alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7317
DUKE E. WOODLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-177-3) Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Woodley v. Angelone , No. CA-95-177-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 1995). 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
#### COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO v SCHREYER ANDERSON v SMITH

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21364 & 21530.

Decided May 22, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 Sa) Sections 6310-3 to 6310-14 inclusive, GC, are penal statutes and those statutes are also in derogation of the common law and should be construed according tp their exact and technical meaning, and~their application should be limited to cases clearly described within the words used.

Those sections declare it to be unlawful to sell or give away a motor vehicle unless at or before such s.ale or gift the *334seller shall execute and deliver a bill of sale therefor, and prescribe other procedure in perfecting transfer of title. They do not declare the contract itself to be unlawful if executed in a manner other than that prescribed.

Any assignment or transfer of a motor vehicle (not violative of the uniform sales laws of this state), which is not executed and delivered in compliance with 6310-3 to 6310-14, GC, but which is accompanied by delivery of possession, is nevertheless a valid contract between the parties thereto.

(50 Sb) A note secured by a chattel mortgage upon a motor vehicle in the possession of the mortgagor at the time of the execution of the mortgage, though the mortgagor had at the time no bill of sale therefor executed in compliance with 6310-3 to 6310-14, GC, is nevertheless a valid mortgage between the parties, and if and when said mortgage is filed with the county recorder of the county where the mortgagor resides,' it has priority over subsequent purchasers and mortgagees in good faith.

Ohio Farmers’ Insurance Co. v. Todino, 111 Ohio St., 274, and Helwig v. Warren State Bank, 115 Ohio St., 182, overruled.)

Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur. Jones, J, concurs in the judgment. Day, J, dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety to such financial statements (in thousands,
except per share data)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,792
<SECURITIES>                                    11,889
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (453)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,120
<PP&E>                                           7,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,282)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,305
<SALES>                                         11,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,142
<CGS>                                            5,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,454)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,454)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                            EXHIBIT 10.90


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         LG&E ENERGY CORP. SUPPLEMENTAL
                            EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 1. Section 3.2 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as
    follows:

 "Section 3.2   FORMS OF PAYMENT

 The normal form of benefit payment (to which the formula in Section 3.1
 applies) shall be a straight life annuity. Prior to the Member's benefit
 commencement date, he may elect to receive his benefit in the form of an
 actuarially equivalent (based on the factors set forth in Section 3.1)
 joint and survivor annuity, which shall provide a reduced monthly benefit
 payable for the life of the Member and continued thereafter in an amount
 of one of the following: fifty percent (50%), sixty-six and two-thirds
 percent (66 2/3%), seventy-five percent (75%), or one hundred percent
 (100%) to a beneficiary designated in writing by the Member."


 2. Article 3 shall be further amended by adding a new Section 3.5 to the
    end thereof to read as follows:

 " Section 3.5 PRE-RETIREMENT DEATH BENEFIT

 A. Eligibility: If a Member whose age is at least fifty (50) and who has
 been credited with five (5) years or more of Service or a Member who has
 been fully vested pursuant to Section 12.2, dies after September 2, 1998
 but prior to commencing benefits under Section 3.1, Section 3.3 or Section
 3.4 herein, then the Member's Beneficiary shall be entitled to a
 pre-retirement death benefit, pursuant to this Section.

 B. Amount of Benefit: The Pre-retirement Death Benefit shall equal fifty
 percent (50%) of the Member's accrued benefit calculated in accordance
 with Section 3.1 at the time of the Member's death.

 C. Form of Distribution. The Pre-retirement Death Benefit shall be payable
 as a monthly annuity over the life expectancy of the Beneficiary, except
 in the case of a non-spouse Beneficiary whose life expectancy is greater
 than five (5) years, in which case the benefit shall be payable in sixty
 (60) equal monthly payments." and


 The amendments described herein shall be effective as of September 2, 1998.
#### § 1921.5 Motions and requests.

Motions or requests shall be filed with the Chief Hearing Examiner, except that those made during the course of the hearing shall be filed with the hearing examiner or shall be stated orally and made part of the transcript. Each motion or request shall state the particular order, ruling, or action desired, and the grounds therefor. The hearing examiner is authorized to rule upon all motions or requests filed or made prior to the filing of his report.
EXHIBIT
      32(b)





This
      Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
      pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
      filing.








Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


Of
      Title
      18 of the United States Code





In
      connection with the Annual Report of the Companies (as defined below) on Form
      10-K (the “Reports”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan Tomasky, the
      chief financial officer of





American
      Electric Power Company, Inc.


AEP
      Generating Company


AEP
      Texas
      Central Company


AEP
      Texas
      North Company


Appalachian
      Power Company


Columbus
      Southern Power Company


Indiana
      Michigan Power Company


Kentucky
      Power Company


Ohio
      Power Company


Public
      Service Company of Oklahoma


Southwestern
      Electric Power Company





(the
      "Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
      the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Companies.














/s/
      Susan Tomasky


Susan
      Tomasky


Chief
      Financial Officer








February
      28, 2006








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
      Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1910 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1910.1004 alpha-Naphthylamine.

See § 1910.1003, *13 carcinogens.*

[61 FR 9245, Mar. 7, 1996]
#### WILLYS-OVERLAND CO v CARR

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2404.

Decided June 30, 1930

H. J. Higley, Toledo, ,and E. C. Froelich, Toledo, for Company.

Taber, Chittenden & Daniells, Toledo, for Carr.

PER CURIAM

The court finds that there is error prejudicial to the plaintiff in error apparent upon the face of the record in the following, to-wit:

I. Permitting the witness, Dr. Park L. Myers, called on behalf of the plaintiff below, to testify as an expert regarding the claimant’s disease and whether it originated from, or was aggravated or accelerated by, the injury, basing his opinion upon the history of the case obtained by him from the claimant, who was not his patient.

2. That the verdict' and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

For the prejudicial errors above stated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
EXHIBIT 24.1
                                                                    ------------

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------



         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Directors
and/Officers of North American Galvanizing & Coatings. Inc., 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 Officer
of the Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 2004, 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: FEBRUARY 17, 2005


JOSEPH J. MORROW /s/ Joseph J. Morrow
                -------------------------------
PATRICK J. LYNCH /s/ Patrick J. Lynch
                -------------------------------
JOHN H. SUNUNU /s/ John. H. Sununu
              ---------------------------------
RONALD J. EVANS /s/ Ronald J. Evans
               --------------------------------
GILBERT L. KLEMANN, II /s/ Gilbert L. Klemann
                      -------------------------
LINWOOD J. BUNDY /s/ Linwood J. Bundy
                -------------------------------
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.89 Prior provision of rights with respect to debt.

To the extent that the rights of the debtor in relation to the same debt have been previously provided by the creditor agency under some other statutory or regulatory authority, the creditor agency is not required to duplicate those efforts before taking salary offset.
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.

§ 1926.1201 Scope. ( a ) This standard sets forth requirements for practices and procedures to protect employees engaged in construction activities at a worksite with one or more confined spaces, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (b) of this section. Note to paragraph ( a
).
Examples of locations where confined spaces may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: Bins; boilers; pits (such as elevator, escalator, pump, valve or other equipment); manholes (such as sewer, storm drain, electrical, communication, or other utility); tanks (such as fuel, chemical, water, or other liquid, solid or gas); incinerators; scrubbers; concrete pier columns; sewers; transformer vaults; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) ducts; storm drains; water mains; precast concrete and other pre-formed manhole units; drilled shafts; enclosed beams; vessels; digesters; lift stations; cesspools; silos; air receivers; sludge gates; air preheaters; step up transformers; turbines; chillers; bag houses; and/or mixers/reactors.
( b ) *Exceptions.* This standard does not apply to: ( 1 ) Construction work regulated by subpart P of this part (Excavations).
( 2 ) Construction work regulated by subpart S of this part (Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and Compressed Air).
( 3 ) Construction work regulated by subpart Y of this part (Diving).
( c ) Where this standard applies and there is a provision that addresses a confined space hazard in another applicable OSHA standard, the employer must comply with both that requirement and the applicable provisions of this standard.
#### § 1650.108 Waiver.

The Commission may waive debts, to the extent authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5584, arising out of erroneous payments of pay, when collection would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States, and so long as there is no indication of fraud, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee. Interest, penalties, and administrative costs may also be waived under 31 U.S.C. 3717(h) and 31 CFR 901.9(g), on a case-by-case basis, if collection would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States.
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0518 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0518

**99/518/EC: Commission Decision of 28 July 1999 amending Commission Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, pursuant to Council Directive 90/675/EEC (notified under document number C(1999) 2517) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 197 , 29/07/1999 P. 0050 - 0050 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 28 July 1999

amending Commission Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, pursuant to Council Directive 90/675/EEC

(notified under document number C(1999) 2517)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/518/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisations of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(1) and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,

(1) Whereas the competent authorities of Switzerland, on 16 July 1999, have informed the services of the Commission that diethylstilboestrol (DES) has been detected on two occasions in beef meat imported from an establishment in the United States of America (USA);

(2) Whereas the use of DES, in view of its toxic properties, is banned by virtue of Article 2 (a) and Article 3 (a) of Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action of beta agonists(2);

(3) Whereas for the same reasons, the use of DES is also banned in the USA;

(4) Whereas the Commission services have not received any official explanation from the authorities in the USA on this problem or on the measures taken to control the situation;

(5) Whereas the inspection measures applied at Community border inspection posts should include specific testing for stilbenes;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Decision 94/360/EC(3), the second indent of paragraph 1 of Article 1(a) is replaced by the following text: "- two official samples shall be taken from each consignment and examined for residues of each of the xenobiotic hormones melengestrol acetate, trenbolone, zeranol, and stilbenes including diethylstilboestrol, and for abnormally high levels of residues of the natural hormones 17 beta oestradiol, progesterone and testosterone."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 158, 25.6.1994, p. 41.
§ 1952.6 Iowa. ( a ) The Iowa State plan received initial approval on July 20, 1973.
( b ) The Iowa State plan received final approval on July 2, 1985.
( c ) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in *AFL-CIO* v. *Marshall,* compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Iowa, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 16 safety and 13 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 2, 1985.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/iowa.html .*
#### GREEN, etc., v. SHEPHERD et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Summit Co.

No. 1685.

Decided Feb. 12, 1930

Herberich, Weick & Powers, and Raymond S. Powers, all of Akron, for Plaintiff in error and Defendant in Error The HerberichHall-Harter Co.

Grant, Thomas & Buckingham, Akron, for Defendants in Error Delbert E. Shepherd and Graynel Sheperd.

WASHBURN, J.

There are respectable authorities holding that he cannot do so, but we think the greater weight of authority and the better reasoning sustains the proposition that he may do so.

It surely is well established hi Ohio that “where A. makes a promise directly to B., for the benefit of C., upon a consideration moving alone from B., C., being, the party beneficially interested, may treat the promise as though made to himself and may maintain an action at law upon it in his own name against A., the promisor.”

> Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (4th ed.), Vol. 3, Sec. 1207.

> Crumbaugh v. Kruger, 3 O.S. 544, at p. 549.

> Emmitt v. Brophy, 42 O.S. 82.

> Society of Friends v. Haines, 47 O.S. 423.

> Poe v. Dixon, 60 O.S. 124.

> Southward v. Jamison, 66 O.S. 290.

> Discount & Mtge. Co. v. Joseph, 117 O.S. 127.

In such case the express contract creates an obligation due from A. to B. which the parties agree shall be discharged by A.’s paying C.; and there being a valuable consideration for the promise of A., its enforcement should not depend upon whether B. is obligated to C..

Cockerell v. Poe, 171 Pac. 522, and cases therein cited.

We think that such in effect was the holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Brewer v. Maurer, 38 O.S, 43.

In the instant case S. agreed to pay for the property conveyed to him by paying the mortgage thereon, and the conveyance of the property to him constituted a valuable consideration for his express promise to pay said mortgage; and applying the principles announced in Brewer v. Maurer, supra, we think that the trial court was in error in sustaining objections to certain evidence which it is unnecessary to detail, and in rendering judgment against said mortgagee, and that' therefore said judgment should be reversed.

Our attention has been called to a decision of the Court of Appeals of the Eighth District, Keehl v. Roberts, 32 App. 327, and as we have reached a different conclusion than that reached by said Court of Appeals, the cause will be certified to, the Supreme Court for final determination.

FUNK, P.J., and PARDEE, J., concur.