alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
401 A.2d 1237

#### Eugene D. ERNST, Appellant, v. Jayne M. ERNST.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 12, 1979.

Decided April 17, 1979.

Luther E. Milspaw, Jr., Harrisburg, for appellant.

*334Charles E. Wasilefski, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before SPAETH, HESTER, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Decree affirmed. Having made an independent study of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the court below properly refused to grant a decree in divorce in this case.
#### § 101-30.4900 Scope of subpart.

This subpart illustrates forms prescribed or available for use in connection with subject matter covered in other subparts of this part 101-30.

[31 FR 11107, Aug. 20, 1966]
# Comments on: 20-1557: PROPPANT EXPRESS INVESTMENTS LLC v. OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential
Exhibit 32(b)








This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such filing.








Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended  June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian X. Tierney, the chief financial 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, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Brian X. Tierney


Brian X. Tierney


Chief Financial Officer








July 29, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### William J. Mawhiney v. Oakley E. Green.

Filed April 5, 1895.

No. 5787.

Replevin: Verdict: Direction for Defendant: Evidence. In this case there were involved only questions of fact, as to which the evidence was such as fully justified the direction given the jury to find for the defendant in error.

*689Error from the district court of Nance county. Tried below before Sullivan, J.

Y. *C. Pratt,*for plaintiff' in error.

*M. V. Moudy, contra.*

Ryan, C.

By virtue of an execution issued for the satisfaction of a judgment against Thomas Apgar, the sheriff of Nance county levied upon 437.bushels of oats in a bin situated upon the farm of Apgar. These oats were replevied from the sheriff by Oakley E. Green, to whom, while said oats were growing in the field, they had been mortgaged. At the time the execution was levied the officer who held it was notified of the existence of the aforesaid mortgage, nevertheless he refused to yield possession of the property. In accordance with the express direction of the district court of Nance county so to find there was a verdict for plaintiff in that court. Judgment having been duly rendered thei’eon, the defendant prosecutes error proceedings for the reversal of the aforesaid judgment.

In the brief submitted by plaintiff in error it is stated that there is involved only one question, and that a question of law. As the discussion proceeds, however, it seems to develop three closely related propositions of fact, rather than law, which shall now receive attention in the order in which they occur. It is first insisted that, as the mortgage was on “thirty-five acres of growing oats,” etc., this description was inoperative as against oats afterwards placed in a bin. The evidence left no doubt, however, as to the oats in the bin on the farm whereon the crop was grown being a part of the oats which were growing when the mortgage was executed. The question involved was simply one of identity, which the evidence precluded being settled otherwise than as it was. As to the presumption *690which arises from the failure to take and hold continuous-possession of the mortgaged property under the provisions of section 11, chapter 32, Compiled Statutes, it is necessary only to'state that the evidence showed that the mortgage was made in good faith and without fraudulent intent,, in the absence of any attempt to establish the contrary.. This being true, the presumption indicated was overcome. *(Davis v. Scott,*22 Neb., 154.) It is next urged the mortgage was upon a portion of the oats growing, and that, therefore, the mortgage was void for uncertainty. If this-was correct, there would be presented a question of law; but such is not the case. • The mortgage covered thirty-five acres of growing oats, and there is no question made that there were more than that number of acres of oats on the farm of Mr. Apgar. The levy was on 437 bushels-in a bin. Probably these oats were but a part of what grew on the entire tract, yet this fact has no tendency to-render invalid a mortgage upon all the oats that had previously been growing. The judgment of the district courtis-

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File Nos.333-147435, 333-108672 and 333-108673) and in Registration Statements on FormS-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-148286, 333-147596, 333-147595, 333-123401, 333-133264and 333-115033) of Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc, a Nevada Corporation (the“Company”) of our report dated March 22, 2007, to the directors of DolphinAdvanced Technologies Pty Ltd (“Dolphin”) with respect to the ConsolidatedFinancial Statements of Dolphin for the six months ended December 31, 2006 includedin the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the company for the year endedDecember 31, 2007.

 
| /s/ BDO  Kendalls Audit and Assurance (VIC) Pty Ltd |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| BDO Kendalls  Audit And Assurance (VIC) Pty Ltd     |   |
| March 31,  2008                                |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1



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, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                            |  |  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 
|Date: September 21, 2005 |  |  |  | By: /s/ James R. LavelleJames R. Lavelle Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 102-83.70 What are centralized community business areas and centralized business districts?

