alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William R. Ware, Respondent, *v.*Mary W. Bonta, Appellant.

*Ware*v. *Bonta,*138 App. Div. 909, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted November 14, 1910;

decided November 22, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 1, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action for services.

The motion was made upon the ground that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous and permission to appeal had not been obtained.

*J. Hampden Dougherty*for motion.

*Leonard F. Fish*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LARRY SAMUELS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 82 MM 2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LARRY SAMUELS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2 nd day of December , 2021, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00791

- CR

TERRY MICHAEL NATIONS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1380801

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

After a plea of guilty , appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary of a building with the intent to commit theft and sentenced on July 11, 2013, to three years in State Jail

. No motion for new trial was filed . Appellant’s notice of appeal
was not filed until August 27, 2013

. A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R.2

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). I f an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.
Id.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-149-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### In the Matter of the Application of Alvira Davis et al., Respondents, for the Sale of Real Estate of George W. Davis, Deceased. Michael Moore, Appellant.

*Matter of Davis,*138 App. Div. 931, affirmed.

(Argued November 17, 1910;

decided December 6, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered October 10, 1910, which affirmed a decree of the Madison County Surrogate’s Court directing the sale of real estate of George *W.*Davis, deceased, for the payment of his debts.

E. *O. Worden*for appellant.

*C. W. Underhill*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
#### § 234.223 Gate arm.

Each gate arm, when in the downward position, shall extend across each lane of approaching highway traffic and shall be maintained in a condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by approaching highway users. Each gate arm shall start its downward motion not less than three seconds after flashing lights begin to operate and shall assume the horizontal position at least five seconds before the arrival of any normal train movement through the crossing. At those crossings equipped with four quadrant gates, the timing requirements of this section apply to entrance gates only.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2366

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 15, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

AN ACT

To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting

requirement.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 Section 1862 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

5 1395y) is amended by striking subsection (h).

Passed the House of Representatives November 14,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.1**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of Max & Erma’s Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending May 14, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd B. Barnum, the Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Todd B. Barnum Todd B. Barnum, Chairman of the Board  and Chief Executive Officer     June 21, 2006  This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed“filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         433,013
<SECURITIES>                                   106,449
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    207,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               805,581
<PP&E>                                          35,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,809,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   848,417
<SALES>                                        322,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          104,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  302,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,714
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
#### Robert S. Lenahan et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Elizabeth Giraud, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*The First National Bank of Brooklyn, Respondent, and William Van Alen, as Administrator of the Estate of Jacob Van Alen, Deceased, Appellant.

*Lenahan*v. *First Nat. Bank of*Brooklyn, 134 App. Div. 936, affirmed.

(Argued January 5, 1911;

decided January 24, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 26, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover certain moneys alleged to be part of the estate of Elizabeth Giraud, deceased, and on deposit with defendant bank.

*Theodore T. Baylor*for appellant.

*William L. Gellert*and *George Worrall*for plaintiffs, respondents.

*C. W. Wilson, Jr.,*for defendant, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 21, 1995 (119), Para 119.19 Adjournment Over]
[Page 1448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.119.19  adjournment over

