alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 24**THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.DIRECTORS’ POWER OF ATTORNEY     Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson & Sessions Co.,an Ohio corporation, which anticipates filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,Washington, D. C., an annual report of the Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2005 (“2005 Form 10-K”) under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, asamended, does hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly andseverally, with full power and substitution and re-substitution, as attorney(s) to sign for him andin his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 2005 Form 10-K, including any amendments andexhibits thereto, with full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and thingswhatsoever necessary and required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to allintents and purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving the actsof said attorney(s) and any substitute(s) therefor in connection with such signing:     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of the 16th day ofFebruary 2006.   /s/ James T. Bartlett /s/ John C. Dannemiller   James T. Bartlett John C. DannemillerDirector Director   /s/ Francis H. Beam, Jr. /s/ George R. Hill   Francis H. Beam, Jr. George R. HillDirector Director   /s/ William H. Coquillette /s/ A. Malachi Mixon, III   William H. Coquillette A. Malachi Mixon, IIIDirector Director   /s/ Martin J. Cleary /s/ D. Van Skilling   Martin J. Cleary D. Van SkillingDirector Director
#### Institute of the Metropolis, Inc., Appellant, *v.*University of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 20, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*505
      *Emil Klein*and *Simon H. Braunstone*for appellant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Dorothy U. Smith*and *Henry Epstein*of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Httbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Order entered January 21 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 00898
- CR
BRANDON LAWRENCE COOPER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 401
- 81168
- 2011



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS the State’s motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief. We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered on December 16, 2013 as of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Cle rk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 12.1 Vocational Rehabilitation—Applicants

## Table 12.1: Vocational Rehabilitation—Applicants: Federal Fiscal Year 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-50353

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM P. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

WILMA M. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-94-CV-897)

November 16, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

The Taylors appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action with prejudice. The Taylors

allege that the district court erred by dismis sing their tort

claims as barred by the application statute of limitations;2

dismissing their slande r, libel, and fraud claims for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissing as frivolous their claims

that the Government refused to notify them of its intent to

prosecute and refused to release Mrs. Taylor “as a prisoner”, and

their claim for damages arising out of the Government’s response to

a discovery request; dismissing their Freedomof Information Act

claim; and by dismissing their Privacy Act claims. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. We do note, however, that Mr. Taylor lacks

standing to bring the tort claims against the United States because

his allegations fail to show an actionable inte rest or actual

injury to himself on which a tort claim under Texas law could rest.

See Johnson v. Sawyer

, 47 F.3d. 716, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc);

Texas Assn. of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W.2d 440,

445 (Tex. 1995); Nationwide Property a nd Cas. Ins. Co. v.

McFarland

, 887 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994); Carr v. Mobile

Video Tapes, Inc.

, 893 S.W.2d 613 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). We also

note that dismissal of the claims for refusal to notify of intent

to prosecute, refusal to release “as a prisoner” and for damages

for discovery responses under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was error because

the Taylo rs are not proceeding in forma pauperis. We affirm the

dismissal because the claims totally lack merit. See Bickford v.

International Speedway Corp.

, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981).

Except as indicated, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by

the district court. Taylor v. United States , No. SA-94-897 (W.D.

Tex. March 20, 1995).3

AFFIRMED.
#### § 102.115 Certification of Board papers and documents.

The Executive Secretary of the Board, or, in the event of the Executive Secretary's absence or disability, whomever may be designated by the Board in the Executive Secretary's place, will certify copies of all papers and documents which are a part of any of the files or records of the Board as necessary or desirable from time to time.
# NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST

**Request to Revoke**  **Transfer of Education**  **Award** (#12) **Use this form if you wish revoke**  **all or a portion of an**  **education award amount that you transferred**  **.** You m ay revoke any unused transferred award amount at any time prior to its ex piration and for any reason . The funds will be credited to your account unless your award has expired
. You must make a separate revocation for each award amount that you transferred. Select the Help button for additional information on award transfer cr iteria and constraints. [ Your NSP ID/SSN ] [your name] Select transfer award term of s ervice [Transferred award amount ] amount you wish to revoke [ Award t ransfer recipient ] [ NSP ID ] [ Address ] [ email ]
**I revoke** the amount stated of the award transferred to the recipient named above **. I certify**  that all of the information I have provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. **I understand** that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished b y a fine or im prisonment or both under Section 1001 of Title 18, USC. , exclusion from participation in federal programs, and forfeiture of benefits I may receive as a result of my program participation , or other actions authorized by the Civil Fraud Remedi es Act, 31USC 3801
- 3812.

