alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 1251.

First Appellate District.

October 28, 1913.]

#### W. G. HOLLAND, Respondent, v. D. J. CANTY et al., Appellants.

Appeal—Sufficiency of Evidence—Specification of Particulars.— Where the statement of a case contains no specification nor attempted specification of the particulars in which it is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and decision, the appellate court cannot resort to it, either upon the appeal from the judgment or the order denying a new trial, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

APPEAL, from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing a new trial. Geo. E. Church, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Royle A. Carter, E. A. Williams, and C. E. Beaumont, for Appellants.

Frank Kauke, and Geo. Cosgrave, for Respondent.

LENNON, P. J.

In this action to quiet title plaintiff was awarded judgment in keeping with the allegations and prayer of his complaint. The defendants have appealed from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial upon a statement of the ease.

The alleged insufficiency of the evidence to justify the trial court’s findings of fact is the only point made in support of the appeal.

The point cannot be considered. The statement of the case before us contains no specification nor attempted specification *92of the particulars in which it is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and decision. This being so, the settled statement of the case could not be rightfully resorted to in the court below upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial in so far as the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is concerned; nor can this court resort to such statement either upon the appeal from the judgment or the order denying a new trial, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. *(Winterburn*v. *Chambers,*91 Cal. 170-185, [27 Pac. 658]; *Matter of Baker,*153 Cal. 537, 542, [96 Pac. 12].)

The findings, assuming them to be correct—as we must— fully support the judgment.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Kerrigan, J., and Richards, J., concurred.
No. 11-9049.

#### Otero *v.*Rhode Island.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
## F lorida 

## D epartment o f



## E nvironmental 

## P rotection

Bob Martinez Center

2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 2400 R ick S cott G overnor

C arlos L opez

- C antera

L t . G overnor

J onathan P. S teverson

S ecretary

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic

- Mail

December 14 , 2015

Mrs. Heather McTeer Toney Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

– Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303

- 8960

Re: Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP Requirements for 20 12 PM 2.5 NAAQS

Dear M rs

. Toney:

On behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) , I hereby confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA)

S ection 110(a)(1) and the elements required by CAA S ection 110(a) (2) for implementation of the 20 12 N ation al Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) have bee n adequately addressed through the approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Florida’s original State Implementation Plan (SIP) and subsequent SIP revisions, and through EPA’s acceptance of Florida’s statutory authorities, resource commitments

, and ongoing a ir program management activities related to the development and implementation of the state’s approved SIP.

The State of Florida is not aware of any SIP deficiencies related to implementation of the

revised PM 2.5 sta ndard

. Attached please find a submittal package detailing the components of Florida’s

“Infrastructure SIP” for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, together with a summary of the existing

Florida Statutes and SIP

- approved rules that implement CAA S ection 110(a)(1) and each

of the CAA S ection 110(a)(2) element s.

The complete SIP submittal package (hard copy and electronic copy) has been sent directly to the Air Planning Branch for EPA Region 4 . The electronic copy is in a searchable format and is an exact duplicate of the hard copy. The notice of opportunit y to submit comments, request a public hearing, or participate in a public hear ing, if requested, regarding this proposed SIP revision was published on October 15, 2015 , in the Florida Administrative Register. N o hearing was requested; therefore, the hear ingMrs. Heather McTeer Toney Page 2 of 2

December 14 , 2015

scheduled for November 17, 2015 , was cancelled. Comments received during the noticed public comment period have been addressed in the submittal package. I hereby certify that the public participation requirements of all applicable state and federal re gulations, including those of 40 CFR 51.102, have been satisfied with respect to this proposed SIP

revision.

If you have any questions about DEP’s proposed SIP revision, please contact Preston McLane at (850) 717

- 9089 or by e

- mail at Preston.McLane@dep.state.fl.us

.