A centralized community business area (CBA) or centralized business district, also commonly referred to as a central business district, is an area of concentration of commercial real estate and activity within a principal city, including other specific areas of similar character that may be recommended by local officials. The CBA may be part of a traditional downtown area or part of another area that local government officials have identified as supportive of their long-term economic development objectives. CBAs are designated by local governments and not by Federal agencies, so Federal agencies must consult and engage with local officials to understand the current boundaries of these areas. As described in E.O. 12072, these areas may include other specific areas that are recommended by local officials.
EXHIBIT 11
        American Home Products Corporation and
                     Subsidiaries
           Computation of Earnings Per Share
        (In thousands except per share amounts)
                                                         Quarter Ended
                                                           March 31,      
                                                             1997


1. Net Income .......................................       $576,677

2. Reported earnings per share:

   a.  Average number of common shares outstanding           
       during the year ..............................        642,306


   b.  Reported earnings per share (1/2a) ...........          $0.90


3. Primary earnings per share:

   a.  Average number of common shares outstanding         
       during the quarter ...........................        642,306
  
   b.  Common shares deemed outstanding from the
       assumed exercise of stock options reduced by
       the number of common shares purchased with 
       the proceeds (determined using the average 
       market price during the quarter)...............        12,191
  
   c. Deferred contingent common stock awards ........           494
  
   d. Shares for primary earnings per share
      calculation (3a+3b+3c) .........................       654,991
  
   e. Primary earnings per share (1/3d) ..............         $0.88


4. Fully diluted earnings per share:

   a. Average number of common shares outstanding            
      during the quarter .............................       642,306
   
   b. Common shares deemed outstanding from the
      assumed exercise of stock options reduced by the
      number of common shares purchased with the
      proceeds (determined using the higher of the 
      average market price during the quarter or the 
      market price at end of the quarter) .............       12,191
  
   c. Deferred contingent common stock awards .........          494

   d. Shares for fully diluted earnings per share
      calculation (4a+4b+4c) ..........................      654,991
  
  
   e. Fully diluted earnings per share (1/4d) .........        $0.88
No. 11-97.

#### Castle *v.*Thompson et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–505

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO

SUSPEND THE RULES

FEBRUARY 29, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 425]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 425, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of March 8, 2000.

The resolution provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation

of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Æ
385P15

#### State v. Archimede N. Nkiam

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1164)

1. Allowed 11/23/2015

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed

3. State’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question

3.-

4. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Allowed

5. Def’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

5. Allowed

6. Def’s Motion to Dismiss PDR

6. Dismissed as moot

Ervin, J.,

recused
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4204 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4204

 To designate the Federal building located at 711 Washington Street in 
  Boston, Massachusetts, as the ``Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research 
                           Center on Aging''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1994

 Mr. Moakley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 711 Washington Street in 
  Boston, Massachusetts, as the ``Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research 
                           Center on Aging''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 711 Washington Street in Boston, 
Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ``Jean Mayer Human 
Nutrition Research Center on Aging''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jean Mayer Human 
Nutrition Research Center on Aging''.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

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 Capital Corp of the West (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 As filedwith Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, R. Dale McKinney , Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Capital Corp of the West and will be retained by Capital Corpof the West and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 
| March 25, 2003 |                    |
|----------------|-------------------------|
|           |                    |
|           | /s/ R. Dale McKinney    |
|           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# N~**f3,~ s~** 

# &~**~J,v**



# __**1'2'!~**

# 1(/;0A)M,t;ifzc

J o •r

# ~~**~** ( ' hv.c:.IL 

# Fe. u t{ k._

# c"'~<t.J**~~~~~k\­ ~~,.,.**  fV\ 

# \'v\P! roJ

&;b Hermttll strn. 