Submitting this form electronically constitutes your s ignature
**PRIVACY ACT NOTICE -**  In compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the following information is provided: The collection of this information is authorized by the provis ions of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended by the National & Community Service Act of 1993 and the Serve America Act of 2009 . This form is used by AmeriCorps members to revoke an education award amount previously transferred to a qu alified recipient and to verify certain legal requirements. Information may also be provided to federal, sta te, and local agencies for law enforcement purposes. Information will not otherwise be disclosed outside the Corporation without written permissio n. The Internal Revenue Service has determined that the education award is taxable income in the year it is used. Failure to disclose the Social Security Number or any other information may result in the payment being delayed or denied. **PUBLIC REPORTI NG BURDEN** 
- Estimated time to complete this form, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering & filling in information is 5 minutes. Send comments regarding this burden or the content of the form to the National Service Trust. Respondents are not required to fill out this form unless it displays a valid OMB control number on this page. (See 5 CFR 1320 5(b)(2)(b)). OMB Number 3045
-
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and Communication (1210).                    

*Date/Time:*

July 6, 2000—Room 380 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)

July 7, 2000—Room 380 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)

July 17, 2000—Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (2 p.m.-6 p.m.)

July 18, 2000—Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)

July 19, 2000—Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nora Sabelli, Program Director, Research Evaluation and Communication Division, National Science Foundation, Room 855, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1650.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate IERI Proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

      ( print page 32132)    
Dated: May 17, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12827 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### HATCH et v NEWARK TELEPHONE CO et

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co

No 1767.

Decided Jan 31, 1930

Hedges, Hoover & Tingley, Columbus, for Hatch et.

Wilson & Rector, Columbus, for Telephone Co et.

Judges FUNK, PARDEE and WASHBURN (9th Dist) sitting.
[No. 19977-1-III.

Division Three.

October 24, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William T. Simmons, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lincoln County, No. 00-1-00028-3, Philip W. Borst, J., entered January 23, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
#### PECK, Receiver, v P U C et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21974.

Decided Feb. 5, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.
§ 1981.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A, part 18 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to a judge who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo, on the record. Administrative law judges have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the named person object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The administrative law judge may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[69 FR 17591, Apr. 5, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 1790, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### JOHN KOSKO and Another v. LAWRENCE HAY.1

October 29, 1896.

Nos. 10,242 — (179).

Action in justice court, in which Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company was summoned as garnishee and L. L. Olmsted and another intervened, as claimants of $50, disclosed by the garnishee. From a judgment in favor of intervenors plaintiffs appealed to the district court for Hennepin county, where a trial was had before Jamison, J., who ordered judgment in favor of intervenors. From an order denying a motion for a new trial plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*O. H.*Slack, for appellants.

*J. JV.*Becvmes, for respondents.

1

 Reported in 68 N. W. 1102.

PER CURIAM.

We decline to waste time in a discussion of the questions raised by this appeal. It is without merit. •

Order.affirmed.
§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness. ( a ) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
( b ) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
#### BUCYRUS (city) v SEARS

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Crawford Co

No 1238.

Decided March 19, 1930

Charles F. Schaber, Bucyrus, for City.

R. V. Sears, Bucyrus and C. J. Scroggs, Bucyrus, for Sears.

HUGHES, J.

- From our examination of the cases digested, we find a line of authorities without conflict, upholding the right of municipalities to make water charges and light charges for service furnished- by city plants, a lien against the property supplied.

In the case of City of East Grand Fork v. Luck, a Minnesota case reported in 107 N. W. at 392, and cited in the brief for the city, a review of many of the cases is had, and the various objections to such procedure by a municipality are ably answered, both by the argument of the learned judge who rendered the opinion, and by the cases cited by him.

It is said therein, that the property owner has no absolute right to call upon a city for water without regard to suitable terms controlling its use, and the city has the undoubted right to prescribe what those terms shall be, subject only to the rule that they must be reasonable and not prohibitory.