Sincerely,

Justin B. Green, Director Division of Air Resource Management

cc (with SIP package): R. Scott Davis, Ch ief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 45844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6825]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, August 8, 2006, 3 p.m. to 
August 8, 2006, 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on July 28, 2006, 71 FR 42866.
    The time of the meeting on August 8, 2006 has been changed to 4 
p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The meeting date and location remain the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 1, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-6825 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 54.625 Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) changes. ( a ) *Corrective SPIN change.* A “corrective SPIN change” is any amendment to the SPIN associated with a Funding Request Number that does not involve a change to the service provider associated with that Funding Request Number. An applicant under the Telecommunications Program or the Healthcare Connect Fund Program may file a request for a corrective SPIN change with the Administrator to: ( 1 ) Correct ministerial errors;
( 2 ) Update the service provider's SPIN that resulted from a merger or acquisition of companies; or
( 3 ) Effectuate a change to the SPIN that does not involve a change to the service provider of a funding request and was not initiated by the applicant.
( b ) *Operational SPIN Change.* An “operational SPIN change” is any change to the service provider associated with a Funding Request Number. An applicant under the Telecommunications Program or the Healthcare Connect Fund Program may file a request for an operational SPIN change with the Administrator if: ( 1 ) The applicant has a legitimate reason to change providers (*e.g.,* breach of contract or the service provider is unable to perform); and
( 2 ) The applicant's newly selected service provider received the next highest point value in the original bid evaluation, assuming there were multiple bidders.
( c ) *Filing deadline.* An applicant must file its request for a corrective or operational SPIN change with the Administrator no later than the invoice filing deadline as defined by § 54.627.
[84 FR 54979, Oct. 11, 2019, as amended at 89 FR 1846, Jan. 11, 2024]
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

| 1) | to                the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements                of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | to                the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report                fairly                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result                of                operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date                : August 14, 2007 | By:                /s/ Linden Boyne          |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                  | Linden                Boyne                  |
|                                  | Secretary                / Treasurer         |
|                                  | (Principal                Financial Officer) |

**End      of Filing**

----
No. 11-9421.

#### Dorcant *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 64.630 Applicability of change of default TRS provider rules. ( a ) Sections 64.630 through 64.636 governing changes in default TRS providers shall apply to any provider of IP Relay or VRS eligible to receive payments from the TRS Fund.
( b ) For purposes of §§ 64.630 through 64.636, the term *iTRS users* is defined as any individual that has been assigned a ten-digit NANP number from the TRS Numbering Directory for IP Relay, VRS, or point-to-point video service.
[82 FR 17764, Apr. 13, 2017]
v068383_ex10-2 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
      10.2
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 02, 2004

Mr. Roy Carper

P.O. Box 286

Farwell, TX 79325

Mr. Floyd D Holder

Floyd Holder Law Firm

3223 S. Loop 289, Suite 420

Lubbock, TX 79423

RE:Case Number:  03-0426

Court of Appeals Number:  07-02-00319-CV

Trial Court Number:  8691

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

SILVER CHEVROLET PICKUP VIN 1GCEC14T7YE257128 TAG NO. 3TMX16, AND OTHER ASSETS

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.  Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above referenced cause.  

Encl.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Nancy J. Vega, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 03-0426Page 2**
§ 54.516 Auditing and inspections. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 67325 , Aug. 20, 2024.
( a ) *Recordkeeping requirements* — ( 1 ) *Schools, libraries, and consortia.* Schools, libraries, and any consortium that includes schools or libraries shall retain all documents related to the application for, receipt, and delivery of supported services for at least 10 years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. Any other document that demonstrates compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements for the schools and libraries mechanism shall be retained as well. Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, schools, libraries, and consortia shall maintain asset and inventory records for a period of 10 years after purchase.
( 2 ) *Service providers.* Service providers shall retain documents related to the delivery of supported services for at least 10 years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. Any other document that demonstrates compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements for the schools and libraries mechanism shall be retained as well.
( b ) *Production of records.* Schools, libraries, consortia, and service providers shall produce such records at the request of any representative (including any auditor) appointed by a State education department, the Administrator, the FCC, or any local, State or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity. Where necessary for compliance with Federal or State privacy laws, E-Rate participants may produce records regarding students, school staff, and library patrons in an anonymized or deidentified format. When requested by the Administrator or the Commission, as part of an audit or investigation, schools, libraries, and consortia must seek consent to provide personally identifiable information from a student who has reach age of majority, the relevant parent/guardian of a minor student, or the school staff member or library patron prior to disclosure.
( c ) *Audits.* Schools, libraries, consortia, and service providers shall be subject to audits and other investigations to evaluate their compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, including those requirements pertaining to what services and products are purchased, what services and products are delivered, and how services and products are being used. Schools, libraries, and consortia receiving discounted services must provide consent before a service provider releases confidential information to the auditor, reviewer, or other representative.
( d ) *Inspections.* Schools, libraries, consortia and service providers shall permit any representative (including any auditor) appointed by a state education department, the Administrator, the Commission or any local, state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity to enter their premises to conduct E-rate compliance inspections.
[79 FR 49203, Aug. 19, 2014, as amended at 89 FR 67325, Aug. 20, 2024]
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Johnathon Choate