# Er<. J (I) 

# lvL-l.. 

### o.s

# ~~lc~

# ~

# """) I A

# Ph twh:.-

- (f>-t- 

# £PA**~4** 

# ,1/72 

# k'1 M?<2-**-- c_** 



# BP**P~&&** 

# A V \ 

# (**11~** 

# )!711

- 3.bo 

# !>**~1'l** 

# sln-**L-J~q'**

# ~/ 

# t-**~41//~**j- j' 

# ;>q; 

# (c<**~-<) 6'8~** **6.~-2** f 

# 7o 3-9Lf"
- 331\l ·**(:,0~-'?~1-jb~b**

## ~'-~r~--~b~**fi?XJ-CJ~1-7~r-o** 

## q, f- 97'7- 

## 73fof 

# to'L**G~Z** 

# B'St<?

### Delayed Coking Unit Depressurization Work Practice (Preliminary Information) I. Neither a 2 o r 5 psig work practice is a cost-effective risk reduction alternative.
a. Emissions reduction potential is small i. Max allowable emissions is not representat ive of coker emissions. ii. Coke drums targeting 5 psig typically average :53 psig iii. Coke drums targeting 2 psig typically average :51 psig Table 1: Preliminary API base case release pressure distribution Release Pressure Assumption, psi g Percent of coke dru ms 2 psig regulatory limit (1 psig average release pressure) 15 2 psig internal target (2 psig average release pressure) 10 5 psig regulatory limit (3 psig average release p ressure) 20 5 psig internal target (5 psig average release pressure) 15 >5 psig average release pressure (Taken as 13 psig fo r emission 40 calculations for conservatism reasons).


### b. The potential emissions are overstated 

### by the ICR protocol.
c. Costs are high. i. Project cost range for an individual DCU to achieve a not to exceed 5 psig- $1.SMM-30MM (average project -$5-7MM) ii. Project cost rang e for an individual DCU to achieve a not to exceed 2 psig- $1.SMM50MM (average project -S10-12MM) iii. A do not exceed limit incurs considerably more cost than an average limit. Table 2: Pre l iminary API Investment Cost Estimates Portion of Annualized Tota l

DCU 's Total Investment Annua l Op Annual Cost

% M$ M$ Cost M$ M$ 5 psig regulatory limit 55 

### 227 21 16 37 2 psig regulatory limit 85 

### 450 42 32 74

### II. NSPS Ja and many permits impose a not to exceed 5 psig limita. A different MACT work practice would be conflicting b. A different MACT work practice may result in stranded capital
c. As indicated in I, average release pressures are much less than the limit, resulting in diminished emission reduction due to reducing limit from 

### 5 to 2 psig. 

### Ill. Other considerations
a. Adequate implementation timing is critical i. §112(d}(6) affords 

### 3+1 years ii. Some projects will require entire unit shutdown- critical to overlay on planned turnaround (or significant lost profit opportunity exists) iii. Expedited projects escalate cost b. Overhead temperature is not an indicator of emissions or reliably measureable and thus the work practice should use overhead pressure as its basis

. 

## r: Alternatives should be allowed. i. Vent for less than 20 minutes. ii. Establish base case emissions through testing and establish alternate work practices through testing that result in no increased emissions.
§ 102-74.375 What is the policy on admitting persons to Government property? Federal agencies must— ( a ) Except as otherwise permitted, close property to the public during other than normal working hours. In those instances where a Federal agency has approved the after-normal-working-hours use of buildings or portions thereof for activities authorized by subpart D of this part, Federal agencies must not close the property (or affected portions thereof) to the public;
( b ) Close property to the public during working hours only when situations require this action to provide for the orderly conduct of Government business. The designated official under the Occupant Emergency Program may make such decision only after consultation with the buildings manager and the highest ranking representative of the law enforcement organization responsible for protection of the property or the area. The designated official is defined in § 102-71.20 of this chapter as the highest ranking official of the primary occupant agency, or the alternate highest ranking official or designee selected by mutual agreement by other occupant agency officials; and
( c ) When property or a portion thereof is closed to the public, restrict admission to the property, or the affected portion, to authorized persons who must register upon entry to the property and must, when requested, display Government or other identifying credentials to Federal police officers or other authorized individuals when entering, leaving or while on the property. Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions is a violation of these regulations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7095

ARLIS ZARKIAI HICKS-BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELLIS WRIGHT, Warden; SERGEANT MAYES; T.

JARRELL, Officer; M. LEE, Officer; R. COLEMAN,

Officer; OFFICER HARRIS; ALL OF GREENSVILLE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-94-1279-CV-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlis Zarkiai Hicks-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district

court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP AUBREY IRVING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00078-jct) Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: December 20, 2006 Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Aubrey Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Albert Lustig, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Phillip Aubrey Irving seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for specific performance in his criminal case. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order on December 16, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on February 9, 2006. Because Irving failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Irving’s motion to expedite this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED