alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BLACK v DAYTON (City)

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No. 882.

Decided June 26, 1929

Mr. Horace J. Boesch, Dayton, for Black.

Messrs. J. B. Harshman and Lon V. Volz, Dayton, for City.

KUNKLE, J.

We have carefully read the record in this case and considered the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. Counsel are thoroughly familiar with the evidence in this case and it will not be necessary to quote therefrom in detail, but 'from an examination of the testimony, we think there is evidence supporting the finding of the Municipal Court that the plaintiff in error was at the time in question unlawfully operating his car. There is testimony tending to show that the automobile being driven by plaintiff in error, approached the crossing in question at the rate of from thirty to thirty-five miles an hour, that the other automobile, namely, the Chevrolet, was in the street intersection when the automobile driven by plaintiff in error reached the intersection. Counsel stress the ordinance in reference to preferential main thoroughfares.

There is evidence in the record which, if believed by the Tower, court, would justify the finding tha.t the driver of the Chevrolet was in possession of this street intersection, before the plaintiff in error reached the same. The rule of law in such cases is well settled in Ohio.

There is a conflict, in some respects, in the testimony, but the record contains evidence which in our opinion warranted the lower court in finding the plaintiff in error guilty. At least, we would not be justified in holding that the finding and judgment of the lower court was not supported by the evidence.

*53Finding no error in the record which we consider prejudicial to plaintiff in error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Allread and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of VOS International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan J. Ligi, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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\
|---

|Allan J. Ligi
|-------------

|Allan J. Ligi, PresidentPrincipal Executive OfficerJanuary 02, 2007
|-------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059584
<NAME> ALIANT COMMUNICATIONS CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           17865
<SECURITIES>                                      6687
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27126
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                       4832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58903
<PP&E>                                          496814
<DEPRECIATION>                                  274909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  293644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            61022
<BONDS>                                          44000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       4499
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      128944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    293644
<SALES>                                           6907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                194606
<CGS>                                             3871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   133490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  57581
<INCOME-TAX>                                     22053
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              35528
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     35303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 35303.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 35303.00


</TABLE>
#### SALT CREEK TWP BD of ED v HOCKING CO BD of ED

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Hocking Co

Decided Mar 11, 1929

George W Christman, Log.an, for Twp Board.

Eugene Wright, Logan, for County Board.

BY THE COURT

To adopt the view that these notices were never written in ink would be to impute to those interested in the transfer of this territory the base intentions of accomplishing this transfer without the knowledge of those concerned. Certainly it can not be found that this transfer was furtively done, for the affected territory, and indeed some territory outside the affected territory, was effectively searched for both proponents of the movement and opponents of the same. We find that notice was given according to law.

The second proposition upon which the plaintiff relied is that a majority of the electors of the affefcted territory duly filed a remonstrance against the proposed transfer. The difficulty in this question lies in ascertaining just how many electors there were in the affected territory and how many qualified to act in the premises actually fiied a remonstrance. After examining the testimony bearing upon the qualifications of all those whose right to participate is in dispute we adopt the views of the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and accepting his conclusions we determine that a majority of the electors of the territory did not file a remonstrance against the proposed change.

Another question that is of considerable interest in the case is whether or not the plaintiff board of education has any right to maintain this action. There is no questipn that a dissatisfied elector of the affected territory would have .a right to maintain an action in injunction but we are far from persuaded that the board of education, whose duty it is soley to administer the *213laws relating to the public schools, has any substantial interest in keeping within its district any particular territory. As a board of education it has no property interests to be conserved and we are doubtful of its right to either expend its money or loan' its name to carrying on litigation for the benefit of some of the people of its district. The question has not been raised, however, and we dispose of the question upon the facts.

The petition is dismissed.

Middleton, PJ and Blosser, J, concur.
#### § 2580.412-13 The meaning of “funds” in determining the amount of the bond.

