alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
363 P.2d 355

#### Gerald A. CLEAR, Father of Nancy Joan Clear, a minor, now deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent. v. Leland G. MARVIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9050.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July 5, 1961.

Martinson & Gale, Moscow, Hawkins & Miller, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant.

*400McCarthy & Adams, Lewiston, Sharp & Bishop, Clarkston,' Wash., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff.(respondent) brought this action to recover damages from defendant (appellant) for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s nine-year-old daughter, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Upon plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment the trial court found that the child’s death was the result of gross negligence on the part of defendant; that the defendant was liable therefor as a matter of law; and that there was a genuine issue as to the amount of damages which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Judgment was accordingly entered determining defendant’s liability and that the only issue remaining to be resolved is the amount of plaintiff’s damage.

Defendant brought this appeal from the judgment. On defendant’s motion the district court stayed further proceedings in that court, pending appeal.

The cause is now before this court on plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The issue is governed by I.R.C.P., Rule 56(c), which is as follows:

> *“Motion for summary judgment and proceedings thereon.*— The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although *401there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. Such judgment, when appropriate, may he rendered for or against any party to the action.”

Idaho Code, § 13-201, enumerates the judgments and orders of the district court from which an appeal may be taken. The only interlocutory judgment from which an appeal is allowed by that section is one entered in an action for the partition of real property.

The judgment here entered has the character of finality, but only as to a portion of the issues raised by the pleadings. It is a judgment declared by the rule to be interlocutory in character.

Negligence and contributory negligence are issues of fact presented by the pleadings. The correctness of the court’s ruling as to such issues may be seriously questioned. Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410, 353 P.2d 657. This court may determine such question upon an appeal from the final judgment, but not upon this attempted appeal from the interlocutory judgment. Maybury v. City of Seattle, 53 Wash.2d 716, 336 P.2d 878; Hontz v. White, Wash., 348 P.2d 420; Owens v. Kuro, Wash., 354 P.2d 696; 3 Barron & Holtzoff, §§ 1231, 1241.

Appeal dismissed.

McQUADE, J., did not participate.
fireproof
- exemption
- request_extension
- 053013.doc Page **1** of **2** 

### SENSENICH WOOD PROPELLER CO., INC . AREA CODE 813 PHONE - 752
- 3711 FAX - 752
- 2818 2008 WOOD COURT PLANT CITY,FL USA 33563 See us on the Web @ www.sensenich.com May 30, 2013 U.S. Dept. of Transporta tion Docket Operations, M - 30 West Building ground floor, Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 2059 0 Dear Sirs, Sensenich Wood Propeller Company, Inc. requests an extension for exemption from Title 14 CFR Part 45.11 b (fire proof mar kings for TCed products). This Exemption was first granted June 29, 2001 under Exemption No. 7559, Regulatory Docket No. FAA 2000 - 8498 , extended on September 2, 2004 under Exemption No. 8394 , and extended on December 8, 2008 under Exemption 9800
. Since t he original petition remains essentially valid, Sensenich Wood Propeller Co. requests an extension for Petition No. 7559 with one additional Type Certificate added to the exemption
. The re are no changes to the original petition. Two documents suppor t the original Petition for Exemption:

- document for original petition application, dated 11 - 16 - 00, fireproof - exemption - r4. pdf

- fax of additional comments to original petition, dated 3 - 3 - 01, faa - fireproof - magruder 030101 - f. pdffireproof
- exemption
- request_extension
- 053013.doc Page **2** of **2** It was discovered after the 2008 exemption that Sensenich Type Certificate P27NE was not included on the list of exempted wooden propeller type certificates. Since this type certificate also pertains to Sensenich fixed pitch wooden propellers, Sensenich believes it should be ad ded to the exempted list of type certificates. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely,
Steve Boser Engineering Manager
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 14

- 0 0 843

- C V

Style: Raymond Espinosa

v Aaron’s Rents, Inc., Aaron’s Inc., Aaron’s Sales & Lease

Ownership, and Nicole Lee

Date motion filed * : March 30

, 201 5

Type of motion: Motion to strike

Party filing motion: Appellees

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

Ordered that motion is :

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

The Court will decide the appeal based on the record properly before the Court.

See, e.g.

, Till v. Thomas , 10 S.W.3d 730, 733

– 34 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.]

