alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land Required for Water Front Improvements on the North River, between Bloomfield and Little West Twelfth Streets, and between Tenth and Thirteenth Avenues. Jonathan N. Glass et al., as Executors of John Glass, Deceased, Appellants; John Conron etal., Respondents.

*Matter of City of New York (Bloomfield St.),*122 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Argued May 31, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in. the first judicial department, entered November 12, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special *613Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in condemnation proceedings.

*Daniel E. Hanlon*and *Michael J. Mulqueen*for appellants.

*William H. Harris, Ernest E. Wheeler*and *Manfred W. Ehrich*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 102ND DISTRIC T COURT OF BOWIE COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10 th day of March, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Leavelle Franklin, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00046

- CR

Trial Court No. 13F1053

- 102

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Leavelle Franklin, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAN D YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 25th day of November , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
§ 209.331 Enforcement of disqualification order. ( a ) A railroad that employs or formerly employed an individual serving under a disqualification order shall inform prospective or actual employers of the terms and conditions of the order upon receiving notice that the disqualified employee is being considered for employment with or is employed by another railroad to perform any of the safety-sensitive functions described in § 209.303.
( b ) A railroad that is considering hiring an individual to perform the safety-sensitive functions described in § 209.303 shall ascertain from the individual's previous employer, if such employer was a railroad, whether the individual is subject to a disqualification order.
( c ) An individual subject to a disqualification order shall inform his or her employer of the order and provide a copy thereof within 5 days after receipt of the order. Such an individual shall likewise inform any prospective employer who is considering hiring the individual to perform any of the safety-sensitive functions described in § 209.303 of the order and provide a copy thereof within 5 days after receipt of the order or upon application for the position, whichever first occurs.
§ 37.121 Requirement for comparable complementary paratransit service. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.
( b ) To be deemed comparable to fixed route service, a complementary paratransit system shall meet the requirements of §§ 37.123-37.133 of this subpart. The requirement to comply with § 37.131 may be modified in accordance with the provisions of this subpart relating to undue financial burden.
( c ) Requirements for complementary paratransit do not apply to commuter bus, commuter rail, or intercity rail systems.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 173 (Friday, September 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4419]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 2 p.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:: Enforcement Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-4419 Filed 9-5-07; 3:46 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### Charles Keizewetter v. The State.

*No. 588.*

*Decided May 27.*

Pulling Down the Fence of Another—Indictment—Want of Consent.— Where one party builds a fence upon the land of another, and a third party pulls the fence down, in order to hold this latter party liable for the statutory offense, the indictment must negative the want of consent of the owner of the land inclosed by the fence, as well as the want of consent of the builder of the fence.

Appeal from the County Court of Austin. Tried below before Hon. S. E. Blake, County Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for pulling down the fence of another, the punishment assessed being a fine of $10.

The opinion states the case.

Ho briefs have come to the hands of the Eeporter.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAYIDSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for pulling down the fence of one J. A. Mevis, without his consent, etc. The father of Mevis, many years prior to this prosecution, when he sold the land now owned by appellant, reserved a strip of land between his own and the deeded land as a passway or lane over which the cattle could travel to a creek near by for watering purposes. Mevis, the alleged owner, to prevent appellant’s cattle from watering at said creek, erected a fence across this outlet by joining it to appellant’s fence. Appellant moved his fence, thus again opening the lane. Mevis built another fence at a different point and on another party’s land, and again debarred appellant’s cattle from reaching the creek. Appellant obtained permission of the owner of this land to open the fence, and did open it. Mevis then constructed his third line of fence, joining it to the fence of still another party. This was the fence torn down by *514appellant, and a way again opened for his cattle to reach the creek for water. This was his only means of obtaining water for his stock. The main, if not the only, purpose on the part of Mevis in building these fences was to cut off said cattle from reaching the creek in question. The fence, though built by Mevis, was not on his own land. There is a variance between the allegations and proof. Thé pleading must negative, in this character of case, the want of consent of each and all the owners of land inclosed by the injured fence.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

*Reversed and*remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.
Order entered February 21, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01595
- CV JUANITA GAROFALO, Appellant
V. DALLAS AREA RAPID TR ANSIT, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 13
- 03116
- E 