The amount of the bond depends on the amount of “funds” “handled”, and shall be sufficient to provide bonding protection against risk of loss through fraud or dishonesty for all plan funds, including other property similar to funds or in the nature of funds. As such, the term “funds” shall be deemed to include and be equivalent to “funds and other property” of the plan as described in § 2580.412-4. With respect to any item of “funds or other property” which does not have a cash or readily ascertainable market value, the value of such property may be estimated on such basis as will reasonably reflect the loss the plan might suffer if it were mishandled.
#### § 2205.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency and to its development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technology.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GASTON ORTIZ-ORTIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50547

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03263-L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Gaston Ortiz-Ortiz appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed upon

remand following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50547

Ortiz-Ortiz contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level

enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because none of his prior

convictions constitutes a crime of violence. 

Prior to committing the instant offense, Ortiz-Ortiz suffered a conviction

under California Penal Code § 422, for making criminal threats. This conviction is

categorically a conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See

United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). OrtizOrtiz’s collateral challenges to his section 422 conviction are unavailing because

he was represented by counsel in that proceeding. See Custis v. United States, 511

U.S. 485, 496-97 (1994) (defendant in federal sentencing proceeding cannot

collaterally attack validity of prior state conviction used to enhance sentence

except where there was a “failure to appoint counsel at all”). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements of Kyocera Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos.33-84904, 33-98132, 33-99134, 33-99140, 33-99150, 33-99154, 333-10934, 333-100248, 333-109200 and 333-118678) of our report dated June 25, 2004, on our audits of the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Kyocera Corporation and Consolidated Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2004, and for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2004, which report appears in this 2004 AnnualReport on Form 20-F. 

 

/s/ ChuoAoyama PricewaterhouseCoopers 

 

 

ChuoAoyamaPricewaterhouseCoopers 

Osaka, Japan 

 

 

September 21, 2004
§ 1985.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and requests for a hearing. ( a ) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and/or preliminary order, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees under CFPA, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1985.105. The objections, request for a hearing, and/or request for attorney fees must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings, the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal is considered the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
( b ) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which will not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The respondent may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement, which shall be granted only based on exceptional circumstances. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings and/or the preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[81 FR 14383, Mar. 17, 2016, as amended at 86 FR 1792, Jan. 11, 2021]
Exhibit 10.1

 

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

999 Vanderbilt Beach Road—3rd Floor

Naples, FL 34108

 

March 31, 2015

 

Dear John,

 

This letter agreement (this “Letter Agreement”) memorializes our discussions and agreement concerning the performance goals applicable to certain equity-based awards contemplated by the Employee Stock Option Agreement — Performance Options, dated as of November 21, 2014, between Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and you (the “Option Agreement”), and the form of Performance Stock Unit Agreement, between the Company and you (the “PSU Agreement”), attached to the Employment Agreement, dated as of November 21, 2014, between the Company and you (the “Employment Agreement”), reflecting performance stock units to be granted thereunder (the “PSUs”).

 

1.                                  Definitions.  Unless otherwise defined in this Letter Agreement, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Option Agreement or the PSU Agreement, as applicable.

 

2.                                  Determination of Performance Goal

 

a.              Option Agreement.  Notwithstanding the terms of Section 2(b) of the Option Agreement, the Performance Goal shall be determined by the Committee with your input, and communicated to you, no later than April 30, 2015.

 

b.              PSU Agreement.  Notwithstanding the terms of Section 2(b) of the PSU Agreement, the Performance Goal shall be determined by the Committee with your input, and communicated to you, no later than April 30, 2015.

 

3.                                  Additional Performance Goal for PSUs.  You consent to the addition of a second performance goal in respect of the PSUs, in addition to the Performance Goal referenced in the PSU Agreement.  Such second performance goal is that adopted by action of the Committee at a meeting held on March 31, 2015, prior to your execution of this Letter Agreement.

