alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MILLER v UHL

Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Stark Co

No. 1020.

Decided October 17, 1929

LEMERT, J.

We believe and find that a conversion is a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exercised over one’s property in denial of his right or inconsistent with it.

We find and believe that the general rule is that a bailee, although lawfully in possession of the property at the time, is guilty of conversion, if he has made an illegal use of it or has abused the conditions under which it was received or delivered to him.

Burdick on Torts, page 420.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has established the law of conversion in this State with great clarity and definiteness in the 49th OS. 489.

We find that the Court of Appeals of Hamilton County followed this rule in a case reported in 18 Ohio App. 97. The same rule applies in other jurisdictions, 191 Mich. 379.

*91In 12 So., 546.

So we have in this case a bailee, to whom a motor bus was delivered for storage purposes at a specified rate per month, assuming to and using said motor bus for his own purposes over a period of five weeks, all of which is shown by the testimony. The evidence is uncontradicted that the bus was run approximately two thousand miles during that period. There is no attempted justification in this case.

It is elementary that where the facts are admitted or undisputed, the matter of applying the law to the facts is for the Court. So in this case, where the defendant is admittedly the user, it is for the Court to say whether the acts constituted conversion.

On that question there can be no dispute under the rule announced in the foregoing cases. There certainly was a greater user than contemplated in the bailment contract.

We believe the undisputed evidence very clearly shows a conversion by the defendant as a matter of law. It therefore follows in this case that we find no error prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, and that the finding and judgment of the Court below is free from error and that the verdict of the jury in this case was right.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court below will be and the same hereby is affirmed.

Houck, J., and Sherick, J., concur.
§ 1915.158 Lifesaving equipment. ( a ) *Personal flotation devices.* ( 1 ) PFDs (life preservers, life jackets, or work vests) worn by each affected employee must be United States Coast Guard (USCG) approved pursuant to 46 CFR part 160 (Type I, II, III, or V PFD) and marked for use as a work vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels. USCG approval is pursuant to 46 CFR part 160, Coast Guard Lifesaving Equipment Specifications.
( 2 ) Prior to each use, personal floatation devices shall be inspected for dry rot, chemical damage, or other defects which may affect their strength and buoyancy. Defective personal floatation devices shall not be used.
( b ) *Ring life buoys and ladders.* ( 1 ) When work is being performed on a floating vessel 200 feet (61 m) or more in length, at least three 30-inch (0.76 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoys with lines attached shall be located in readily visible and accessible places. Ring life buoys shall be located one forward, one aft, and one at the access to the gangway.
( 2 ) On floating vessels under 200 feet (61 m) in length, at least one 30-inch (0.76 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with line attached shall be located at the gangway.
( 3 ) At least one 30-inch (0.76 m) U. S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with a line attached shall be located on each staging alongside of a floating vessel on which work is being performed.
( 4 ) At least 90 feet (27.43m) of line shall be attached to each ring life buoy.
( 5 ) There shall be at least one portable or permanent ladder in the vicinity of each floating vessel on which work is being performed. The ladder shall be of sufficient length to assist employees to reach safety in the event they fall into the water.
[61 FR 26352, May 24, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 44543, July 3, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Mark E. Woodward, Chief
Executive Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that:



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



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Serena Software, Inc.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief
Executive Officer And Director




Date: June 9, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         177,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    820,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,063,554
<PP&E>                                       3,008,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                 191,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,887,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,406,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,474
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,473,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,887,101
<SALES>                                        130,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               279,224
<CGS>                                          122,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  795,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (614,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (614,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (614,301)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
[No. 50000-7-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. J.C.J., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-8-03788-1, James D. Cayce, J., entered February 2, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# t

l ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. ) ) Under Contract No. W9l7PM-09-C-0065 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58007

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq.

Gdanski & Gdanski, LLP Teaneck, NJ Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Daniel B. McConnell, Esq. James A. Wallace, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East Winchester, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 17 September 2014

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58007, Appeal ofZafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
§ 25.29 Empty weight and corresponding center of gravity. ( a ) The empty weight and corresponding center of gravity must be determined by weighing the airplane with— ( 1 ) Fixed ballast;
( 2 ) Unusable fuel determined under § 25.959; and
( 3 ) Full operating fluids, including— ( i ) Oil;
( ii ) Hydraulic fluid; and
( iii ) Other fluids required for normal operation of airplane systems, except potable water, lavatory precharge water, and fluids intended for injection in the engine.
( b ) The condition of the airplane at the time of determining empty weight must be one that is well defined and can be easily repeated.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-42, 43 FR 2320, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29774, July 20, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          12,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,037
<INVENTORY>                                    167,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               347,541
<PP&E>                                         335,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 556,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,352
<BONDS>                                         79,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,881
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   556,562
<SALES>                                        597,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               597,095
<CGS>                                          361,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  555,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex CROY v INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21992.