### O RDER By letter dated February 7, 2014, we directed appellant to file written verification that she ha d either (1) paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or (2) been found entitled to proceed without paymen t of costs. In response, appellant filed a letter noting that she filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs with the trial court at the time her notice of appeal was filed. Our records and the trial court’s online records reflect appellant in fact fil ed an affidavit of inability to pay costs concurrently with her notice of appeal on November 5, 2013. Although the clerk, the court reporter, or any party could have challenged the affidavit by filing a contest within ten days of the filing of the affidav it , no contest was filed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 20.1(e). Pursuant to appellate rule 20.1(f), because no contest was filed, the affidavit’s allegations are deemed true and appellant is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.See id. 2 0.1(f). Accordingly, we ORDER John F. Warren , Dallas County Clerk, and Vi k ki Ogden, Official Court Reporter of County Court at Law No. 5, to file the appellate record without advance payment of costs no later than March 21, 2014.
We DIRECT the Clerk of th e Court to send a copy of this order, via electronic transmission, to John Warren, Vicki Ogden, and all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 34.4


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of FirstEnergy Service Company:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Asset-Backed Securities”, that FirstEnergy Service Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving phase-in recovery property (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Cleveland, OH


March 27, 2015
#### In the Matter of Rebuilding the Bridge Across the Shawangunk Kill, between the Towns of Crawford and Shawangunk, on Hardenbergh’s Road.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by

Landon. J.
[ARTICLE] 5
[CIK] 0000019731
[NAME] CHESAPEAKE CORP /VA/
[MULTIPLIER] 1
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1996
[CASH]                                       9,800,000
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                              153,900,000
[ALLOWANCES]                                 4,700,000
[INVENTORY]                                134,400,000
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                           325,800,000
[PP&E]                                   1,619,800,000
[DEPRECIATION]                             756,300,000
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                           1,290,200,000
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                      166,800,000
[BONDS]                                    499,400,000
[COMMON]                                    23,400,000
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                 445,700,000
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]             1,290,200,000
[SALES]                                  1,158,600,000
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                         1,172,000,000
[CGS]                                      843,000,000
[TOTAL-COSTS]                            1,084,300,000
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                             6,200,000
[LOSS-PROVISION]                               500,000
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                          33,900,000
[INCOME-PRETAX]                             47,100,000
[INCOME-TAX]                                17,000,000
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                         30,100,000
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                30,100,000
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     1.27
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     1.27
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7347

RONNIE MCCRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GARY MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; CHARLIE

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-02-838)

Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 9, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district

court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability

will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)

‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”

Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record

and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court and the

magistrate judge that McCray has not satisfied either standard.

See McCray v. Maynard, No. CA-02-838 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
3

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
EXHIBIT
32.2





**Certification
Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.** § **1350)**





The
undersigned, as the chief financial officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies,
to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB
Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.





Dated
this 10th day of May, 2005.








*/s/
      Donald J. Torbert, Jr.*Donald
      J. Torbert, Jr.Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer















A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.
|Exhibit 32.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|The undersigned officer certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

|Date: | August 28, 2007                                                                                        
|----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                                                                                                        
|      |                                                                                                        
|By:   | /s/ F. Lynn Blystone                                                                                   
|      | F. Lynn Blystone, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board,  Tri-Valley Corporation
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 921

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on vaccines

to 25 cents per dose.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 2001

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce

the tax on vaccines to 25 cents per dose.

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 ‘‘Vaccinate America’s

5 Children Now Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN TAX ON VACCINES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 4131(b)

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amount

9 of tax) is amended by striking ‘‘75 cents’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘25 cents’’.
2

•HR 921 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact3 ment of this Act.

4 (c) LIMITATION ON CERTAIN CREDITS OR RE5 FUNDS.—For purposes of applying section 4132(b) of the

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to any claim

7 for credit or refund filed before January 1, 2002, the

8 amount of tax taken into account shall not exceed the tax

9 computed under the rate in effect on the day after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1186.html[7/22/2015 3:27:04 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-kqpu

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1186

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Cynthia Stenseth

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan my own retirement.