 

4.                                  Miscellaneous.  This Letter Agreement shall constitute an amendment of the Option Agreement and the form of the PSU Agreement attached to the Employment Agreement.  Except as otherwise provided herein, the Employment Agreement, Option Agreement and PSU Agreement shall remain unaltered and of full force and effect.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing terms of this Letter Agreement by signing where indicated below.

 

	
 
    	
Sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
HERTZ   GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Linda Fayne Levinson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Linda   Fayne Levinson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Independent   Non-Executive Chair
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
of   the Board of Directors
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Acknowledged   and Agreed:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   John P. Tague
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
John   P. Tague
#### HAHN v TORTI

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co

No 2380.

Decided June 2, 1930

M. D. Merrick and L. A. Rowley, both of Toledo, for Hahn.

Denman, Miller, Nauts & Christian, Toledo, and J. H. Beatty, for Torti.

BY THE COURT

We think there was sufficient evidence to carry this case to the jury. Edith Torti was driving her car at a rate of 15 to 20 miles an hour and testified that she had her dimmers on, because other cars were approaching from the north. She testified twice that she could see ahead of her car a distance of 50 feet. Later in her testimony she made the distance she could see *461as much as 150 feet. On a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant, the evidence must be taken which is most favorable to the plaintiff. She failed to see the plaintiff until after the car struck her. The evidence tends to show that the defendant was violating the provisions of 6310-1 GC., .and such failure would be negligence per se.

The testimony of the plaintiff tends to show that she looked in both directions just before entering the highway and was exercising ordinary care.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
#### Kenny Ortega, Respondent, v Saul Gonzalez et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[698 NYS2d 476]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that defendants-appellants had not sustained their burden, as movants for summary judgment *(see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn.,*90 NY2d 623, 630), of establishing the absence of triable issues of fact concerning workers’ compensation coverage. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
§ 22.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held— ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), that the National Preservation Technology and Training Board that was scheduled to meet May 22, 2000, in Santa Fe, New Mexico is cancelled. 

The Board was to meet Monday, May 22 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the DeVargas room of the Hotel St. Francis, 201 Don Gasper Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Matters to be discussed were to include, officer and committee reports; consideration of present and future NCPTT programs; consideration of NCPTT mission and long-range plan, assess the accomplishment of the board's first six years; and the election of officers for two-year terms. The board meeting will be rescheduled at a later time. 

Persons wishing more information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may do so by contacting Mr. E. Blaine Cliver, Chief, HABS/HAER, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 343-9573. 

Dated: May 16, 2000. 

Eric DeLong, 

Acting Chief, HABS/HAER, Designated Federal Official, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 00-12699 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                       EXHIBIT 12

                                 KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
                    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                            (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                       --------------------------------------------------
                                                          1995       1996      1997      1998      1999
                                                          ----       ----      ----      ----      ----
<S>                                                     <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds . . . . . . . . .    $19,090    $14,914   $14,867   $13,936   $12,712
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt . . . . . . . . .      2,422      6,446     8,597    12,188    13,525
  Interest on Short-term Debt. . . . . . . . . . . .      2,242      2,849     3,034     2,455     2,552
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges . . . . . . . . . .        510        555       559       634       869
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals. . . .        700        800     1,700     1,500     1,200
                                                        -------    -------     -----     -----   -------
       Total Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $24,964    $25,564   $28,757   $30,713   $30,858
                                                        -------    -------   -------   -------   =======

Earnings:
  Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $25,128    $16,973   $20,746   $21,676   $25,430
  Plus Federal Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . .      3,914      5,119     9,415     9,785    12,993
  Plus State Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .      1,420        598     2,190     2,096     2,784
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above). . . . . . . . . . .     24,964     25,564    28,757    30,713    30,858
                                                        -------     ------    ------   -------   -------
       Total Earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $55,426    $48,254   $61,108   $64,270   $72,065
                                                        =======    =======   =======   =======   =======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . .       2.22       1.88      2.12      2.09      2.33
                                                           ====       ====      ====      ====      ====
</TABLE>