alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed April 26, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00161

- CV

____________ GALVESTON COUNTY JUD GE MARK HENRY AND CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS RYAN DENNARD, JOE GUISTI, STEPHEN HOLMES AND KEN CLARK, IN TH EIR OFFICIAL CAPACIT Y AS THE GALVESTON COUNTY COM MISSIONERS COURT , Appellant s
V. KIMBERLY SULLIVAN, J UDGE PROBATE COURT O F GALVESTON COUNTY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galvesto n County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- CV

- 1112



### ORDER
This court issued its opinion and judgment in this case on April 5, 2016

. A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after judgment is rendered. Tex. R. App. Proc. 49.1. Appellant s filed a m otion for rehearing and a motion for en banc
reconsideration on April 21, 2016 , more than 15 days after judgment was rendered.“A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing or

en banc reconsideration if a party files a motion c omplying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A party seeking an extension of time is required to file a motion specifically stating the facts that reasonably explain the need for an exte nsion. Rios v. Calhoon , 889 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1994); see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motion to extend time to include facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension). No motion for extension of time was filed in this case, however. The Texas Supreme Court has consistently treated minor procedural mistakes with leniency to preserve appellate rights. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615,
616

- 17 (Tex. 1997) (implying extension of time when a party perfects an appeal in good faith within the 15

- day period for filing an extension). Thus, a motion for extension of time can be implied when a motion for rehearing is filed within the 15

- day period for filing a motion for extension of time if the appellant thereafter files a

m otion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(1) that contains a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. Houser v. McElveen , 243 S.W.3d 646, 647 (Tex. 2008); Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr. Assoc., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (implying extension but requiring reasonable explanation). Accordingly, unless appellant s file a motion that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(1) and provides a reasonable explana tion for the late filing of their motio n for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration by May 6, 2016 , the court will deny the motion s as untimely.

PER CURIAM
#### ANDERSON *v.*STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

1. Eminent Domain — Determination of Necessity — Judicial Review.

Complaint for superintending control *held,*proper method to obtain judicial review of determination of necessity for taking of property for highway purposes by State highway commission, under authority of *Sweezey*v. *State Sighway Commission, 5*Mich App 34.

2. Costs — -Public Question — Determination of Necessity.

No costs are awarded on appeal by plaintiff from order of trial eourt dismissing complaint for superintending control, sought to review determination of necessity in taking property for *63highway purposes by State highway commission, a public question being involved (Const 1963, art 6; CL 1948, § 213-.197; GCR 1963, 16, 711.3).

*62References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 146; 26 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain §§ 111-113; 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain § 404.

[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1009.

*63Appeal from Kent; Vander Ploeg (Claude), J.

Submitted Division 3 April 6,1966, at Grand Rapids.

(Docket No. 1,291.)

Decided November 9, 1966.

Complaint by Thomas D. Anderson, Sr., and Roberta L. Anderson against the Michigan State Highway Commission for superintending control. Complaint dismissed on motion for accelerated judgment. Plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

*Thomas D. Anderson, Jr.,*for plaintiffs.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Louis J. Caruso*and *Eugene F. Totvnsend, Sr.,*Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.

Per Curiam :

The late Judge Watts took part in the oral presentation of this case, but did not participate in the final preparation of the opinion.

The procedural question before us on appeal being identical with that in *Sweezey*v. *State Highway Commission (Carl*v. *State Highway Commission),*5 Mich App 34*(i.e.*whether GCR 1963, 711.3 supersedes the certiorari provisions of PA 1925, No 352, as amended), it is the opinion of the Court that *Siueezey*controls and accordingly this case is remanded to the circuit court for reinstatement of plaintiff’s complaint for superintending control with leave to amend if required.

No costs, a public question being involved.

Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred,
#### * *Ex Parte*Isaac Packard, Petitioner, &c.

A review may be granted on the petition of a trustee, who has suffered a default upon a *scire facias.*

The said *Packard*sets forth in his petition that he is a partner, with one *Gowen,*in a commercial house in the *Havana;*that said *Gowen,*in the year 1812, received a sum of money from one *Butters,*for which he gave an accountable receipt of the said firm ; that afterwards, in the same year, he, the said *Packard,*was summoned as the trustee of said *Butters*by *T. Kidder f Al.;*and that judgment has been rendered against him on a *scire facias*for 1630 dollars 50 cents debt and 15 dollars 20 cents costs; upon which judgment execution hath issued. The petitioner further states that, since the rendition of that judgment, he has been informed, and verily believes, that the said *Butters*has drawn a bill of exchange *422upon the said firm in the *Havana,*which has been paid, and thereby a very small sum remains due to the said *Butters*from the pet'tioner, or from the said firm. Wherefore he prays for a *supersedeas*of the said execution, and for a review in the premises, that he may be enabled to answer as trustee in this Court, and be charged only for the sum actually in his hands. .