Decided March 5, 1930

Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Marshall, CJ., dissents.
#### § 37.72 When must a complaint be filed?

Generally, a complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. However, for good cause shown, the Director may extend the filing time. The time period for filing is for the administrative convenience of CRC, and does not create a defense for the respondent.
§ 2700.21 Effect of filing notice of contest of citation or order. ( a ) The filing of a notice of contest of a citation or order issued under section 104 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 814, does not constitute a challenge to a proposed penalty assessment that may subsequently be issued by the Secretary under section 105(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(a), which is based on that citation or order. A challenge to such a proposed penalty assessment must be filed as a separate notice of contest of the proposed penalty assessment. *See* § 2700.26.
( b ) An operator's failure to file a notice of contest of a citation or order issued under section 104 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 814, shall not preclude the operator from challenging, in a penalty proceeding, the fact of violation or any special findings contained in a citation or order including the assertion in the citation or order that the violation was of a significant and substantial nature or was caused by the operator's unwarrantable failure to comply with the standard.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44207, Aug. 4, 2006]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of  1934,  and the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the Registrant.



                                By:/s/James C. McGill
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  James C. McGill
                                   Title: President and Chief
                                           Executive Officer



                                By:/s/A. Christine Baker
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Name:   A. Christine Baker
                                   Title:  Secretary, Treasurer and
                                            Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 14, 2003
#### § 33.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
                                  States Code)

Pursuant to (b) of section 1350, I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
     "Form 10-K ") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
     information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By: /s/ Stephen E. Bablitch
---------------------------
Stephen E. Bablitch
Chief Executive Officer
March 21, 2003
[No. 20391-3-III.

Division Three.

October 29, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Cephas William Parham, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-1-00470-1, James M. Murphy, J., entered August 9, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kato, JJ.
#### § 37.92 What notice must the Director issue if he or she finds no reasonable cause to believe that a violation has taken place?

If the Director determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that a violation has taken place, he or she must issue a Final Determination under § 37.100. The Final Determination represents the Department's final agency action on the complaint.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Crdentia Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, James J. TerBeest, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to my knowledge:

1.                                     the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                    theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

This Certification hasnot been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

 
| Date:    November 14, 2006 |   | By:                     | /s/  James J. TerBeest |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   | James J. TerBeest       |
|                                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
(79 South. 878)

#### DENHAM v. WEAVER.

(8 Div. 560.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 16, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Wm. C. Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RYANT TRIMALE PRATT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

B. HEDRICKS, Warden; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15148 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01129-JD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ryant Trimale Pratt appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process 

violation stemming from his disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15148 

2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pratt’s due process claim arising from a 

July 2013 disciplinary hearing because the result of that disciplinary hearing was 

overturned on appeal. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(administrative reversal may cure due process violations).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellees’ motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### AGOSTINO v STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellate Case No. 84-10466

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

September 19, 1985

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

S. Grant Halliday for appellant.

Arthur C. Shiro, State Attorney’s Office, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MANUEL MENENDEZ, JR., Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Bernard David Agostino, was convicted upon nonjury *155trial of selling fireworks, a misdemeanor, in violation of Florida Statute Section 791.02. On appeal Appellant argues:

> (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for discharge pursuant to the “speedy trial” rule, Rule 3.191 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure;

> (2) that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the judgment of guilty.

Inasmuch as the first issue is hereby decided in Appellant’s favor, the second issue will not be addressed.

Appellant was “taken into custody”, within the meaning of rule 3.191 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, on May 25, 1984. His trial did not commence until more than 90 days later, on September 5, 1984. Prior to the commencement of trial the trial court denied Appellant’s timely filed Motion for Discharge.

Although trial in this case had on two occasions been scheduled prior to September 5, 1984 and within the 90 day speedy trial period, continuances had been granted on those occasions at the request of the prosecution. Appellant never requested nor was he given any continuances. Appellant was available for trial on all occasions. An extension of the speedy trial time period was never sought nor was such an extension ever granted. Moreover, the record indicates that the failure to hold trial within the prescribed time frame was in no way attributable to the Appellant or his counsel. There appears to be no appropriate reason for denying the motion for discharge. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DECIDED this 19th day of September, 1985 at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48147-48148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20013]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 
Committee.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41, Code 
of Federal Regulations, Section 102.3 65(a), and following consultation 
with the Committee Management Secretariat,

[[Page 48148]]

General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Basic 
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee will be renewed for a two-year 
period beginning July 29, 2011. The Committee provides advice and 
recommendations to the Director, Office of Science concerning the Basic 
Energy Sciences program.
    Additionally, the renewal of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 
Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the 
Department's mission and to be in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by 
law and agreement. The Committee will operate in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and 
regulations issued in implementation of that Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Harriet Kung, Designated Federal 
Officer, by telephone at (301) 903-3081.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 29, 2011.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-20013 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P