alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ADAIR REALTY *&*TRUST CO. v. HARNAGE, County Treas.

No. 21558.

Opinion Filed Feb. 3, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1931.

Stone, Moon & Stewart, for plaintiff in error

William B. Moore, City Altyi, and S. H. Lattimore, Co. At'ty., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Muskogee county, rendered on the 30th day of January, 1930, in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The motion for new trial was overruled February 1, 3930, and the time in which to serve case-made was extended 60 days from that date. On April 1, 1930, by order of the court, the time to serve case-made- was extended 60 days from that date. On May 30, 1930. the time in which to serve case-made was by order of the court extended 30 days from date. No further orders extending such time were made.

The ease-made was served upon the defendant in error on June 30, 1930. and the certificate of the trial judge recites tliac, “Upon examination of the said case-made I find that same has been duly prepared and served' upon the defendant herein within the time allowed by law and by the orders of this court.”

The time in which to serve the case-made as extended by order of the court of May 30, 1930, expired on June 29, 1930. The case-made served June 30, 1930, was not served within the time allowed by law or a valid order of the court, is a nullity, and brings nothing before this court for review. Shinn v. Oklahoma City Building *&*Loan Ass’n, 130 Okla. 173, 266 Pac. 435; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 153, 252 Pac. 836; Harrison v. Reed, 81 Okla. 149, 197 Pac. 159.

The purported record presented clearly shows the recital in the certificate of the trial judge, ¡(hat the case-made had been duly served within the time allowed by law and the order of the court, is erroneous, and in such case the record will control. Town v. Crawford, 106 Okla. 254. 234 Pac. 208.

For the reason there is nothing before this court for review, the appeal is dismissed.

Note. — See under (1) anno. 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623; 2 R. C. L. p. 159; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 352.
Order entered November 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00901-CV

MICHAEL ZIEHL, Appellant

V.

TORNADO BUS COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-10314

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Lanetta Williams’s November 8, 2019 request for a 

thirty-day extension of time to file the record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record be filed no later than December 9, 2019. We caution Ms. Williams that further 

extensions will not be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0567

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GARRETT MICHAEL O’HOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 7, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 27 2022

10/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0567
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Carle Van De Bogart, Respondent, against Onondaga Litholite Company et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Submitted May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*596
      *Jeremiah F. Connor*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1915.1044 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1044 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1044).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
#### § 1915.1014 2-Acetylaminofluorene.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
#### F. M. Phillips, *Plaintiff in*Error, *v.*The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

1. *In the*absence of an exception to an order refusing a new trial the sufficiency of the evidence is not properly presented to the Supreme Court.

2. Allowance of time to present a bill of exceptions upon the denial of a motion for new trial, is not allowing an exception to that order, other exceptions having been allowed during the trial.

This case was decided by Division A.

*78Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record for Walton County.

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

*W. T. Bkidworth,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Park*Trammell, Attorney General, for the State.

Cockrell, J.

— Phillips was convicted of an assault with intent to murder one Joshua Cox by cutting him with a knife, and sentenced to a term of four years, in the State prison.

The only error assigned here questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

We fail to find in the bill of exceptions that the accused excepted to the ruling of the court denying the motion for a new trial, and the'assignment of error is not therefore properly before-us. Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South. Rep. 430 and cases cited. We do find that the court denied the motion, and following the judge’s name is an allowance of additional time to present a bill of exceptions. Numerous exceptions were taken as to the admissibility of evidence during the progress of the trial, so we are not permitted to read into the record a noting of an exception to this order from the allowance of additional time.

Lest this may appear as over technical, we may add that after a consideration of the whole evidence, we do not see that the plaintiff in error has really lost by the omission.

Judgment affirmed.

*79Whitfield, O. J., and Shackleford, J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker *and*Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Exhibit 32



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 Elgrande International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge:



(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: January 17, 2006
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.701 General requirements. ( a ) *Construction loads.* No construction loads shall be placed on a concrete structure or portion of a concrete structure unless the employer determines, based on information received from a person who is qualified in structural design, that the structure or portion of the structure is capable of supporting the loads.
( b ) *Reinforcing steel.* All protruding reinforcing steel, onto and into which employees could fall, shall be guarded to eliminate the hazard of impalement.
( c ) *Post-tensioning operations.* ( 1 ) No employee (except those essential to the post-tensioning operations) shall be permitted to be behind the jack during tensioning operations.
( 2 ) Signs and barriers shall be erected to limit employee access to the post-tensioning area during tensioning operations.
( d ) *Riding concrete buckets.* No employee shall be permitted to ride concrete buckets.
( e ) *Working under loads.* ( 1 ) No employee shall be permitted to work under concrete buckets while buckets are being elevated or lowered into position.
( 2 ) To the extent practical, elevated concrete buckets shall be routed so that no employee, or the fewest number of employees, are exposed to the hazards associated with falling concrete buckets.
( f ) *Personal protective equipment.* No employee shall be permitted to apply a cement, sand, and water mixture through a pneumatic hose unless the employee is wearing protective head and face equipment.
[53 FR 22643, June 16, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 40730, Aug. 9, 1994]
#### § 1991.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of these rules, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, and after three days' notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue such orders that justice or the administration of CAARA requires.
#### Mechlin v McMillan et

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided June 26, 1930

McLaughlin & Staker, Portsmouth, for Mechlin.

