alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059544
<NAME> LINCOLN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1995
<CASH>                                          332682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23458
<ALLOWANCES>                                       750
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                362481
<PP&E>                                         3605330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2344445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1623366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           479028
<BONDS>                                        1052449
<COMMON>                                        816160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (405462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1623366
<SALES>                                         119689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1362172
<CGS>                                           104169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1035474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                401660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  6409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              123439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (81728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (87968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (87968)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 16, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01165-CV

SYLVIA ORTIZ, Appellant

V.

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION AND PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-00459-2014

ORDER

We GRANT court reporter Shawn R. Gant’s request for a thirty-day extension to file the 

record and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than November 13, 2014. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
§ 4233.12 PBGC action on application for partition. ( a ) *Review period.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, PBGC will approve or deny an application for partition submitted to it under this part within 270 days after the date PBGC issued a notice to the plan sponsor of the completed application under § 4233.10(c).
( b ) *Determination on application.* PBGC may approve or deny an application at its discretion. PBGC will notify the plan sponsor in writing of PBGC's decision on an application. If PBGC denies the application, PBGC's written decision will state the reason(s) for the denial. If PBGC approves the application, PBGC will issue a partition order under section 4233(c) of ERISA and § 4233.14.
( c ) *Conditional determination on application.* At the request of a plan sponsor, PBGC may, in its discretion, issue an approval of an application conditioned on Treasury issuing a final authorization to suspend under section 305(e)(9)(H)(vi) of ERISA and any other terms and conditions set forth in the conditional approval. The conditional approval will include a written statement of preliminary findings, conclusions, and conditions. The conditional approval is not a final agency action. The proposed partition will only become effective upon satisfaction of the required conditions, and the issuance of an order of partition under section 4233(c) of ERISA.
( d ) *Final agency action.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, PBGC's decision on an application for partition under this section is a final agency action for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*).
[80 FR 35229, June 19, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 79695, Dec. 23, 2015]
(76 South. 999)

#### LAMB v. ROBERTS.

(7 Div. 397.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 12, 1917.)

Appeal from Clay County Court; E. J. Garrison, Judge:

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and J. A. Simpson, all of Birmingham, for appellant. Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by consent of parties.
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification of Chief Executive 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 September 30, 2003, 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: November 20, 2003            /s/Harold Kramer


                                   Harold Kramer, Principal
                                   Executive 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.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

76 FR 45798 (August 1, 2011).

# DATE and TIME:

Thursday, August 4, 2011, at 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

Meeting open to the public.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

The following item was withdrawn from the agenda: 

Proposed Final Audit Report on John Edwards for President.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Commission Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2011-20031 Filed 8-3-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Mark E. Woodward, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA
Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA
Software, Inc.

| |  | By: |  | /s/MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive
Officer And Director
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
December 13, 2002

I,
Robert I. Pender, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA
Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA Software, Inc.

| |  | By: |  | /s/ROBERT I. PENDER, JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Vice President, Finance
And
Administration, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial And Accounting
Officer) And Director
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
December 13, 2002

---

QuickLinks
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/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](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1085 Surface-supplied air diving.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.425 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.425).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 68 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.68
                                             Agreed to February 28, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL BY THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL 
              COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES.

    The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to be used 
on January 20, 2009, by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-
elect of the United States.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
§ 4041.46 PBGC determination of compliance with requirements for distress termination. ( a ) *General.* Based on the information contained and submitted with the PBGC Form 600 and the PBGC Form 601, with Schedule EA-D, and on any information submitted by an affected party or otherwise obtained by the PBGC, the PBGC will determine whether the requirements for a distress termination set forth in § 4041.41(c) have been met and will notify the plan administrator in writing of its determination, in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
( b ) *Qualifying termination.* If the PBGC determines that all of the requirements of § 4041.41(c) have been satisfied, it will so advise the plan administrator and will also advise the plan administrator of whether participant and benefit information must be submitted in accordance with § 4041.45(b).
( c ) *Non-qualifying termination.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, if the PBGC determines that any of the requirements of § 4041.41 have not been met, it will notify the plan administrator of its determination, the basis therefor, and the effect thereof (as provided in § 4041.41(b)).
( 2 ) If the only basis for the PBGC's determination described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is that the distress termination notice is incomplete, the PBGC will advise the plan administrator of the missing item(s) of information and that the information must be filed with the PBGC no later than the 120th day after the proposed termination date or the 30th day after the date of the PBGC's notice of its determination, whichever is later.
( d ) *Reconsideration of determination of non-qualification.* A plan administrator may request reconsideration of the PBGC's determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section in accordance with the rules prescribed in part 4003, subpart C, of this chapter. The filing of a request for reconsideration automatically stays the effectiveness of the determination until the PBGC issues its decision on reconsideration.
( e ) *Notice to affected parties.* Upon a decision by the PBGC affirming a determination of non-qualification or upon the expiration of the period within which the plan administrator may request reconsideration of a determination of non-qualification (or, if earlier, upon the plan administrator's decision not to request reconsideration), the plan administrator must notify the affected parties (and any persons who were provided notice under § 4041.43(e)) in writing that the plan is not going to terminate or, if applicable, that the termination is invalid but that a new notice of intent to terminate is being issued.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00025- CV

