alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. P. Pilger et al., appellees, v. Victor K. Torrence et al., appellants.

Filed December 4, 1894.

No. 5869.

Judgments: Action to Set Aside: Pleading and Proof. When one against whom a judgment has been rendered seeks the affirmative aid of a court of equity to relieve him from that judgment, he must aver and prove that he had a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was rendered. This is true even though the judgment he void, provided at least its invalidity does not appear on the face of the record.

Appeal from the district court of Madison county. Heard below before Allen, J.

*904*Griggs & Rinaher*and *J. A. Smith,*for appellants.

*Barnes & Tyler, contra,*

Irvine, C.

A judgment was rendered in the district court of Pierce county in favor of Torrence and against the plaintiffs in this case. A transcript of this judgment was filed in Madison county, and this action was brought against Torrence and the sheriff of Madison county to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment, it being claimed that the judgment had been entered without jurisdiction. An injunction was-granted, and the defendants appeal.

It is not necessary to consider the questions raised as to» the validity of the judgment. The plaintiffs do not in> their petition allege that they had any meritorious defense-to the action. When one against whom a judgment has-been rendered seeks the affirmative aid of a court of equity to relieve him from that judgment, he must aver and prove that he had a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was rendered. This is true even though the judgment be void, provided at least its invalidity does not appear on the face of the record. *(Osborn v. Gehr,*29 Neb., 661; *Janes v. Howell,*37 Neb., 320; *Langley v. Ashe,*38 Neb., 53; *Gould v. Loughran,*19 Neb., 392; *Proctor v. Pettitt,*25 Neb., 96; *Winters v. Means,*25 Neb., 242; *Lininger v. Glenn,*33 Neb., 187; *Petalka v. Fitle,*33 Neb., 756; *Wilson v. Shipman,*34 Neb., 573.)

Reversed and cause dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14802]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Administrator, 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), all authorities 
vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Part D, 
Title III of the PHS Act, Subpart IX--Support of Graduate Medical 
Education Programs, as amended. This delegation excludes the authority 
to issue regulations and to submit reports to Congress This authority 
may be redelegated.
    In addition, I hereby ratify any actions taken by the Administrator 
or other HRSA officials which involved exercise of this authority prior 
to the effective date of this delegation.
    This delegation is effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: June 2, 2000.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14802 Filed 6-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
#### § 101-26.4901-149 Standard Form 149, U.S. Government National Credit Card.

The form illustrated in § 101-26.4901-149 is filed as part of the original document and does not appear in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal Register

[37 FR 18536, Sept. 13, 1972]
596 P.2d 99

#### Bob H. HARRIS, SSA [ XXX XX XXXX ], Claimant-Appellant, v. GREEN TREE, INC., d/b/a the Boisean, Employer, and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 12995.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 12, 1979.

Bob H. Harris, pro se.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., R. LaVar Marsh, Roger B. Madsen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent Dept, of Employment.

Before SHEPARD, C. J., McFADDEN and DONALDSON, JJ., and DUNLAP and ROWETT, JJ., Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant-Appellant Bob H. Harris was employed as a construction carpenter and *228superintendent by employer Green Tree, Inc., on a motel remodeling and construction project. The employment lasted about 23 months, until November 1, 1977. Harris’s son and two or three other laborers worked under him.

On November 1, 1977, a 24-unit motel building had been virtually completed and remodeling of a laundry building was about to commence as the next phase of the project when Mr. Green, president of employer corporation, scolded Harris’s son for slow work, which resulted in termination of the son’s employment.

Thereupon, Harris told Green that he was upset about his son’s termination, his own pay and about matters which had occurred months before, including having to pay for a broken window on the job, being docked pay for work absences, withheld payroll taxes not accounted for during a prior period of time, and not having received bonuses. He told Green that if his son were not rehired he would leave, and that Green should call him to resolve the difficulties. Green did call him later and told him his paycheck was ready.

