alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MACK TRUESDALE,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 21 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of April

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00198-CR

Boyce C. ATKINSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC 17615

Honorable Mark Stroeher, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Boyce C. Atkinson’s filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Atkinson has not paid the clerk’s and reporter’s fees for preparing and filing the 

record, and this court granted Atkinson’s retained counsel’s motion to withdraw. On July 3, we 

abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing and make findings 

of fact. 

The trial court held a hearing on July 18, 2018, at which it received an affidavit from 

Atkinson’s former counsel and heard testimony from Atkinson. The trial court made thorough 

written findings of fact on July 18, and the findings have been filed in a supplemental clerk’s 

record. The trial court found: (1) Atkinson desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) Atkinson is not 

indigent; and (3) Atkinson does not desire to proceed pro se, but has not made the necessary 

arrangements for retaining new counsel. 

The clerk and court reporter provided estimates of the cost to prepare and file the 

appellate record and the trial court admonished Atkinson that he is responsible for paying the 

clerk’s and reporters’ fees. The court further admonished Atkinson the appeal may be dismissed 

if he fails to pay for the clerk’s record, and he advised Atkinson of the need to make 

arrangements to retain appellate counsel. 

We reinstate this appeal on the active docket of this court. We order Boyce C. Atkinson 

to file written proof in this court by August 17, 2018, that the clerk’s and court reporter’s fees
for preparation and filing of the record have been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk 

and court reporter have been made to pay the fees. If Atkinson fails to file such proof regarding 

the clerk’s fee within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). If Atkinson fails to provide such proof regarding the reporter’s fee, 

the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a 

reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
| Earnings                to Fixed Charges                         |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------|--------|--------|----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |   |   | 10/1/05- |   |   | 2/17/06- |   |   |   |   |
|                                                             |   | 2005   |   |   | 2/16/06  |   |   | 09/30/06 |   |   | 2007   |   |
| Earnings:                                                        |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |
| Income                (loss) before taxes                        |   |   | 47.8   |   |     |   | 19.3   |     |   |   | -51.1  |   |   |   | -207.5 |   |
| Interest                                                         |   |   | 16.7   |   |     |   | 7.6    |     |   |   | 46.5   |   |   |   | 237.6 |   |
| Interest                portion of rental                expense |   |   | 3.4    |   |     |   | 0.9    |     |   |   | 2.2    |   |   |   | 14.7 |   |
|                                                             |   |   | 67.9   |   |     |   | 27.8   |     |   |   | -2.4   |   |   |   | 44.8 |   |
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed                Charges:                                    |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest                                                         |   |   | 16.7   |   |     |   | 7.6    |     |   |   | 46.5   |   |   |   | 237.6 |   |
| Interest                capitalized                              |   |   | 0.0    |   |     |   | 0.0    |     |   |   | -0.6   |   |   |   | -1.5 |   |
| Interest                portion of rental                expense |   |   | 3.4    |   |     |   | 0.9    |     |   |   | 2.2    |   |   |   | 14.7 |   |
|                                                             |   |   | 20.1   |   |     |   | 8.5    |     |   |   | 48.1   |   |   |   | 250.8 |   |
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio                                                            |   |   | 3.4    |   |     |   | 3.3    |     |   |   | 0.0    |   |   |   | 0.2 |   |
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shortfall                (overage)                               |   |   | -47.8  |   |     |   | -19.3  |     |   |   | 50.5   |   |   |   | 206.0 |   |
#### § 2580.412-8 The nature of the duties or activities to which the bonding requirement relates.

The bond required under section 13 is limited to protection for those duties and activities from which loss can arise through fraud or dishonesty. It is not required to provide the same scope of coverage that is required in faithful discharge of duties bonds under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 or in the faithful performance bonds of public officials.
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.

