alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00332-CV

Manuel and Simona CAMACHO,

Appellants

v.

TEXAS WESTCHESTER FINANCIAL, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4246

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellants Manuel Camacho 

and Simona Camacho. 

SIGNED October 14, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Case No. 15,064.

#### UNITED STATES v. EVANS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 149.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1803.

Constable—Indictment—Bond.

Indictment lies for acting as constable without giving bond.

Indictment [against Evan Evans] for acting as constable without giving bond agreeably to the fourth section of the act of May 3, 1802 [2 Stat. 194].

Verdict, guilty of serving warrants, but not of serving any execution.

Mr. Peacock, for defendant,

contended that the object of the law was only for the security of creditors as to receipt of money on execution.

But THE COURT (nem. con.) was of opinion that the omission to give the bond was a violation of duty; and fined the defendant ■one dollar.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: M.X.O., A MINOR**

**PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 342 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**IN RE: A.M.O., A MINOR**

**PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 343 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 9th day of October, 2015, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, E. Nelson Mills, Principal
Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ E. NELSON MILLS                                              
|E. Nelson Mills
Principal Executive Officer
November 10, 2010    
|                                                                 
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                          
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial Officer November 10, 2010
(Reap. Dec. 9487)

#### S. S. Kresge Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 990; 1063.

(Decided July 31, 1959)

*Sharretts, Paley <& Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise and the issues are the same as those involved in *F. W. Woolworth Co.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 780, Reap. Dec. 9118.

> *476IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price of the merchandise manufactured by Schumann & Schreider on the invoices covered by the above enumerated appeals for reappraisement, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value less the amount added under duress and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, manufactured by Schumann & Schreider, and that such value is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
San Luis Obispo County APCD 203-1 11/5/91

RULE 203. APPLICATIONS 

 (Adopted 8/2/76; Revised 11/5/91) 

A. Every application for an Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate or Permit to Sell or 

Rent required under Rule 202 shall be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the Air 

Pollution Control Officer, and shall give all the information necessary to enable the Air 

Pollution Control Officer to make the determination required by Rule 204 hereof. 

B. Applications for banking of emission reductions shall be filed in the manner and form 

prescribed by the Air Pollution Control Officer, and shall give all the information 

necessary to enable the APCO to make the determinations required by Rule 211 hereof.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2331

TERESA WINFUL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Defendant – Appellee,

and

GEORGE OHLANDT; CECILE KAMATH, in their official 

capacities,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:13-cv-02150-DCN)

Submitted: July 25, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lewis Mann Cromer, Ryan K. Hicks, J. LEWIS CROMER & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bob 

J. Conley, Caroline W. Cleveland, CLEVELAND & CONLEY, LLC, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Winful appeals the district court’s order granting 

the Medical University of South Carolina’s summary judgment 

motion on Winful’s retaliation and gender and race 

discrimination claims, which were brought pursuant to Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 

to 2000e-17 (2012) (Title VII).* We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. Winful v. The Med. Univ. of SC, No. 

2:13-cv-02150-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2015). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Winful also asserted claims of age discrimination, in 

violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 

as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2015); 

discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); and 

civil conspiracy, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012). 

Winful stipulated to dismissal of these claims.
Exhibit 32.2

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Partnership.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ John D. Chandler                     
|John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer
|Date: August 4, 2009                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52593.

protests 113685-K, etc. (Galveston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia).

#### W. F. Kennedy et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 11 (the "Partnership") for the quarter ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Thomas J. Riha,
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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
     Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 9, 2004
The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 2::;3 

DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from 

the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airport. As an employee of Delta, I enthusiastically 

support this application. 

Under the new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopened to U.S. 

'cgliiers"forthe"firstttmtr~tnce-1it76:~"B"e~s~nvententtocatiOrrTlear---'~~-'-'-~"""""'­

central Tokyo, Hanedais the preferred airport for business travelers. 

Delta employees have worked for many years to build our business in Japan, 

and no U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. We have a strong 

record of competitive trans-Pacific service. But the reopening of Haneda wi11 put 

that investment and our jobs at risk if we are unable to compete. 

Our major competitors, the Star and oneworld alliances, have Japanese partners 

that dominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese 

partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity to 

compete <it Haned<i. 

Jf we are provided with the Haneda sJots we need, aU three of the majorsirline 

alliances - SkyTeam, Star and oneworld- will be able to compete on a level 

p\aYfng field. That newcompetltion would provide tremendous benefits for our 

customers and our employees. 

I urge you to approve Delta's application and provide the frequencies proposed 

to serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit. Los Angeles and Honolulu. 

c...fJ-~:R \t...".~ .~v "'ElL 

\\, bS' KU-J\,M\S 1J\\-\'1& 

Ux:>~&1L C,-rY \='u. 330lJ) 

~S\.\-- 4~·'1 .. \.\-0'\ ~
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. central time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2365. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org*. This meeting is not required to be open to the public, but because we are always interested in community input, we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2365 for additional information.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: January 8, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E7-380 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 23 (a), Form 10-K
                                                  Kansas City Life
                                                  Insurance Company

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Kansas City Life Insurance  Company (the Company) of our report dated January
24, 2000 included in the 1999 Annual Report to  Shareholders of Kansas City Life
Insurance Company.

