alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *versus*The Inhabitants of Phillipsburg.

Where, pending an indictment against a town, the name of the town was altered

by the legislature, the Court refused to quash the indictment ftir that cause.

The defendants were indicted at a former term for neglecting to repair a certain bridge within their town. Since the indictment was found, the legislature, by an act passed on the 22d of.January, 1812, altered the name of the town from *Phillipsburg*to *Hollis.*

The defendants at this term suggested the above alteration, and, upon the ground of it, moved the Court to quash the indictment.

*Morton,*(Attorney-General,)

opposed the motion of the defendants, and moved, on behalf of the commonwealth, that the name in the indictment might be changed to *Hollis,*and the defendants holden to answer.

*Curia.*

We cannot change the name of the defendants in the indictment; nor is there any occasion for it. We have no difficulty in proceeding upon the indictment as it stands; nor in inflicting a fine and awarding execution against the defendants by the name of the inhabitants of *Phillipsburg.*If a *feme sole*intermarries pending an action against her, the action still proceeds against her by her former name; and she may be taken on execution, notwithstanding her coverture.

So neither the defendants nor the attorney-general took any thing by their respective motions.
798 A.2d 1275

#### Johnnie BYRD, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION PAROLE, Appellee.

No. 55 MAP 2002.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 13, 2002.

Johnnie Byrd, Pittsburgh, pro se.

Tara Leigh Patterson, Robert Campolongo, Harrisburg, for Pennsylvania Board of Probation and P’arole.

*597
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2002, probable jurisdiction is noted and the order appealed is affirmed.
EX-10.43



 Exhibit 10.43 

First Amendment to 

Combination Agreement 

This First Amendment to Combination Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of February 26, 2015 This
Combination Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into by Fenix Parts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Fenix”), David A. Gold and Kenneth L. Gold (each a “Shareholder” and together the
“Shareholders”), Standard Auto Wreckers Inc., a New York corporation (the “Company”), and Goldy Metals Incorporated, an Ontario corporation and Goldy Metals Holdings Inc., an Ontario corporation (each a
“Corporate Shareholder” and together the “Corporate Shareholders”). 
 Whereas, the Parties have entered
into a Combination Agreement dated as of September 24, 2014 (the “Combination Agreement”); and 
 Whereas, the Parties
desire to amend the Combination Agreement as set forth herein, 
 It is agreed as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Capitalized terms without definition shall have the same meaning as given in the Combination Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Section 9.1(a)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of Fenix’s breach of or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement); 


 

	 	3.	Section 9.1(b)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of the Corporate Shareholders’ or the Shareholders’ breach of or failure to perform their obligations
under this Agreement); 

  

	 	4.	The definitions of “Interim Balance Sheet” and “Interim Financial Statements” shall be modified to include the Company’s balance sheet and financial statements as of and for the period ended
December 31, 2014. 

  

	 	5.	Except as expressly amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Combination Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed. 


Signatures appear on the following page 

  
 1 








 In witness, the Parties have executed this Amendment. 

 

			
	Fenix Parts, Inc.
		
	By		 /s/ Kent Robertson

			Kent Robertson
			Chief Executive Officer
		
			 /s/ David A. Gold

			David A. Gold
		
			 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

			Kenneth L. Gold
	
	Goldy Metals Incorporated
		
	By		 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

	Name:		Kenneth L. Gold
	Title:		President
	
	Goldy Metals Holdings, Inc.
		
	By		 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

	Name:		Kenneth L. Gold
	Title:		President
	
	Standard Auto Wreckers, Inc.
		
	By		 /s/ Kenneth L. Gold

	Name:		Kenneth L. Gold
	Title:		President


 Signature page to First Amendment 

to Standard (US) Combination Agreement 

  
 2
#### Canto *v.*The State.

Murder.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 826.)

1. Appeal and Error; Review; Motion to Quash. — It being within the discretion of the trial court whether it will put a defendant to his demurrer or plea in abatement to an indictment, any error in overruling a motion to quash is not reviewable, unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

2. Same; Bill of Exceptions; Necessity. — The court cannot review charges requested by and refused to a defendant in a criminal case in the absence of a bill of exceptions,, and where the court’s oral charge is not set out.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

Joe Canto was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.

Affirmed.

M. Frank Cahalin, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State.

EVANS, J.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to a term of 10 years’ imprisonment. The appeal is upon the record proper without a bill of exceptions.

(1) Error cannot be predicated upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment; it is a matter of discretion with the trial court whether it will put the defendant to his demurrer or plea in abatement, as the case may be. — Amos *Smith’s Case, infra,*73 South. 824; *Bryant’s Case,*79 Ala. 724; *Mosely’s Case,*1 Ala. App. 108, 56 South. 35; *Josiah Clark’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291.

(2) The statute requires the mero motu charge given by the trial court to be set out in the transcript. — Acts 1915, p. 815. This does not appear. In the absence of the mero motu charge, and of a bill of exceptions, this court cannot review the written requests to charge refused to *appellant.*— Mitchell’s *Case,*14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. *982; Clay’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 665, 71 South. 982; *Clark’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; *Borough’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208.

*481Aside from these questions, the record proper discloses .no error. The judgment entry and proceedings had in support thereof appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### §§ 4.147-4.149 [Reserved]
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

               We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of Loehmann's, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 1997,
included in the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Loehmann's, Inc.

               We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Numbers 333-05751 and 333-05749) of Loehmann's, Inc. of our
report dated February 24, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference.


                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                              

New York, New York
May 2, 1997
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3453 — CTS/HGK/KNAPSACK/JV)

(2004/C 183/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 June 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 25 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2nd Session
S. J. RES. 25

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the 
term of Walter E. Massey of Georgia, is filled by the appointment of 
John W. McCarter of Illinois, for a term of 6 years, effective on the 
date of the enactment of this resolution.

            Passed the Senate February 4, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2nd Session