§ 1926.4 Rules of practice for administrative adjudications for enforcement of safety and health standards. ( a ) The rules of practice for administrative adjudications for the enforcement of the safety and health standards contained in subpart C of this part and the following subparts shall be the same as those published in part 6 of this title with respect to safety and health violations of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (69 Stat. 1035), except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) In the case of debarment, the findings required by section 107(d) of the Act shall be made by the hearing examiner or the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, as the case may be. Whenever, as provided in section 107(d)(2), a contractor requests termination of debarment before the end of the 3-year period prescribed in that section, the request shall be filed in writing with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health who shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that the request has been received and afford interested persons an opportunity to be heard upon the request, and thereafter the provisions of part 6 of this title shall apply with respect to prehearing conferences, hearings and related matters, and decisions and orders.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LIUZHEN M O U, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72274 Age n c y No. A088-293-197 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Liuz he n M ou, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t, Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination ba se d on the inc onsiste nc y be twe e n M ou’ s writte n

sta te m e nt a nd te stim ony re ga rding he r a lle ge d m istre at m e nt by polic e . Se eShre

s tha , 590 F.3d a

t 1045-48 (a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination wa s re a sona ble unde r the RE AL ID Ac t’ s

“ tota l ity of the c irc um sta

nc e s” sta nda rd). The a ge nc y

re a sona bly re je c te d M ou’ s e xpla nations for theinc onsiste nc y . Se eRiv e ra v . Muk a se y , 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th C ir. 2007). Furthe r, substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination that M ou fa ile d to provide suffic ie nt c orroboration for he r c l a im . Se eRe n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1089-94 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re j e c t M ou’ s c onte ntion tha t she wa s not given a

n opportunity

to e xpla in why

she wa s una

ble to provide e vide nc e c o rroborating owne rship of theprope rty in que stion. Se eid . at 1094. W e a lso re je c t M o u’ s c o nte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to c onside r a de q uate ly he r fine re c e ipt. Ac c ordingly , M o u’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils.

2 1 2 - 7 2 2 7 4Fina lly , M ou doe s not ra ise any argum e nts in he r ope ning brie f re g arding the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of he r C AT c la im . S e eMartine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by argum e nt a

re de e m e d wa ive d). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 2 - 7 2 2 7 4
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1327-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1327-DR), dated May 3, 2000, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 11, 2000

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 3, 2000:

Labette and Neosho Counties for Public Assistance. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 00-12811 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### IN RE: ESTATE OF PIERRE

Case No. 74-790-CF

Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

April 13, 1989

OPINION OF THE COURT

MATTOX S. HAIR, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RECOVER FUNDS*

All affected parties having been heard upon the petition of Mark E. Kuntz to recover the sum of $116,102.50 which escheated to the State of Florida pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court dated October 27, 1975, and the Court finding that Mark E. Kuntz is the only intestate heir of decedent, Pierre Dmitry Pierre, and that Kuntz’s right to the estate vested on June 27, 1974 at the time of decedent’s death, *Coral Gables First National Bank v Hart,*20 So. 647, 649 (Fla. 1945), *In re Mooney’s Estate,*395 So.2d 608, 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and the Court further finding that Kuntz s rights are governed by Section 731.33(4), Florida Statutes (1973), as it existed on June 27, 1974, *In re Ruff’s Estate,*32 So.2d 840, 843 (Fla. 1947), and that Kuntz is entitled to inherit the estate, and that his petition was filed ithin the twenty (20) years limitation period provided for in Section 731.33(4), Florida Statutes, thereby constituting a valid claim to the escheated funds, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

*1891. The Petition to Recover Funds is granted, and Petitioner, Mark E. Kuntz, is entitled to receive the sum of $116,102.50, which escheated to the State of Florida by Circuit Court Order dated October 27, 1975.

2. The appropriate official of the State of Florida is hereby directed to pay to Petitioner, Mark E. Kuntz, the sum of $116,102.50, without interest.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 13th day of April, 1989.
#### Bryan Hicks, Respondent, v Montefiore Medical Center, Defendant, and Turner Construction Corporation, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[697 NYS2d 606]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silver, J.), entered June 17, 1998, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously reversed, without costs, the motion denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

In his pleadings, plaintiff claimed that he had been walking on the scaffold when his foot struck a protruding piece of metal causing him to fall, and that he broke his left ankle as a result of the fall. However, the report of plaintiff’s treating physician indicates that the ankle was injured when he was struck by an object at a job site, while the accident report indicates that he struck his ankle on the “cross-brace”, raising an issue that the ankle was injured while plaintiff was still on the scaffold.

The IAS Court, granting summary judgment, concluded that plaintiff tripped on the cross-brace and fell, and that he had not been provided with safety devices pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), which proximately caused the injury. However, find*15ings regarding how and where the ankle was actually injured cannot be made on this record.

Injuring an ankle while merely located on a scaffold is not an elevation-related risk imposing strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(Nieves v Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrig. Corp.,*93 NY2d 914; *Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*188 AD2d 853, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 1067), where such an injury results from the ordinary, non-elevation relation dangers found at a work site, albeit located on *(supra)*or near *(Fulton v Northland Assocs.,*248 AD2d 1020) a scaffold. The conflicting evidence submitted in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment raises factual issues as to whether the ankle was injured while plaintiff was still on the scaffold, or whether it resulted from a fall from the scaffold, or whether he actually had been on the scaffold when the incident giving rise to the injury occurred. In view of factual discrepancies in plaintiffs own evidence, a triable issue exists *(Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth.,*194 AD2d 460) warranting denial of summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(Laguna v 285 Cent. Park W. Corp.,*244 AD2d 241; *Holt v Welding Servs.,*264 AD2d 562). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 205A/13 a

| | ISSN 1725-2466 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 205A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 47o anno13 agosto 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2466

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 205A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

47o anno13 agosto 2004

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informazioni |
| | Agenzia esecutiva per l'energia intelligente |
| 2004/C 205A/1 | Invito a presentare candidature | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

III   Informazioni

Agenzia esecutiva per l'energia intelligente

2004/C 205A/1

Invito a presentare candidature

1

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

III Informazioni

Agenzia esecutiva per l'energia intelligente

| 13.8.2004 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 205/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2004

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 205/1

---

INVITO A PRESENTARE CANDIDATURE

(2004/C 205 A/01)

L'Agenzia esecutiva per l'energia intelligente cerca candidati per coprire alcuni posti. Informazioni dettagliate su tali posti, le missioni dell'Agenzia e la procedura da seguire per presentare l'atto di candidatura sono pubblicate sul sito Internet dell'Agenzia al seguente indirizzo: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/intelligent/index_en.html.

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12592]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  Vol. 65, No. 
90/Tuesday, May 9, 2000.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

CHANGE IN MEETING:  A majority of the Board Members determined by 
recorded vote that the business of the Board required moving the Board 
Meeting date from Tuesday, May 16, 2000 to Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 
this time and that no earlier announcement was possible.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Underwood, (202) 314-6065.

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12592 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Sedona Worldwide  Incorporated  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Joseph P. Martori,  Chairman of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Joseph P. Martori
-------------------------------
Joseph P. Martori
Chairman
May 12, 2003

/s/ Margaret M. Eardley
-------------------------------
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2003
#### RUTSKY v LUCIA

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided September 23, 1929

Messrs. Davis, Young & Vrooman, Cleveland, for Rutsky.

William J. Corrigan, Esq., Cleveland, for Lucia.

Sullivan, J, concurs. Levine, J, not participating.
§ 1952.18 Wyoming. ( a ) The Wyoming State plan received initial approval on May 3, 1974.
( b ) The Wyoming State plan received final approval on June 27, 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 Wyoming, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 6 safety and 2 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 27, 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/wyoming.html .*