540 Howard Street

Kalona, IA 52247

Dear Mr. Choate :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your J anuary 29 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

-

0258 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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  Quarterly Report of Palomar Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 24, 2005.



/s/  Steve Bonenberger

Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive

Officer and Director
§ 63.62 Type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of telephone service requiring formal application. Authority for the following types of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service shall be requested by formal application containing the information required by the Commission in the appropriate sections to this part, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, or in emergency cases (as defined in § 63.60(b)) as provided in § 63.63: ( a ) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line (for contents of application *see* § 63.500) for all domestic carriers and for dominant international carriers except as modified in § 63.19;
( b ) The severance of physical connection or the termination or suspension of the interchange of traffic with another carrier (for contents of application, see § 63.501);
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) The closure of a public toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant in the community will continue service (for contents of application, see § 63.504): *Provided, however,* That no application shall be required under this part with respect to the closure of a toll station located in a community where telephone toll service is otherwise available to the public through a telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier;
( e ) Any other type of discontinuance, reduction or impairment of telephone service not specifically provided for by other provisions of this part (for contents of application, see § 63.505);
( f ) An application may be filed requesting authority to make a type of reduction in service under specified standards and conditions in lieu of individual applications for each instance coming within the type of reduction in service proposed.
[28 FR 13229, Dec. 5, 1963, as amended at 45 FR 6585, Jan. 29, 1980; 60 FR 35509, July 10, 1995; 61 FR 15733, Apr. 9, 1996]
Exhibit 10.1


TO:


DATE:


Subject:  Your Bonus Plan for 2007 (January through
December 2007)


Your bonus plan for 2007 will be based on the
attainment of the Adjusted EBITDA budget of Physicians Formula Inc. for 2007 (                   )
according to the following criteria:


· Between
80% and 100% of achievement of the Adjusted EBITDA budget, the bonus will be a
straight-line percent between 0 and 50% of your base salary.


· Above
achievement of the Adjusted EBITDA budget between 100% and 125% of Adjusted
EBITDA budget, the bonus amount will be straight-line between 50% to 100% of
your base salary.


· Below
80% of Adjusted EBITDA budget, you will not receive any bonus.


You must be employed by the Company as of the last day
of the calendar year for which any bonus relates in order to receive any such
bonus hereunder.  The bonus shall be paid
within 30 days following the delivery of the Company’s annual audited
financial statements for such year.


I thank you in advance for your cooperation in
reaching the overall company objectives for 2007.


Sincerely,


If you accept the bonus proposal, please sign and date
below.


Accepted and Agree:


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date

  



 



                 1
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Scientific  Energy,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Jana Meyer,
Treasurer/Secretary 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/S/ Jana Meyer

Jana Meyer
Secretary/Treasuer and Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

August 7, 2003

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JOSEPH TAMBELLINI, INC. D/B/A 

JOSEPH TAMBELLINI RESTAURANT,

Petitioner

v.

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 52 WM 2020

Emergency Application for 

Extraordinary Relief Pursuant to 

Rule 3309, 42 Pa. C.S. § 726 and 

King’s Bench Powers

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2020, the Application of AIG Applicants for Leave 

to Participate as Amici Curiae and the Application of American Property Casualty 

Insurance Association et al. for Leave to Submit Amici Curiae Brief in Opposition to the 

Emergency Application are GRANTED. The Emergency Application for Extraordinary 

Relief Pursuant to Rule 3309, 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 and King’s Bench Powers is DENIED.