Joseph T. Micklethwait, Portsmouth, E. G. Millar, Portsmouth and E. G. Littleton, for McMillan, et.'

MIDDLETON, PJ.

The plaintiff was the president of the company. The evidence shows he was the president of the company when the note was given and when tlie company assigned the note to him. It is clearly shown by the evidence that the company never delivered the stock to McMillan and his evidence to that effect is not disputed. We take it that this fact, together with the written agree-men referred to, was found by the trial court to be true. The contract was with the company and- the duty to deliver the stock was the duty of the company. There is no room for any presumptions against the company in respect to these matters. They appear and are established by direct evidence. This is so for the reason that the undisputed pleadings in the case and the undisputed evidence in the case establish that the defendant McMillan never received the stock he purchased and that he never had an opportunity if he so desired to return that stock to the company in payment of his note. The plaintiff as president of the company denies all notice or knowledge of the contract as claimed by McMillan or of the failure of McMillan to receive the stock. His testimony, however, in this respect is of no avail for as president of the company in his dealings with the company, which in this case was the purchase of the note from the company, he is conclusively presumed to know the facts under which the note was taken and whether any consideration for the note had ever passed between the company and the defendant McMillan. Bowler v. Garland, 24 O. C. C. (n. s.) 39. See also McCarty v. Keproreta, 139 N. W. 992. He was not, therefore, a purchaser of the note in due course beftme maturity as shown by the evidence and as doubtless was the conclusion of the trial court, a jury having been waived by both parties.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ, concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Phillip   Verrill,   Chief  Financial   Officer  of  Fortune   Entertainment
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2005 of Fortune Entertainment Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))

(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 report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  disclosed in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal  control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) 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  officer(s) 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 the  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.

November 21, 2005

/s/ Phillip Verrill
Phillip Verrill, Chief Financial Officer
§ 93.333 Failure to comply with this subpart. ( a ) *Any violation.* The FAA may take civil enforcement action against a pilot for violations, whether inadvertent or intentional, including imposition of civil penalties and suspension or revocation of airmen's certificates.
( b ) *Knowing or willful violations.* The DC FRZ and DC SFRA were established for reasons of national security under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3). Areas established by the FAA under that authority constitute “national defense airspace” as that term is used in 49 U.S.C. 46307. In addition to being subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, persons who knowingly or willfully violate national defense airspace established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) may be subject to criminal prosecution.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1499 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1499

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1499/1999 of 8 July 1999 determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met **

*
Official Journal L 174 , 09/07/1999 P. 0017 - 0017 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1499/1999

of 8 July 1999

determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 of 26 May 1999 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for imports of bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1012/98 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1143/98(1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

(1) Whereas Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 provides for the quantities reserved for traditional importers under the two tariff quotas to be allocated in proportion to their imports during the 36 months preceding the year of import in question;

(2) Whereas allocation of the quantities available to operators covered by Article 2(3) of that Regulation under the two tariff quotas to be allocated in proportion to the quantities applied for; whereas, since the quantities applied for exceed those available, a fixed percentage reduction should be set,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0001 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 28,9603 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 1,2775 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

2. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0003 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 31,4639 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 1,3788 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter in force on 9 July 1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 131, 27.5.1999, p. 15.
#### § 2203.1 Purpose and scope.

This part applies to all meetings of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Its purpose is to implement the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. The rules in this part are intended to open to public observation, to the extent practicable, the meetings of the Commission, while preserving the Commission's ability to fulfill its adjudicatory responsibilities and protecting the rights of individuals.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2022

No. 04-22-00227-CV

Kevin HEADY,

Appellant

v.

Julieta HEADY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-06-37527-MCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 25, 2022, after the court reporter filed a notification of late record, we ordered 

Appellant to provide written proof to this court that the record has been requested and the 

appropriate fee paid. 

On June 3, 2022, Appellant filed a written response. Our May 25, 2022 order is satisfied.

The reporter’s record is due on July 5, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of June, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0865 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0865

**1999/865/EC: Council Decision of 29 November 1999 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from the Republic of Kazakhstan to the European Community **

*
Official Journal L 342 , 31/12/1999 P. 0037 - 0037 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 29 November 1999

concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from the Republic of Kazakhstan to the European Community

(1999/865/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 together with Article 300(2), first sentence thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Kazakhstan(1) was signed on 23 January 1995 and entered into force on 1 July 1999;

(2) The Commission has finalised negotiations for an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from the Republic of Kazakhstan to the European Community,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from the Republic of Kazakhstan to the European Community is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

2. The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 1999.

For the Council

The President

S. NIINISTÖ

(1) OJ L 196, 28.7.1999, p. 3.