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

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JORDAN MICHAEL WALLICK,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 575 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
# FILED
February 20, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

CURTIS L. L

ANDRY, JR.d/b/a ) LANDRY AND ASSOCIAT ES, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Rutherford Circui t ) No. 36960 VS. ) ) Appeal No. JOHN DANIEL RUDD, ) 01A01-9707-CV-00303 ) Defendant/Appel

lant. ) 

## CONCURRING OPIN

ION

I concur with the results of the court’s opinion. Pe rsons opposing the domestication

of a foreign judgmen

t cannot, for the f

irst time, assert

affirmative defenses that should have been raised in the f

oreignproceeding. Since Dr. Rudd did not assert his accord and satisfaction defense in the Louisiana proceeding, he has waived his right to assert this defense now. Acc ordingl y, the trial court w as not required to grant Dr. Rudd an evidentiary hearing on a defense that had been waived as a matter of law.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-6-104 (c) (1980) states t ha t authenticated foreign judgments are “subject to the same procedures, defenses and proce

edings for reopening, vacating, or stayin g as a judgment of th e court of record of thi s state.” Accordingly, Dr. Rudd could have fil ed a Tenn. R. Ci

v. P. 60 motion seek

ing postjudgment relief from the L

ouisiana judgment. D

r. Rudd’s accord and satisfaction defense cannot reasonably be construed as a Tenn. R. C iv. P. 60 motion, an d this court cannot engraft claims for relief that t he party himself has not pleaded.

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,378]


Bugbee & Niles Company, Incorporated Providence; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 22, 2000, in response to a petition filed on 
the same date on behalf of workers at Bugbee & Niles Company, 
Incorporated, Providence, Rhode Island.
    The company official submitting the petition has requested that the 
petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case 
would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of May 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12769 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.15 Relationship to the Service Contract Act; Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. ( a ) A contract for “construction” is one for nonpersonal service. See, e.g., 41 CFR 1-1.208. Section 2(e) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 requires as a condition of every Federal contract (and bid specification therefor) exceeding $2,500, the “principal purpose” of which is to furnish services to the United States through the use of “service employees,” that certain safety and health standards be met. See 29 CFR part 1925, which contains the Department rules concerning these standards. Section 7 of the Service Contract Act provides that the Act shall not apply to “any contract of the United States or District of Columbia for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating of public buildings or public works.” It is clear from the legislative history of section 107 that no gaps in coverage between the two statutes are intended.
( b ) The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act requires that contracts entered into by any Federal agency for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, and equipment in any amount exceeding $10,000 must contain, among other provisions, a requirement that “no part of such contract will be performed nor will any of the materials, supplies, articles or equipment to be manufactured or furnished under said contract be manufactured or fabricated in any plants, factories, buildings, or surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health and safety of employees engaged in the performance of said contract.” The rules of the Secretary concerning these standards are published in 41 CFR part 50-204, and express the Secretary of Labor's interpretation and application of section 1(e) of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act to certain particular working conditions. None of the described working conditions are intended to deal with construction activities, although such activities may conceivably be a part of a contract which is subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. Nevertheless, such activities remain subject to the general statutory duty prescribed by section 1(e). Section 103(b) of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act provides, among other things, that the Act shall not apply to any work required to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Section 1350


     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc. (the "Company")for the period
ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby 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 results of operations
of the Company.