*Aylwin,*for the respondent,

suggested a doubt whether a review could be granted in this case; and he referred to the case of *Dickinson*vs. *Davis,*(1) where the Court say that, where a review is grantable, the cause must be *triable*on the review; intending, no doubt, that there must be an issue to be tried, which cannot be in this case.

*Selfridge*for the petitioner.

(1)

4 *Mass. Rep.*520.

*Per Curiam,.*

We do not recollect an instance of a review granted at the instance of a trustee. But the words of the statute are very comprehensive, and leave us no doubt of our authority in the case. Let the petitioner take his review; but, under the circumstances of this case, he must first pay to the plaintiffs in the original suit the costs of that suit, and also of the *scire facias.*

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[A writ of review lies for one who has been charged as trustee, either by accident or mistake, in the Court of Common *Pleas.—Brigham,*vs. *Elliot,*12 *Pick.*172.

See *Emerson*vs. *Paine,*9 *Verm.*271 — F. H.]
#### § 402.12 Publication of reports required by this part.

Inspection and examination of any report or other document filed as required by this part, and the furnishing by the Office of Labor-Management Standards of copies thereof to any person requesting them, shall be governed by part 70 of this title.

[35 FR 2990, Feb. 13, 1970]
IC Burden Analysis Table 1845-0099 v4

**1845-0099 v2**

**Respondent Type # of Respondents** **# of Responses Hours/Response** **Total Burden Hours**  **Reporting Requirement Cost per**  **Repondent Total Costs** 

**per Respondent**  **Burden by Affected Entity:** Federal Government 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Individuals or Households 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Farms 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 **Sub-total** 0 0 0 $0

**Private Sector** Business or other for-profits 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Not-for profits - application 5 5 0.33 2Recordkeeping $0 $0 Not-for profits - LEA contact 9 0.25 2Recordkeeping Not-for profits - Other qualified professional 1 0.75 1Recordkeeping **Sub-total** 5 15 1.33 5 24.61 $164

**State, Local, or Tribal Governments** Public - application 20 20 0.33 7Recordkeeping $0 $0 Public - LEA contact 34 0.25 9Recordkeeping Public - Other qualified professional 6 0.75 5Recordkeeping Private Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0 **Sub-total** 20 60 1.33 21 24.61 $655

**Total** 

### 25 **75 26**  **$819**

**CURRENT INVENTORY** Current # of Respondents 400 Current # of Responses 2,560 Current Inventory of Hours 834 Difference 

### (375) **(2,485) (808)** 

Document Type Other Available Electronically? Can be submitted Electronically? Yes Percent Reporting Electronically? 0.50 Obligation to Respond? Required to obtain the benefit. Frequency? On Occasion

Revised: 1/28/2013 1

### IC Burden Analysis Table (XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title **Af fected**  **Public Reporting** 

**Requirement Av** **ailable**

**Electronically Can be** 

**Submitted Electronically**  **Percent**

**Reporting Electronically**  **Electronic**

**Capability Obligation to** 

**Respond # of** 

**Respondents # of** 

**Responses Hrs/Resp**  **Total Hours** 

### 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 

## Total 0 0#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

**CURRENT INVENTORY** Current # of Respondents Current # of Responses Current Inventory

of Hours

**Difference** 0 0 #DIV/0!

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 1

### IC Burden Analysis Table (XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title Instrument Filename Frequency Number of Respondents Cost Per

Respondent Total Cost

Per Respondent 

### $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 **Total Costs** $0

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 2
PMN Process Description
#### BOHN v COFFIELD WASHER CO

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 952.

Decided July 1, 1930

Frank, Thomas & Davies, Dayton, O. B. Brown, Dayton, and H. W. Baker, for John F. Ohmer.

D. W. & A. S. Iddings, Dayton, for Joseph Westerdorf.

ALLREAD, J.