In the case at bar, the city had provided by its rules and regulations, that any property furnished with water would be chargeable therewith and that a lien' would be held against it for the charges. A property owner who pipes his property and connects with the city water works, assents and agrees to these terms.

Judge McKenna, in rendering the opinion in the case ■ of Dunbar v. City of New *306York, 251 U. S. 516, makes the same comment; that is, in substance he says that that the consent of the owner was implied from the fact that the law and the rules and regulations imposing the water rents, preceded the service, which the owner permitted his property to receive, and likewise the water charge in controversy was imposed and made a lien on plaintiff’s property by these rules, and the consent of plaintiff in implied. No other conclusion can be possible.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings according to law. Exceptions saved.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.
§ 36.420 Access to schools operated by LEAs. A recipient that is a local educational agency shall not, on the basis of sex, exclude any person from admission to: ( a ) Any institution of vocational education operated by such recipient; or
( b ) Any other school or educational unit operated by such recipient, unless such recipient otherwise makes available to such person, pursuant to the same policies and criteria of admission, courses, services, and facilities comparable to each course, service, and facility offered in or through such schools.
#### WHITE CROSS CREAM CO v PHILLIPS, d b a, WHITE CROWN CREAM CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10560.

Decided June 23, 1930

John A. Elden, Cleveland, for White Cross Co.

Ehrbar, Crist & Heiser, Cleveland, for Phillips.

*465LEVINE, J.

We have examined the jars offered in evidence by both the plaintiff and defendant, and we are of the opinion that the label used by the defendant has a tendency to confuse and deceive the public. Likewise the advertising engaged in by the defendant under the name of “White Crown Cream” has a tendency to mislead and confuse the public.

We hold that these actions of defendant amount to unfair competition under the law.

We do not find-such similarity in the jars used by the defendant as would tend to mislead and confuse. Defendant naturally has a right to sell his product and in order to do so he must employ a container of some sort which, he has- a right to do. He has no right, however, to use a name and label so similar to that used by plaintiff as to confuse prospective buyers.

The defendant will therefore be enjoined from using the name and designation of “White Crown Cream” and from using the label attached to the jar with the designation “White Crown Cream” upon it. He is also enjoined from holding out to the public by advertising or otherwise, his particular product under the name of “White Crown Cream”.

As to the prayer for an accounting, there is no showing in the evidence as to the damage done to the plaintiff by the conduct of the defendant. It seems to us rather difficult of proof. We shall make no order for the present as to an accounting. If plaintiff’s counsel insists upon his technical right we shall make an appropriate order when such request for an accounting is made by plaintiff's counsel.

Vickery, PJ, and Sullivan, J, concur.
#### LUDWIG HOMMEL & CO v WOODSFIELD (Village)

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21894.

Decided March 19, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
g:~ 

.. -="'"·~ ..... NCDENR 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Division of Air Quality 

Michael F. Easley, Governor 

James Palmer 

Regional Administrator 

USEP A Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth S tree!, S W 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Palmer: 

Williarn G. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

B. Keith Overcash, P.E., Director 

June 15, 2007 

I am pleased to submit the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the North Carolina 

portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (referred to as the Metro I ina area). The State's public hearing took place on 

April 26, 2007, in Charlotte, North Carolina. 

The attaimnent demonstration documents that the Metrolina area will attain the 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), fulfilling requirements of Section 172( c), 182(a) 

and 182(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act as amended. Enclosed is the complete package containing 

the narrative and all of the appendices with the supporting documentation and the complete 

hearing record. 

I respectfully request that you commence the federal approval process for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattaimnent area attainment 

demonstration. 

If you should have any questions, please contact Laura Boothe of my staff at (919) 733-1488 or 

laura.boothe@ncmail.net. 

BKO:lab 

Enclosure 

cc: Kay Prince, US EPA 

Dick Schutt, USEP A 

Nacosta Ward, USEPA 

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 

Phone: 919-715-6232 I FAX 919-715-7175 I Internet: www.ncair.org 

Brock Nicholson, NCDAQ 

Sheila Holman, NCDAQ 

Laura Boothe, NCDAQ 

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper 

N~rthCarolina 

Naturall!f