Date: June 8, 2004


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Financial Officer



     The foregoing certification accompanied the Quarterly Report on
Form 10QSB filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is being
reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company, whether made before or after hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained b y the
Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3551 — CDR/CULLIGAN)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 210/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2004 and available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1438 Overhead & gantry cranes. ( a ) *Permanently installed overhead and gantry cranes.* The requirements of § 1910.179, except for § 1910.179(b)(1), and not the requirements of this subpart CC, apply to the following equipment when used in construction and permanently installed in a facility: overhead and gantry cranes, including semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage bridge cranes, and others having the same fundamental characteristics.
( b ) *Overhead and gantry cranes that are not permanently installed in a facility.* ( 1 ) This paragraph applies to the following equipment when used in construction and not permanently installed in a facility: Overhead and gantry cranes, overhead/bridge cranes, semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage bridge cranes, launching gantry cranes, and similar equipment having the same fundamental characteristics, irrespective of whether it travels on tracks, wheels, or other means.
( 2 ) The following requirements apply to equipment identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section: ( i ) Sections 1926.1400 through 1926.1414; §§ 1926.1417 through 1926.1425; § 1926.1426(d), §§ 1926.1427 through 1926.1434; §§ 1926.1437, 1926.1439, and 1926.1441.
( ii ) The following portions of § 1910.179: ( A ) Paragraphs (b)(5),(6),(7); (e)(1),(3),(5),(6); (f)(1),(4); (g); (h)(1),(3); (k); and (n) of § 1910.179.
( B ) The definitions in § 1910.179(a) except for “hoist” and “load.” For those words, the definitions in § 1926.1401 apply.
( C ) Section 1910.179(b)(2), but only where the equipment identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section (§ 1926.1438) was manufactured before September 19, 2001.
( iii ) For equipment manufactured on or after September 19, 2001, the following sections of ASME B30.2-2005 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 1926.6) apply: 2-1.3.1; 2-1.3.2; 2-1.4.1; 2-1.6; 2-1.7.2; 2-1.8.2; 2-1.9.1; 2-1.9.2; 2-1.11; 2-1.12.2; 2-1.13.7; 2-1.14.2; 2-1.14.3; 2-1.14.5; 2-1.15.; 2-2.2.2; 2-3.2.1.1. In addition, 2-3.5 applies, except in 2-3.5.1(b), “29 CFR 1910.147” is substituted for “ANSI Z244.1.”
#### SUPER-SERVICE STATIONS INC v GESLER-TATE PETROLEUM CORP

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist,. Cuyahoga Co

No 10813.

Decided Oct. 13, 1930

*685Ben H. Davis, Cleveland, for Service Stations.

R. H. Hunter, Cleveland, for Petroleum Corp.

Judges JUSTICE and CROW (3rd Dist) and MAUCK (5th Dist) sitting.

CROW, J.

There was no evidence tending to prove that the assignment to plaintiff was not made in good faith, nor was it contended that the amount appearing to be due was not correct.

It should also be noted that no evidence was introduced tending to prove the claimed breach of the contract, Consequently the defense, under the record here, must rest, if, at all, on the doctrine of res adjudicata.

It is unnecessary to discuss any feature of that doctrine in detail, hence we will content ourselves with the observation that one of its essential elements is the identity of persons save in certain instances, such as representation, privity, participation and so forth. Under some circumstances the doctrine is applicable to the relation of assignor ,and assignee, but no authority has been furnished to or found by us which sanctions such application, in the absence of ,a statute, to transactions occurring prior to the commencement of the suit which is claimed to be the adjudication. This principle is correctly and clearly stated and elaborated in 34 C. J. 1018.

We are not overlooking the universally recognized rule that the rights of the assignee rise no higher than the rights of his assignor, but in a case like the one in hand, the rights must be determined as of the time the assignment w,as made.

There was, of course, no reason why the breach could not have been pleaded and proved by defendant as against plaintiff, but as we have said, defendant did not choose to do that.

There being no reason for disturbing the judgment it must be affirmed, which will be done but without penalty.

Justice and Mauck, Jj, concur.
Green Tree Servicing



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 26, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 00506

- CV

Robert G. CORONA and Christina M. Mozisek and all occupants, Appellants

v.

GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC,

Appellee

From the C ounty Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 385145 Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Appellee Green Tree Servicing LLC has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that this appeal is moot. Green Tree emphasizes that in this forcible detainer action, Green Tree requested issuance of a writ of possession and that appellants voluntarily vacated the property on Septe mber 18, 2013. Green Tree points to case law stating that when defendants in a forcible detainer action are no longer in possession of the premises at issue, the appeal is moot unless the defendants can assert a potentially meritorious claim of right to cu rrent, actual possession. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. , 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006). While the issue of possession may be moot, issues independent of possession are reviewable on appeal. Rice v. Pinney , 51 S.W.3d 705, 707 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2001, no pet.); Ca vazos v. San Antonio Hous.

Auth. , No. 04

- 09

- 00659

- CV, 2010 WL 2772450, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2010, no pet.). In the trial court’s summary judgment, appellants were ordered to pay Green Tree’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,000 and were ordered to pay future appellate attorney’s fees. Thus,

because issues independent of possession are reviewable on appeal, we DENY Green Tree’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.Appellants’ brief was due October 30, 2013. Neither the brief nor a motion f or extension of time has been filed. We, therefore, ORDER appellants to file, on or before December 6, 2013 their appellants’ brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) their failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not signific antly injured by their failure to timely file a brief. If appellants fail to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allow ing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of November, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Ortiz, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 465]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered December 11, 1997, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular assault in the second degree (2 counts), and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of 6 months imprisonment and 4V2 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his excessive sentence claim *(People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



Section 906 Certification of Chief Financial Officer



I, David M. Gernak, Chief Financial Officer of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 22, 2005



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    DAVID M. GERNAK 
|David M. Gernak        
|Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.20 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart— ( a ) The term *administrative offset* means the withholding of money payable by the United States to or held by the United States on behalf of a person to satisfy a debt owned the United States by that person; and
( b ) The term *person* does not include any agency of the United States, or any state or local government.
( c ) The terms *claim* and *debt* are deemed synonymous and interchangeable. They refer to an amount of money or property which has been determined by an appropriate agency official to be owed to the United States from any person, organization, or entity, except another federal agency.
( d ) A debt is considered delinquent if it has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial demand letter (§ 20.22), unless satisfactory payment arrangements have been made by that date, or if, at any time thereafter, the debtor fails to satisfy his obligations under a payment agreement with the Department of Labor, or any agency thereof.
#### *Benjamin Burrough *against*David Vanderveer.

ON CERTIORARI.

Jurisdiction of Justice. (b)

VANDERVEER, as assignee of *Thomas Bispham,*brought an action of covenant, upon the warranty, in a deed for a lot of land, and assigned as breach, that the defendant had not good title when he made the deed. At the trial, several deeds were given in evidence, and motion for a nonsuit made. Judgment for plaintiff, for $71.02.

A reversal was moved by *White,*for plaintiff.

(b)

*Blackwell vs. Leslie, 1 South. 112. Pickle vs. Covenhoven, 1 South. 319. Vantyl vs. Marsh, ante 507. Westbrook vs. Eager, 1 Har. 84. Winter vs. Peterson, 4 Zab. 524.*

Court.

The justice had no jurisdiction, by the express *932provisions of the statute. The title to the land, was the question in issue.

Judgment reversed. °
636 A.2d 480

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Terri Taylor SELBY, Respondent.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 7,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 3, 1994.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court on the Joint Recommendation For Sanction after hearing of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent to reprimand the Respondent by consent. Upon consideration of said recommendation, it is this 3rd day of February, 1994,

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Terri Taylor Selby, be and she is hereby reprimanded. It is further,

ORDERED, that the Respondent shall pay to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland $1,398.75, the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter, for which amount judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, on a schedule to be determined by agreement of the parties. Agreement to said schedule shall not be unreasonably withheld.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1262]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 99-3041; MM Docket No. 99-305; RM-9537]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Alberton, MT

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document allots Channel 294C3 at Alberton, Montana, in 
response to a petition filed by Mountain West Broadcasting. See 64 FR 
57836, October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 294C3 at Alberton 
are 47-00-06 NL and 114-28-21 WL. Canadian concurrence has been 
received for the allotment of Channel 294C3 at Alberton. With this 
action, this proceeding is terminated. A filing window for Channel 
294C3 at Alberton will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue 
of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES:  Effective February 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-305, adopted December 29, 1999 and 
released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is 
amended by adding Alberton, Channel 294C3.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-1262 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Tenement Renovation Contracting Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, Respondent.

Argued March 17, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*467
      *Ethelbert Warfield, James F. Dwyer, Harold Kronig*and *J. Branch Darby*for appellant.

*Albert Stickney, Francis S. Bensel*and *W. Frederick Knecht*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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