                             S. J. RES. 25

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
```
#### § 4041A.26 Financial assistance.

A plan sponsor that determines a resource benefit level under section 4245(b)(2) of ERISA that is below the level of guaranteed benefits or that determines that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits for any month during an insolvency year shall apply for financial assistance from the PBGC in accordance with § 4281.47.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 16, 2005



/s/ Masahiro UmemuraName:

Masahiro UmemuraTitle:

Vice Chairmanand Representative Director(Principal Financial Officer)




- 1 -
§ 65.123 Additional type ratings: Requirements. A certificated parachute rigger who applies for an additional type rating must— ( a ) Present evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that the applicant has packed at least 20 parachutes of the type for which the applicant seeks a rating, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and under the supervision of a certificated parachute rigger holding a rating for that type or a person holding an appropriate military rating; and
( b ) Pass a practical test, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, showing the applicant's ability to pack and maintain the type of parachute, appropriate to the type rating sought. To pass the practical test for an additional type rating, the applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate the objectives in the area of operation specified in the Parachute Rigger Practical Test Standards (incorporated by reference, see § 65.23), applicable to the type rating sought.
[Docket No. FAA-2022-1463; Amdt. No.65-64, 89 FR 22520, Apr. 1, 2024]
Exhibit 32.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland Bancshares, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James C. Clinard, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Martha J. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant 10 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|   
|---
|   
|By:
|
#### § 4022.92 What definitions do I need to know for these rules?

You need to know three definitions from § 4001.2 of this chapter (PBGC, person, and plan) and the following definitions:

“We” means the PBGC.

“You” means the person to whom we may owe benefits at the time of death.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00080-CR

Robert Martinez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9034222, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Robert Martinez guilty of indecency with a child by contact
and aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003), § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004-05). The court assessed punishment for each offense, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at twenty-three years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by demonstrating that the only arg uable contentions that might support the appeal are ultimately without merit. S ee also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.
State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.2

1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the r ecord and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________ Mack Kidd, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed Filed: October 28, 2004
Do Not Publish
§ 2571.4 Parties. For section 521 proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.10 of this title: ( a ) The term “party” wherever used in these rules shall include any person that is a subject of the temporary order and is challenging the temporary order under these section 521 proceedings, and the Secretary. A party challenging a temporary order shall be designated as the “respondent.” The Secretary shall be designated as the “complainant.”
( b ) Other persons shall be permitted to participate as parties only if the administrative law judge finds that the final decision could directly and adversely affect them or the class they represent, that they may contribute materially to the disposition of the section 521 proceeding and their interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties, and that in the discretion of the administrative law judge the participation of such persons would be appropriate.
( c ) A person not named in a temporary order, but wishing to participate as a respondent under this section shall submit a petition to the administrative law judge within fifteen (15) days after the person has knowledge of, or should have known about, the section 521 proceeding. The petition shall be filed with the administrative law judge and served on each person who has been made a party at the time of filing. Such petition shall concisely state: ( 1 ) Petitioner's interest in the section 521 proceeding (including how the section 521 proceedings will directly and adversely affect them or the class they represent and why their interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties);
( 2 ) How his or her participation as a party will contribute materially to the disposition of the section 521 proceeding;
( 3 ) Who will appear for the petitioner;
( 4 ) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( 5 ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
( d ) Objections to the petition may be filed by a party within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the petition. If objections to the petition are filed, the administrative law judge shall then determine whether petitioners have the requisite interest to be a party in the section 521 proceeding, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where persons with common interest file petitions to participate as parties in a section 521 proceeding, the administrative law judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative, or the administrative law judge may designate one or more of the petitioners to represent the others. The administrative law judge shall give each such petitioner, as well as the parties, written notice of the decision on his or her petition. For each petition granted, the administrative law judge shall provide a brief statement of the basis of the decision. If the petition is denied, he or she shall briefly state the grounds for denial and may consider whether to treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae.
SERVED APRIL 15, 2011 

:';ARTivfENTOF 

•ASPORTATION 

.:PT OPERATIONS 

8 A iO: 0 5 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TROMBETTA CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10WP0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1219 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Complaint of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") 

was filed on December 10, 2010. Respondent Trombetta Corporation ("Respondent") 

had filed a Request for Hearing on November 30, 2010. 

On April 14, 2011»Respondent filed a notice withdrawing its Request for 

Hearing. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or dxiring a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

>, 

v^ 
1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

v\ 

\ \ • 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Paul Lindsay, General Manager 

Trombetta, Respondent 

N88W13901 Main Street 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

TEL: 262-251-5454 

FAX: 262-251-5767 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant \s Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O.Box 92007 

Los Angeles, C A 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Seivice was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the foltowijig address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-rSuite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

V^
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          59,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    421,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               494,027
<PP&E>                                       1,130,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                 299,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,349,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          611,422
<BONDS>                                        350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              533
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,034
<OTHER-SE>                                     383,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,349,796
<SALES>                                      1,201,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,201,375
<CGS>                                          850,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  850,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               993,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (671,440)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)


</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Water Gap Capita l Partners, LLC, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1304 C.D. 2021

:

Smithfield Township Board of :

Supervisors, John Shoemaker, :

William Buzzard, Terrence Fagan, :

Maryann Fagan, Neferetiti Campbell, :

Tony Ganci, Valerie Ganci, Joseph :

Iud icello, Marshall E. Anders, Patricia :

Anders, Bradley Rinschler, Terry Lynn :

Teel and Richard Oshrin :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, July 10, 2023

, having considered A ppellant ’ s application for

reargument and A ppellee s ’ answer s in response thereto , the application is DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12359]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, June 9, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-12359 Filed 5-12-00; 11:31 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M