Our audits also included the financial  statement  schedules of Kansas City Life
Insurance Company listed in Item 14(a).  These schedules are the  responsibility
of the Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedules  referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a
whole,  present  fairly,  in all material  respects,  the  information set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  2-97351)  pertaining  to the Savings and Profit  Sharing  Plan of
Kansas City Life  Insurance  Company of our report  dated  January 24, 2000 with
respect to the consolidated  financial statements  incorporated by reference and
schedules of Kansas City Life  Insurance  Company  included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 24, 2000
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court ox Appeals District

No. 12-14-00148- CV

IN THE

>iii 12 Court of Appeals

Mary Lou Petty, Appellant,

v.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc, Appellee

Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Reply Brief

Appellant, Mary Lou Petty, respectfully asks the Court to extend the due date of its

appellant's reply briefby 30 days, to March 27, 2015. I know this motion was due

yesterday, the snow day. I do not drive on ice and snow and I wasn't able to do

what was necessary to be able to process the required documents.

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REPLY BRIEF page 1/3
RULE 10.5 INFORMATION

1. Deadline for filing the reply to appellee's briefwas February 25th 2015, your

office was closed for a snow day.

2. Length of extension sought: 30 days, so the new deadline would be March

24th 2015.

3. Facts relied on to reasonably explain the need of extension: Appellant was

reviewing discrepancies in the case and the appellee's brief. Reed referred

to the continuance hearing in the trial court. When Appellant requested the

Reporters Records she was told there were not any. As ofFebruary 26* the

trial court acknowledged there was a record on a brief continuance hearing

on March 5th 2014. I'm sure it was an oversight. But the judge made a

statement that I feel is relevant to my case. I would like the opportunity to

obtain the report and use it in my defense.

4. This is the only extension that I'll need in the reply to the appellee's brief

and it should not take the full 30 days.

II. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I have contacted Mr. Reed, the opposing counsel by e-mail and also have spoken to

him onthe telephone. He is opposed to the extension because of the length oftime

it has been.

III. CONCLUSION

This is Appellant's only extension thatwill be required to file herreply brief. I

should not take the full 30 days. I respectfully ask the court to grant this final

extension for time to acquiring the reporter's recordto the file. The reply bried

will be due no later than March 24th 2015, in accordance with TEX. R. App. P.

10.5(1) & 38.6(d).

Appellant's Motion for Extension Page 2/3
Respectfully Submitted,

By: Itiimt4U

Mary L<5ifi Petty

744 Elizabeth DR

Bullard TX 75757

onegentledove(@,peoplepc.com

ProSE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document will be sent by

facsimile by the February 27th and by certify mail to Mr. Reed, the opposing

counsel.

Fax No: (972)789-1606

Mr. Kendal B. Reed

Anderson Tobin, PLLC.

13355Noel Road

Dallas Texas 75240

Appellant's Motion for Extension ofReply Brief Page 3/3
No. 65511.

#### Lundsing & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/32045 and 59/34400 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donxon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

November 13, 1947

No. 52024.

#### Harry Rosenberg *v.*United States,

protest 129314-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record disclosed that the question involved is one over which the court has no jurisdiction and that there was nothing in the record to show the authority of the person who signed the protest to act. The protest was therefore dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
PCSupport.com, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(333-42756) on Form S-8 of PCSupport.com, Inc. of our report dated August 25,
2000, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the years ended June 30, 2000 and 1999, and for the
period from December 10, 1997 (inception) to June 30, 2000, which report appears
in the June 30, 2000 annual report on Form 10-KSB of PCSupport.com, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------------


Vancouver, Canada
September 26, 2000
steam_record - Re: Request for Extension of EPA Questionnaire for Plant ID 02827 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Gaerlan, Joan" <JGaerlan@ci.glendale.ca.us>

Date: 7/9/2010 10:18 AM

Subject: Re: Request for Extension of EPA Questionnaire for Plant ID 02827

Attachments: 070710 Request for Extension EPA Questionnaire.pdf

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C36F777DO... 8/17/2011
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/28/2010 09:59 AM

Subject: Vinyl Institute Updated Concentration Data Base for PVC Resin

Dear Ms. Howard,

Late last week it came to my attention that I incorrectly used PolyOne’s original resin test data submittal reported in pounds per day (dry) as their concentration data for the Vinyl Institute’s September 16, 2010 submission of its Concentration Data Base. I received PolyOne’s resin concentration data for their two plants last Friday and I have replaced the mass data with the correct concentration data in ppm. Please use this version of the VI’s spreadsheets for any future estimations or determinations in establishing the PVC MACT rule. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this corrected information.

Regards,

Richard Krock Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute 1737 King Street Suite 390 Alexandria, VA 22314 Direct: 571.970.3392 Mobile: 571.216.4474 Fax: 571.970.3271 Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI PVC Industry Resin Concentration Data Aggregation for EPA 09-28-10.xls)
No. 51000.

#### Protests 970021-G, etc., of Amerlux Steel Corp. et al. (Los Angeles etc.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.