1999, no pet.).

Judge's signature:

_

/s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: May 21, 2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD C. GUTHRIE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-171) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Frank, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1995). 2 PER CURIAM:Howard C. Guthrie pled guilty to one count of receiving materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West Supp. 1996), and a second count of possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors. 18 U.S.C.A.§ 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1996). He appeals his 24-month sentence, contending that the district court erred in determining that three prior sentences for driving under the influence were separate offenses rather than related offenses. Finding no error, we affirm. Guthrie was arrested for driving under the influence on June 14, 1989, again on July 3, 1989, and once more on July 4, 1989. He was sentenced for the last two convictions on the same day, but the cases were not consolidated. Prior sentences may not be treated as one in determining a defendant's criminal history if they were for offenses separated by an intervening arrest. USSG § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).* Because Guthrie's three DUI sentences were for offenses which were separated by intervening arrests, the district court did not err in finding that they were unrelated cases and assigning one criminal history point for each.The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore affirmed. 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.3 AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 1303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1303 appear at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024.

§ 1303.45 Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate facilities. ( a ) *Cost comparison.* ( 1 ) If a grant recipient proposes to purchase, construct, or renovate a facility, it must submit a detailed cost estimate of the proposed activity, compare the costs associated with the proposed activity to other available alternatives in the service area, and provide any additional information the responsible HHS official requests. The grant recipient must demonstrate that the proposed activity will result in savings when compared to the costs that would be incurred to acquire the use of an alternative facility to carry out program.
( 2 ) In addition to requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the grant recipient must: ( i ) Identify who owns the property;
( ii ) List all costs related to the purchase, construction, or renovation;
( iii ) Identify costs over the structure's useful life, which is at least 20 years for a facility that the grant recipient purchased or constructed and at least 15 years for a modular unit the grant recipient renovated, and deferred costs, including mortgage payments, as costs with associated due dates; and,
( iv ) Demonstrate how the proposed purchase, construction, or major renovation is consistent with program management and fiscal goals, community needs, enrollment and program options and how the proposed facility will support the grant recipient as it provides quality services to children and families.
( b ) *Continue purchase or refinance.* To use funds to continue purchase on a facility or to refinance an existing indebtedness, the grant recipient must compare the costs of continued purchase against the cost of purchasing a comparable facility in the service area over the remaining years of the facility's useful life. The grant recipient must demonstrate that the proposed activity will result in savings when compared to the cost that would be incurred to acquire the use of an alternative facility to carry out the program.
( c ) *Multi-purpose use.* If the grant recipient intends to use a facility to operate a Head Start program and for another purpose, it must disclose what percentage of the facility will be used for non-Head Start activities, along with costs associated with those activities, in accordance with applicable cost principles.
[81 FR 61412, Sept. 6, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024]
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationGuidelinesPersonnel PolicySchool PersonnelSchool PolicySexual AbuseSexual HarassmentStudent Welfare

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-14875) pertaining to the 2008 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of Tootie Pie Company, Inc. of our report dated June 26, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Tootie Pie Company, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2009.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|                                      
|/s/ Akin, Doherty, Klein & Feuge, P.C.
|                                      
|AKIN, DOHERTY, KLEIN & FEUGE, P.C.    
|San Antonio, Texas                    
|June 26, 2009
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ASI Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Ronald J. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Philip A. Shiels,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of
     the Company.


/s/    Ronald J. Chapman

Ronald J. Chapman
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2007


/s/    Philip A. Shiels

Philip A. Shiels
Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2007

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ASI Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by ASI Entertainment,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]




                                    - 1 -
<PAGE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 12 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00344

- CV

CHARITY ANN

- MARIE ABAD , Appellant

V.