  On motion of Mr. ARMEY, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That when the House adjourns on Monday, September 25, 1995, 
it adjourn to meet at 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, September 27, 1995.
```
ED STq T ~
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

o 

### ~~~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

z

~ llft► 2

0

~ ~114 PR0 1tO\ 

### MAR 1 2 2012

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### Mr. J. R. Stroble Manager, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

Dear Mr. Stroble:

On August 30, 2011, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested, as a Tier 1(Tl ) change, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste stream IN-ID-NRF-SPC (Naval Reactors Facility (NRF)) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA has reviewed the information provided and approves the addition of these containers from waste stream IN-ID-NRF-SPC. As a result, INL may dispose of this waste at the WIPP. This approval also allows future. addition of waste to this stream with a waste pedigree (radiological and physical contents) similar to the waste approved in this letter and as detailed in the report. The enclosed report, EPA Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-159, supports EPA's approval decision. If you have any questions regarding this approval, pleasc contact Raiani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.



### Sincerely,

Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management an(i Regulations

Enclosure

Internet Address (URL) • http /lwww.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorrne Free Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Christine Gelles, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM Joe Franco, CBFO Ed Ziemianski, CBFO Marcus Pinzel, CBFO NTP Courtland Fesmire, CBFO QA Irene Quintana, WTS-CCP D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP John Kieling, NMED Trais Kilphuis, NMED Tim Hall, NMED Raymond Lee, EPA HQ Site Documents
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Flight plan [electronicresource].**
 
2004-08 | 2005-09 | 2006-10 | 2007-11 | 2008-12 | 2009-13
 
SuDoc Number:TD 4.2:2004022887 | TD 4.72:
Item Number:0431-C-08 (online) | 0431-C-58(online)
CGP systemNumber: 000582574
 
February 3, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         258,370
<SECURITIES>                                    82,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    185,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               552,663
<PP&E>                                          52,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,809,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        222,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           64,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Clarence E. Evans, an Infant, by Edward Evans, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*Eastman Kodak Company, Respondent.

*Evans*v. *Eastman Kodak Co.,*143 App. Div. 958, affirmed.

(Argued June 7, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 21, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to *624have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*George D. Reed*for appellant.

*George A. Carnahan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Hiscock and Collin, JJ. Not sitting: Werner, J.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0183 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-9629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Sandra R Mihok 

Address: 

600 Grant Street 

44th Floor 

Pittsburgh, PA, 15219 

Email: smihok@eckertseamans.com 

Phone: 412-566-1903 

Organization: Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott, LLC 

General Comment 

The regulations should contain an exception to plan aggregation to permit an 

employer to establish a separate plan, whether insured or self-insured, which is 

not coordinated with the employer's medical plan, and which either provides 

coverage for a single disease or illness (such as substance abuse programs), or 

other limited benefits. The terms of exception could require that 

the plan be offered under a separate insurance policy or administrative contract 

than the medical plan, and that it cover and provide the same level of benefits to 

all eligible employees, regardless of whether the employee participates in the 

employer's medical plan, and regardless of the benefit package option selected 

under the medical plan. Another condition could be that the plan be paid for 

entirely by the employer. 

This exception is needed because there are a lot of issues with coordinating these 

types of programs with the employer's medical plan. First, these benefits are 

typically offered under a separate administrative contract than the medical plan. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 27, 2009 

Received: May 27, 2009 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 809b9317 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
Under the new rules, the employer would be required attempt to match benefits 

with potentially several different benefit options that are offered under the medical 

plan which might not be possible under the terms of the program's administrative 

contract. Further, it is not clear how the rules would work for participants who do 

not elect to participate in the medical plan at all (presumably a separate level of 

benefits could be made available to these participants). 

Employers are often providing these benefits at no cost to the employee, 

and requiring coordination would potentially increase the cost of such benefits 

which might then be passed on to employees. Also, coordination might be so 

difficult or burdensome because the employer is dealing with different third party 

administrators and administrative contracts, such that the employer might decide 

to cease offering these benefits altogether. 

Finally, the law recognizes an exemption from the requirements for similar 

noncoordinated benefits offered under an insured arrangement, so adopting such 

an exemption for self-insured arrangements would be consistent.
#### §§ 236.558-236.559 [Reserved]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133907 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133907 

 COA: 276462 

Oakland CC: 06-206661-FC 

CARVIN RUDOLPH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
-----Original Message----- 

From: johnk@boyceville.k12.wi.us [mailto:johnk@boyceville.k12.wi.us] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:26 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

John Kniprath 

1580 Mclean Ave 

St. Paul, MN 55106
# Official Journal L 217/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 217 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6418 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 217

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6418 June 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2021/964 of 26 May 2021 on the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Honduras on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union | 1 |
| | * | Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Honduras on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2021/964 of 26 May 2021 on the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Honduras on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union

1

*

Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Honduras on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
exv10wxoy



 






Exhibit 10(o)




Description
of Executive and Board Compensation Reductions




GM senior leadership team will reduce its salaries as follows: Fifty percent reduction for
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; thirty percent reduction for Vice
Chairmen John Devine, Robert Lutz, and Frederick Henderson; and ten percent reduction for Executive
Vice President and General Counsel Thomas A. Gottschalk.



The Board of Directors voluntarily reduced board member compensation by fifty percent.
Non-employee directors will forego cash compensation and will retain some of the stock portion of
their annual retainer.



[From Exhibit 99.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K of General Motors Corporation filed on February 8,
2006]