County, *Appellant,*v. The Dade County Board of Public Instruction, *et al., Appellees.*

In an equity proceeding to annul a sale of county school property made by the county board of public instruction upon the ground that an inadequate price was received and that the board violated their trust in not trying to get a better price, where the court finds that the complainant has failed to show that the price received was not a fair market price for said property, the decree for defendant will be affirmed where there is evidence to sustain it.

This case was decided by Division A.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County.

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

*Hudson & Boggs,*for Appellant;

*Geo. M. Rolibins,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The appellant filed a bill in equity for •the annulment, on the ground of inadequate price and breach of trust in not trying to get a better price, of a sale and conveyance of real property now in Palm Beach County by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction before Palm Beach County was formed from a part of Dade County. The bill was dismissed on final hearing and the complainant appealed. It appears that the title to the property was conveyed to the Board of Public Instruction for Dade County and subsequently used for school purposes by the Trustees of a Special Tax School *799District of Dade County, which district is now a Special School District of Palm Beach County. There is no showing that the title to the property was conveyed or transferred by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction to the Special Tax School District or to any one for them. The statutes of the State do not transfer to the district or its trustees the title to lands held by the County Board and located in the district. The decree of the court states that the cause was heard on the bill, answers, replications and testimony, and that compainlant has “failed to show that the price received was not a fair market price for said property.” The bill of complaint was dismissed.

Upon a full consideration of the evidence, it does not . appear that the Chancellor was not warranted in the finding made and the decree is therefore affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
#### Lina Sommer, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Paul Sommer, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued April 23, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*540
      *Alexander U. Zinke*and *Charles W. Silver*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*Paul A. Crouch*and *John A. Miller*for defendant, respondent and appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, June 9, 2000.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-12359 Filed 5-12-00; 11:31 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6679

BILLY LAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Correction; JAMES B. BENNETT, Director of Prisons; GRADY J. HAYNES, Superintendent of Warren Correctional; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer; LT. NORWOOD; J. R. JAMES, Lieutenant; T. BROWN, Officer; D. HARDING, Officer; A. PATTERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-533-5-BO) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Land, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Billy Land, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “motion for hearing.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Land claims the district court must conduct a hearing to determine the constitutionality of a refundable ten dollar administrative fee imposed upon inmates who file internal grievances against prison officials. We have already rejected Land’s claim in a prior opinion. See Land v. Beck , No. 01-7386, slip op. (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2001). Therefore, Land’s claim is barred under principles of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 22.5 Review by the reviewing official. ( a ) If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 22.4(b), the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under § 22.3 of this part, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to issue a complaint under § 22.7.
( b ) Such notice shall include— ( 1 ) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
( 2 ) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
( 3 ) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
( 4 ) An estimate of the amount of money or the value of property, services, or other benefits requested or demanded in violation of § 22.3 of this part;
( 5 ) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
( 6 ) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
§ 1928.21 Applicable standards in 29 CFR part 1910. ( a ) The following standards in part 1910 of this chapter shall apply to agricultural operations: ( 1 ) Temporary labor camps—§ 1910.142;
( 2 ) Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia—§ 1910.111 (a) and (b);
( 3 ) Logging operations—§ 1910.266;
( 4 ) Slow-moving vehicles—§ 1910.145;
( 5 ) Hazard communication—§ 1910.1200;
( 6 ) Cadmium—§ 1910.1027.
( 7 ) Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels—§ 1910.1201.
( 8 ) COVID-19—§ 1910.501, but only with respect to— ( i ) Agricultural establishments where eleven (11) or more employees are engaged on any given day in hand-labor operations in the field; and
( ii ) Agricultural establishments that maintain a temporary labor camp, regardless of how many employees are engaged on any given day in hand-labor operations in the field.
( b ) Except to the extent specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the standards contained in subparts B through T and subpart Z of part 1910 of this title do not apply to agricultural operations.
(Section 1928.21 contains a collection of information which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 1218-0072) [40 FR 18257, Apr. 25, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 38569, July 29, 1977; 52 FR 31886, Aug. 24, 1987; 59 FR 36700, July 19, 1994; 59 FR 51748, Oct. 12, 1994; 61 FR 5510, Feb. 13, 1996; 61 FR 9255, Mar. 7, 1996; 86 FR 61555, Nov. 5, 2021]
#### Southern States Land and Timber Company, *Appellant,*v. John Lowe, Jr., *Appellee.*

Where it does not appear by the transcript or by other proper evidence that an appeal in an equity cause has been duly entered or recorded in the chancery order book, and the appellee has not appeared in the cause in the appellate court, the appeal will be dismissed. ’ But where the appellee has assigned cross errors in the cause he thereby appears in the appellate court, and as the court then has jurisdiction of the person of the appellee with reference to the cause, the appeal will not be dismissed merely for the failure of the clerk to record the entry' of appeal in the chancery order book as he is by the statute required to do “forthwith” when it is filed with him by the appellant.

This case was decided by the court Eu Banc.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County.-

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

*Treadwell & Treadwell,*for Appellant;

*G. G. Morgan,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellee appearing specially for that purpose moyes to dismiss the appeal herein on,the ground that the entry of appeal has not been entered in the chancery order book. Section 1911 of the General Statutes of 1906 provides that the entry of appeal shall be filed with the clerk and by him “forthwith entered in the chancery order book, and no other or further notice of such appeal shall be required to be given or served in order to give the Supreme Court complete jurisdiction over the person *776of the appellee.” Where the entry of. appeal in an equity cause is not recorded in the chancery order, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction of the person of the appellee unless there is an appearance by the appellee or some action taken by him or on his behalf that amounts to an appearance and a recognition of the jurisdiction of the court over his person in the particular cause.

Special Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules authorizes the appellee to file a cross assignment of errors in a cause, and if this is done it is in effect an appearance in the appellate court in the cause.

Where it does not appear by the transcript or by other proper evidence that an appeal in an equity cause has been duly entered or recorded in the chancery order book, and the appellee has not appeared in the cause in the appellate court, the appeal will be dismissed. But where the appellee has assigned cross errors in the cause he thereby appears in the appellate court, and as the court then has jurisdiction of the person of the appellee with reference to the cause, the appeal will not be dismissed merely for the failure of the clerk to record the entry of appeal in the chancery order book as he is by the statute required to do “forthwith” when it is filed with him by the appellant.

The appellee by filing cross assignment of errors has appeared in the cause in this court and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1824]]

Public Law 113-151
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the ``Sergeant Brett E. 
Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 8, 2014 -  [H.R. 3472]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRETT E. GORNEWICZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.

    Approved August 8, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3472 (S. 2056):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            June 17, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```