JUAN ANTONIO ABAD , Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 65652



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

This appeal is from a judgment signed March 18, 2012. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. On April 9, 2012, appella nt filed a pauper’s oath affidavit, which was denied on April 18, 2012. Appellant has not challenged the denial of the pauper’s oath affidavit.
On June 6, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or2

made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.
See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the rec ord. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, McCally, and Busby.
§ 162.1203 Operating rules for eligibility for a health plan transaction. On and after January 1, 2013, the Secretary adopts the following: ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the following CAQH CORE Phase I and Phase II operating rules (updated for Version 5010) for the eligibility for a health plan transaction: ( 1 ) Phase I CORE 152: Eligibility and Benefit Real Time Companion Guide Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011, and CORE v5010 Master Companion Guide Template. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 2 ) Phase I CORE 153: Eligibility and Benefits Connectivity Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 3 ) Phase I CORE 154: Eligibility and Benefits 270/271 Data Content Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 4 ) Phase I CORE 155: Eligibility and Benefits Batch Response Time Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 5 ) Phase I CORE 156: Eligibility and Benefits Real Time Response Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 6 ) Phase I CORE 157: Eligibility and Benefits System Availability Rule, version 1.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 7 ) Phase II CORE 258: Eligibility and Benefits 270/271 Normalizing Patient Last Name Rule, version 2.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 8 ) Phase II CORE 259: Eligibility and Benefits 270/271 AAA Error Code Reporting Rule, version 2.1.0. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 9 ) Phase II CORE 260: Eligibility & Benefits Data Content (270/271) Rule, version 2.1.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( 10 ) Phase II CORE 270: Connectivity Rule, version 2.2.0, March 2011. (Incorporated by reference in § 162.920).
( b ) Excluding where the CAQH CORE rules reference and pertain to acknowledgements and CORE certification.
[76 FR 40496, July 8, 2011]
1 

## NO. 12

- 1 0

- 00 017

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODERICK CEBRON PIERSON , APPEL L ANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 1 14 T H

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS , ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, and punishment was assessed at imprisonment for fifty years. Appellant then filed his notice of appeal.
To be sufficient to in voke the appellate court’s full jurisdiction, the notice of appeal filed by an appellant in a criminal case must bear the trial court’s certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2 (d). The certification should be part
of the rec ord when notice is filed, but may be added by timely amendment or supplementation. Id

. Appellant’s notice of appeal does not include the required
certification. On February 1, 2010, this court notified Appellant through his counsel, pursuant
to Texas Ru les of Appellate Procedure 25.2 and 37.1, that the notice of appeal does not include the trial court certification. The notice also informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before March 3, 2010, the clerk’s record was amended

to include the required certification. The deadline for responding to this court’s notice has expired, and the clerk’s record has not been amended to show Appellant’s right to appeal. Therefore, the appeal
is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion del ivered March 10 , 2010

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH)
----

|   | 1.  The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/  Alnoor      Shivji                    |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Alnoor      Shivji                                   |   |
|   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
THI RD DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , B OGGS and BRA NCH, J. J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s
D ecem ber 9, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A0 73 0 . FROST v . STATE

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

In S t a t e v

. F

r o s t , 29 7 Ga. 2 9 6 (7 7 3 SE2 d 70 0 ) (2 0 15 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

rev ers ed t h e ju d g m en t o f t h i s Co u rt i n Fr o s t v. S t a t e , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 7 (7 6 1 SE2 d

8 7 5 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Acco rd i n g l y , we v acat e ou r earl i er o p i n i o n an d ad o p t th e j u d gm en t o f

t h e Su prem e Co u rt as o u r o wn

.
Ju d g men t r ever sed . Bo g g s a n d Br a n ch , JJ., co n cu r

.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 997 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 997

 To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the issuance of permits under 
title V of that Act for certain emissions from agricultural production.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2023

    Mr. Thune (for himself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Kelly) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the issuance of permits under 
title V of that Act for certain emissions from agricultural production.

    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 ``Livestock Regulatory Protection Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITTING CERTAIN EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL 
              PRODUCTION.

    Section 502(f) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661a(f)) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as clauses 
        (i) through (iii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
            (2) in the undesignated matter following clause (iii) (as 
        so redesignated), by striking ``Approval of'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(B) No relief of obligation.--Approval of'';
            (3) by striking the subsection designation and heading and 
        all that follows through ``No partial'' in the matter preceding 
        clause (i) (as so redesignated) and inserting the following:
    ``(f) Prohibitions.--
            ``(1) Partial permit programs.--
                    ``(A) In general.--No partial''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Certain emissions from agricultural production.--No 
        permit shall be issued under a permit program under this title 
        for any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or methane 
        emissions resulting from biological processes associated with 
        livestock production.''.
                                 <all>
```
- 81070160400
- 81070160401
- 81070160402
- 81070160403