Jerr y Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Vict oria Deat on, App ellants

v. Helen P urser, Sue E. P urser a/k/a Su e E. Van Zante n, Gary W. P urser, Jr .,

Joann M. Purse r, and El izabeth H. Tip ton, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 146 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 236 ,117 -B , H ONO RAB LE ALAN MAY F IELD, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

Appellee s filed a motion to abate this appea l to supplement the rec ord with cer tain deposi tion testimony prese nted to the jury by video but not transcr ibed into the court repor ter’s

rec ord. Appellants Denise Steele, J err y Scarbr ou g

h , a n d M e li s s a V ic tor ia Deaton oppose the motion. Appellants and appellee s ag ree d at trial that the repor ter wo uld not transcr ibe videotaped deposition testi m o n y from Steele, Scarbr oug h, Deaton, and Dr. Sharon Ba rber (Ga ry Purser, Sr.’s tr ea t i n g phy sician). The parties disag ree about whether these witnesses’ depositions wer e provided to the court repor ter Ang ela Ralston, but Ralston has n o t i fi ed us that she has the excerpts of the deposition testimony provided to her at trial. Ralston states that she can

scan the excerp t s gi v en t o h er at trial and provide them to us as a supplemental volume of the repor ter’s r ecor d.Appellee s contend that the missing testimony from Steele, Scarbr oug h, Deaton, and

Ba rber is rele vant, the rec ord s h o u l d be supplemented with it, and the appellate rules allow such supplementation. We ag ree . Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 34.6(d) state s that “[i] f any thing rele vant i s omitted from the repo rt er ’s re co rd, t he trial court, appellate court, or any party may by l et ter direc t the court repor ter to prepa

re, cer tify , and file in the appellate court a s u p p l em en t al repor ter’s rec ord containing the o m i t t ed i tems.” Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d); see also Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(e) (allowing for corr ection of in ac cu racies in repor ter’s rec ord when parties’ dispute about corr ection of repor ter’s rec ord arises afte r its fili n g in appellate court); In re Estate of Arrendell , 213 S.W .3d 496, 500 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (conc luding that rec ord may be considere d inacc urate “whe n a portion is omitted—either beca use not taken or beca

use taken but not transcr ibed”) ; Ro g ers v. Cigna Ins. Co. , 881 S.W .2d 177, 180-81 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (allowing rec ord to be supplemented w ith deposition transcr iptions that had been pr oduced in discove ry ). We there fore g rant appellee s’ motion and abate th i s ap p eal for Ralston’s supplementation of the repor ter’s rec ord with the excerpts of testimony from Steele, Scarbr oug h, Deaton, and Ba

rber

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d). The supplemental volume shall be filed with this Court no later than May 19, 2014. The appea l will be reinstated afte r the filing of the supplemental repor ter’s r ecor d.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Abated Filed: Apr il 18, 2014 2
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women Workers in Their Family Environment

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women Workers in Their Family Environment : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 183*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1941,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5456,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### AKERS v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10154.

Decided December 9, 1929

Messrs. S. C. Glenn and T. W. Fleming, Cleveland, for Akers.

Messrs. Ray T. Miller and D. R. Hartz, Cleveland, for State.

LEMERT, P. J. and SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting

*107SHERICK, J.

It is strenuously urged by counsel for defendant that the Common Pleas Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of the defendant by reason of the fact that the Juvenile Court Act, 1639 GC, et seq. has, by implication, deprived courts of Common Pleas of their heretofore well recognized right of jurisdiction in such cases.

It does not seems in this case that the defendant was at any time brought before a committing magistrate, but that the grand jury of Cuyahoga County, upon its own instance, caused the defendant to be indicted. Had the defendant been before a committing magistrate and moved that court that his case be certified to the Juvenile Court, the same would no doubt have been well taken. But it is well recognized under the law of this State that courts of Common Pleas have jurisdiction in cases of felony and we note in Section 1369 prescribing the jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts that murder in the first degree is not included and it is not the intention of the Juvenile Court Act to invest the Juvenile Court with jurisdiction in cases of felony, nor does the Act in any way change the common law rule as to the capacity of the minor to commit a felony, and the act itself recognizes, by its provision authorizing the Juvenile Court to bind cases of felony over to the Court of Common Pleas. We cannot accede to the proposition that the Juvenile Act by implication repeals the long established usage and law of this State. . The Act did not go further and provide that grand juries cannot indict in cases of felony or that the Common Pleas Court could not exercise jurisdiction in such case unless the Juvenile Court bound a defendant over to it.

It is further urged upon this court that this defendant being a minor could not be held to have waived a defect which might have been taken advantage of by a motion to quash. With this we cannot agree. The criminal statutes of this State in a situation of this kind deal with a minor as if he were sui juris, and this court cannot conceive that the fact that a defendant is a minor shall work a revocation of the plain provision of 13,625 GC.

It is well settled that a defendant pleading to the genneral issue is held to have waived the defects which might have been taken advantage of by a motion to quash.

We, therefore, hold that the trial court was not in error in its ruling upon the motion to quash, and that the same was properly overruled.

We direct attention to the cases of Gerak vs. State, 22 OA. 357 and State vs. Klingenberger, 113 OS. 418, which we feel fully supports the judgment.

It, therefore, follows that the verdict and judgment thereon are hereby affirmed. Exceptions may be noted.

Lemert, PJ., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.