The Industrial Commission adopted the Referee’s conclusion that Harris quit his employment because Green terminated his son as an employee, which was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute good cause, and affirmed the decision of the appeals examiner that Harris is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Under Article 5,' § 9 of the Idaho Constitution, our review of unemployment compensation cases is limited to questions of law, and this Court will not adopt findings at variance with those of the Commission, providing the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record. *Booth v. City of Burley,*99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978).

There is substantial and competent evidence in the record here to support the Commission’s findings that the claimant quit his employment due to his son’s termination, and that such was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute “good cause” for leaving his employment to make him eligible for *unemployment*benefits pursuant to I.C. § 72-1366(e). The Order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  TELIPHONE CORP.
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the Annual Report of Teliphone Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawry Trevor-Deutsch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.
  /s/ Lawry Trevor-DeutschLawry Trevor-DeutschChief Executive OfficerDecember 29, 2010
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00144-CR

JWAN MCMAHON AKA JWAN 

MCMAHAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1543066D)

February 6, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### § 957.1 Authority for rules.

The rules in this part are issued by the Judicial Officer of the Postal Service pursuant to authority delegated by the Postmaster General (39 U.S.C. 204, 401).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5396 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5396

 To amend section 81 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to amend the definition 
       of a foreign trade zone operator, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2000

 Mr. Diaz-Balart introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 81 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to amend the definition 
       of a foreign trade zone operator, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF A FOREIGN TRADE ZONE OPERATOR.

    (a) In General.--Section 81a of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended 
by striking the ``.'' in the last line after the word ``chapter'' in 
(1) and inserting thereafter:
    ``(j) The term operator means any private corporation which has 
contracted with a grantee for the exclusive authority to establish, 
operate, and maintain a general purpose foreign trade zone located E of 
longitude 81 W and S of latitude 26 N.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
taxable event on or after such date.

SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Section 81n is amended by adding after the period 
in the last line the following: ``An operator defined in subsection (j) 
shall not be subject to any real property tax authorized by the state 
in which the zone is located.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
taxable event on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5508 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5508

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a demonstration 
program to provide technical assistance to school-based health centers 
      in order to assist such centers in developing and operating 
  comprehensive computerized systems to maintain data on the patient 
                   populations served by the centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 19, 2000

Ms. Kilpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a demonstration 
program to provide technical assistance to school-based health centers 
      in order to assist such centers in developing and operating 
  comprehensive computerized systems to maintain data on the patient 
                   populations served by the centers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``School-Based Health Centers 
Technical Assistance Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL-BASED 
              HEALTH CENTERS REGARDING COMPUTERIZED PATIENT-DATA 
              SYSTEMS.

    Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
section:

``SEC. 330E. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL-
              BASED HEALTH CENTERS REGARDING COMPUTERIZED PATIENT-DATA 
              SYSTEMS.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, directly or through awards of 
grants or contracts to public or nonprofit private entities, may carry 
out a demonstration program to provide technical assistance to school-
based health centers operated by nonprofit private entities in order to 
assist such centers in developing and operating comprehensive 
computerized systems to maintain the following data on the patient 
populations served by the centers:
            ``(1) Medical data.
            ``(2) Demographic data.
            ``(3) Such additional data as will assist the centers in 
        billing for services provided to patients, including obtaining, 
        as appropriate, reimbursement from third parties (including 
        prepaid health plans, health insurance policies, State 
        compensation programs, and Federal or State health benefits 
        programs).
    ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of carrying 
out subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
                                 <all>
```
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5488

To strengthen the National Defense Features program, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 2000

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To strengthen the National Defense Features program, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Defense Fea5 tures Program Enhancement Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS CONCERNING NA7 TIONAL DEFENSE FEATURES PROGRAM.

8 The Congress finds the following:

9 (1) The National Defense Features program,

10 which is funded from the National Defense Sealift
2

•HR 5488 IH

1 Fund established by section 2218 of title 10, United

2 States Code, is a constituent element of the defense

3 policy of the United States intended to provide es4 sential sealift capacity in emergencies, strengthen

5 the national shipbuilding base, and maintain a re6 source of highly trained merchant seamen.

7 (2) Implementation of the National Defense

8 Features program would provide significant benefits

9 both for the United States and for allied nations

10 during military contingencies.

11 (3) For the United States and nations allied

12 with the United States to realize these benefits, it is

13 essential that vessels built under that program enjoy

14 commercial opportunities in peacetime on trade

15 routes between the United States and allied nations

16 and that those vessels not be excluded from such op17 portunities through restrictive trade practices.

18 (4) The failure of vessels built, or to be built,

19 under the National Defense Features program to ob20 tain employment as common carriers or contract

21 carriers in the particular sector of any trade route

22 in the foreign commerce of the United States for

23 which they are designed to operate, together with

24 long-term domination of that sector of the trade
3

•HR 5488 IH

1 route by citizens of an allied nation, evidences the

2 existence of restrictive trade practices.

3 SEC. 3. ACTION TO PROMOTE NATIONAL DEFENSE FEA4 TURES PROGRAM.

5 In any case in which the Federal Maritime Commis6 sion finds the existence of the conditions specified in sec7 tion 2(4) to prove the existence of restrictive trade prac8 tices, it shall take action to counteract such practices, uti9 lizing all remedies available under section 10002(e)(1) of

10 the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C.

11 App. 1710a).

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22787-SCOLA/GOODMAN

LIORA SAMANDAROVA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOOKAH EXOTIX LLC, JEANCHRISTOPHE PITTMAN, AND 

ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV,

Defendants.

______________________________/

CLERK’S DEFAULT

It appearing that Defendant herein, ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV, is in default for failure 

to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the Complaint filed herein within the time required by 

law, a Default is hereby entered against Defendant, ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV, as of course, on 

this date __________________.

ANGELA E. NOBLE

CLERK OF COURT

By:______________________

Deputy Clerk 

`

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 28-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Physicians Capital Group, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and
procedures over financial reporting and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Sean KirraneSean KirraneChief Accounting Officer
§ 331.11 Unauthorized activities. Approved JDs, permit denials, and declined permits associated with after-the-fact permit applications are appealable actions for the purposes of this part. If the Corps accepts an after-the-fact permit application, an administrative appeal of an approved JD, permit denial, or declined permit may be filed and processed in accordance with these regulations subject to the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. An appeal of an approved JD associated with unauthorized activities will normally not be accepted unless the Corps accepts an after-the-fact permit application. However, in rare cases, the district engineer may accept an appeal of such an approved JD, if the district engineer determines that the interests of justice, fairness, and administrative efficiency would be served thereby. Furthermore, no such appeal will be accepted if the unauthorized activity is the subject of a referral to the Department of Justice or the EPA, or for which the EPA has the lead enforcement authority or has requested lead enforcement authority. ( a ) *Initial corrective measures.* If the district engineer determines that initial corrective measures are necessary pursuant to 33 CFR 326.3(d), an RFA for an appealable action will not be accepted by the Corps, until the initial corrective measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
( b ) *Penalties.* If an affected party requests, under this Section, an administrative appeal of an appealable action prior to the resolution of the unauthorized activity, and the division engineer determines that the appeal has no merit, the responsible party remains subject to any civil, criminal, and administrative penalties as provided by law.
( c ) *Tolling of statute of limitations.* Any person who appeals an approved JD associated with an unauthorized activity or applies for an after-the-fact permit, where the application is accepted and processed by the Corps, thereby agrees that the statute of limitations regarding any violation associated with that approved JD or application is tolled until one year after the final Corps decision, as defined at § 331.10. Moreover, the recipient of an approved JD associated with an unauthorized activity or applicant for an after-the-fact permit must also memorialize that agreement to toll the statute of limitations, by signing an agreement to that effect, in exchange for the Corps acceptance of the after-the-fact permit application, and/or any administrative appeal (See 33 CFR 326.3(e)(1)(v)). No administrative appeal associated with an unauthorized activity or after-the-fact permit application will be accepted until such signed tolling agreement is furnished to the district engineer.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 annual report of GoAmerica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel R. Luis, Chief 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) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      March 30, 2006


/s/ Daniel
              R.
              LuisDaniel
              R. LuisChief
              Executive Officer








This
      certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.