The first question for consideration is whether the rental allowed by the company before the appointment of Receiver should be considered as prima facie evidence. In other words whether Ohmer would be entitled to recover the amount of the contract price between Ohmer and the Washer Company during the period of Receivership. Upon this question we reach the conclusion that the contract of the company with Ohmer is not prima facie evidence of the amount due from the Receiver, but that a case must be made in this Court of the reasonable rent. The evidence tends to show that the Receiver only occupied about one-third of the entire floor space of the building and that some negotiations were pending at one time for the reduction of the rent to $400.00 per month. There was no approval by the Judge of these negotiations and the negotiations were not and should not be considered as evidence to fasten any liability upon the Receiver. We have considered all the evidence and have reached the conclusion that the finding of the Court below is a reasonable amount, and his determination would, therefore, be sufficient in the absence of other evidence tending to prove a .different conclusion.

We, therefore, reach the conclusion that a judgment will be entered in this Court similar to that entered by the Court of Common Pleas.

Kunkle, PJ, and Hornbeck, J, concur.
Athens, 

### 1 8 August 20 14 HELLENIC REPUBLIC MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTlJ RF. RefNo: HCAA/ Dl / B ! 

# 2J-fl)6 TRANSPORT ANI> NETWORKS CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY DIRF.CTORA TF. GENERAL OF AIR TRANSPORT AIR TRANSPORT AND INTF.RNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OIVISlOl'i 

### BJLATERAL AIR AGREEMENTS SECTION

Dear Mr Greteh, To: 

### l'Vlr. M. Paul GRETCH l)in:ctor of Office of International Aviation U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S . W. Washington DC 20590 U. S . A .

K i ndly be i n f

ormed that further to the ri ghts provid e d i n the A i r T ranspolt Agreement signed in Washington. on 30 i\pri l 2007, between the European Communit y and the Government of t he Uni ted States of America and the rights provided i n the Air Transpo r t Agreement signed on 31" July 1 99 1 , bet ween the Government of ll e llenie Repub lic and the Government of t he U nited Sta t es extended until .J uly 31 2007 , t he Hellenic C ivil Av iat ion Autho ri ty herew ith confmns that it will grant, on the ba s i s o f r eciprocit y. ri ghts t o the U.S. air carriers to provide non**ch edu** **ed flight~**  to/ fi·om the Greek territory. Director of Air Transport and lntcr·national Agr·ecmcnts Division Anastasios A. Kokkinos

HCM - PO Box 7 0360- 166 01 Glyfada -Athens -GREECE, Tel. +30 210 89 1 6121- 1 49, FAX +3 10 210 89 4 71 3 2 , e · m ail : d 1 b@hcaa.gr
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Nathan Weiss, Deceased. State Tax Commission, Appellant; Joseph D. Weiss et al., as Executors of Nathan Weiss, Deceased, Respondents.

Submitted October *5,*1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*619
      *Harry T. O’Brien, Jr.,*and *Mortimer M. Kassell*for appellant.

*Jacob Lichtenstein*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 10.9

Director Fee Arrangements

 

Each non-employee director of Capitol Federal Financial (the "Company")
      receives an annual retainer, paid monthly, of $20,000 for his or her service
      on
      the board of directors of Capitol Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank") and $20,000
      for his or her service on the Company's board of directors ($40,000 in total).
      No additional fees are paid for attending board or board committee meetings
      of
      either the Bank or the Company.

Directors John C. Dicus, Chairman of the Board, and John B. Dicus,
      President and Chief Executive Officer, are each paid
      $24,000.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 results of operations of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'



/S/ Charles S. Conoley
Charles S. Conoley, 
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 10, 2004
#### STATE ex BROWN, Treasurer v COOPER, Treasurer

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22304.

Decided Nov 19, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Jones, J, not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1258]



[[Page 3242]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 00F-0119]


National Food Processors Association; Filing of Food Additive 
Petition

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the 
National Food Processors Association has filed a petition proposing 
that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe 
use of calcium disodium EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetate) or disodium 
EDTA to promote color retention for all edible types of cooked, canned 
legumes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mary E. LaVecchia, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3072.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 0A4709) has been filed by the National Food 
Processors Association, 1350 I St. NW., suite 300, Washington, DC 
20005. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in 
Sec. 172.120 Calcium disodium EDTA (21 CFR 172.120) and Sec. 172.135 
Disodium EDTA (21 CFR 172.135) to provide for the safe use of calcium 
disodium EDTA or disodium EDTA to promote color retention for all 
edible types of cooked, canned legumes.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is 
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: January 5, 2000.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 00-1258 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
(75 South. 1005)

#### ELLINGTON v. STATE.

(3 Div. 285.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gas-ton Gunter, Judge. Jesse Ellington was convicted of burglary, and appeals.

Affirmed.

The defendant was indicted in the city court of Montgomery, on a charge of burglary, was convicted in the circuit court of Montgomery, and from the judgment of conviction he appeals. The 'only assignment of error is that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence.

Brassell *&*Brassell, of Montgomery, for appellant. 'W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMPORD, J.

We have examined the evidence as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, and are of the opinion that the case presents a jury question. The jury passed on it, after an able charge by the court, and we will not disturb the finding. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
§ 1960.7 Financial management. ( a ) The head of each agency shall ensure that the agency budget submission includes appropriate financial and other resources to effectively implement and administer the agency's occupational safety and health program.
( b ) The Designated Agency Safety and Health Official, management officials in charge of each establishment, safety and health officials at all appropriate levels, and other management officials shall be responsible for planning, requesting resources, implementing, and evaluating the occupational safety and health program budget in accordance with all relevant Office of Management and Budget regulations and documents.
( c ) Appropriate resources for an agency's occupational safety and health program shall include, but not be limited to: ( 1 ) Sufficient personnel to implement and administer the program at all levels, including necessary administrative costs such as training, travel, and personal protective equipment;
( 2 ) Abatement of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions related to agency operations or facilities;
( 3 ) Safety and health sampling, testing, and diagnostic and analytical tools and equipment, including laboratory analyses;
( 4 ) Any necessary contracts to identify, analyze, or evaluate unsafe or unhealthful working conditions and operations;
( 5 ) Program promotional costs such as publications, posters, or films;
( 6 ) Technical information, documents, books, standards, codes, periodicals, and publications; and
( 7 ) Medical surveillance programs for employees.
[45 FR 69798, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 78 FR 47190, Aug. 5, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 1.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The procedural rules in this part apply under the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat. 1494, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141 *et seq.*), and any laws now existing or subsequently enacted, which require the payment of minimum wages, including fringe benefits, to laborers and mechanics engaged in construction activity under contracts entered into or financed by or with the assistance of agencies of the United States or the District of Columbia, based on determinations by the Secretary of Labor of the wage rates and fringe benefits prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects similar to the contract work in the local areas where such work is to be performed. ( 1 ) A listing of laws requiring the payment of wages at rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act can be found at *www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts* or its successor website.
( 2 ) Functions of the Secretary of Labor under these statutes and under Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (15 FR 3176, effective May 24, 1950, reprinted as amended in 5 U.S.C. app. 1 and in 64 Stat. 1267), except for functions assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (*see* part 6 of this subtitle) and appellate functions assigned to the Administrative Review Board (*see* part 7 of this subtitle) or reserved by the Secretary of Labor (*see* Secretary's Order 01-2020 (Feb. 21, 2020)), have been delegated to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division and authorized representatives.
( b ) The regulations in this part set forth the procedures for making and applying such determinations of prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act and any laws now existing or subsequently enacted providing for determinations of such wages by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.
( c ) Procedures set forth in this part are applicable, unless otherwise indicated, both to general wage determinations for contracts in specified localities, and to project wage determinations for use on contract work to be performed on a specific project.
[48 FR 19533, Apr. 29, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 49823, Dec. 4, 1985; 88 FR 57722, Aug. 23, 2023]
EXHIBIT
31.1










CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ronald
J. Evans, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of North American
Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.; and




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




/s/ Ronald J. Evans


Ronald J.
Evans


President
and Chief Executive Officer





April 30,
2010
#### BRANIGAN v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RD. CO. et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.

No. 3556.

Decided Feb. 3, 1930.

Alcorn & Alcorn, Cincinnati, for Branigan.

Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, Cincinnati, for Railroad Co. et.

*456CUSHING, P.J.

The record discloses that at the time of the arrest and indictment, both the defendant Railroad Companies were being operated by the Federal Government, through its Director General of Railroads.

The petition alleges that the defendant companies, through their officers and agents, conspired to hold the indictment over Branigan and prevent him from having a trial until he would submit a written agreement that if the same were nolled he would not sue either of these defendants.

There is no evidence in the record of any conspiracy, nor that any employe of either Railroad Company, either .directly or indirectly, sought to attempt to delay the trial. The indictment was returned, and it was in the hands of the Prosecuting Attorney of the County, and as he was not called as a witness, no reason is assigned for the delay in the trial.

The statute affords an ample remedy for a trial after three terms of court.

The Railroad Companies not having the control or operation of the roads at the time of the arrest and the indictment, and there being no evidence of any conspiracy to delay the trial of the case, the court of common pleas was correct in instructing a verdict for the defendants.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROSS & HAMILTON, J.J., concur.