alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William C. Taylor, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent. National Aluminum Corporation, Extrusion Division East, Intervenor.

Submitted on briefs, May 8, 1981,

to President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.

*646June 11, 1981:

*Kenneth B. Burkley,*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

*Joseph Mack, III, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong,*for intervenor.

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

William C. Taylor appeals a second Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order denying benefits based upon a voluntary termination of his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling reason.1 We affirm.

In *Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 59, 410 A.2d 400 (1980), the record revealed that a December 27, 1977 layoff notice was posted on the employer’s bulletin board for a January 3, 1978 inventory, that repeated attempts at recall were made, and that Taylor had made a trip to Oklahoma for the purpose of seeking employment without contacting or notifying his employer at any time. We remanded for findings of fact on whether Taylor was justified in relying upon a proposed employment history of lengthy layoffs. The Board determined on remand that claimant not *647only had a “prior history of participating in layoffs of both short and long duration” but “was not given any reason to believe that the layoff following December 29, 1977 would be of longer duration than shown on the bulletin board. ’ ’

Taylor essentially argues that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence and that the circumstances do not justify his denial of benefits. We disagree.

Having reviewed the combined record, we must conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that benefits were properly denied. Although there may be some discrepancy over whether the layoff was advertised for only ‘ ‘ one day,” we have repeatedly held that the burden is clearly on an employee to take the necessary minimal steps required to preserve his employment, especially where the employee becomes unavailable for recall by his employer. *Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Metzger,*28 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 571, 368 A.2d 1384 (1977).

Affirmed.

Order

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order, dated April 17, 1980, Decision No. B-163511-B, is affirmed.

1

 Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S §802(b) (1).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8693 

To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing real estate adjacent to covered Federal lands in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. NEWHOUSE (for himself, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. BERGMAN, 

Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. CARL, Ms. HAGEMAN, 

Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. FLOOD, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. 

MALOY, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MILLS, Mr. ZINKE, Mr. 

LAHOOD, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. 

MOOLENAAR, Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. BALDERSON, 

Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BURCHETT, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. DUARTE, 

Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FALLON, Ms. 

MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. COLLINS, and Mr. ALLEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing 

real estate adjacent to covered Federal lands in the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No American Land 

5 for Communist China Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8693 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE 

2 LOCATED ADJACENT TO COVERED FEDERAL 

3 LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES BY NATION4 ALS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, the President shall take such actions as may 

7 be necessary to prohibit the purchase of real estate located 

8 adjacent to covered Federal land in the United States 

9 by— 

10 (1) any agent of the Government of the Peo11 ple’s Republic of China; or 

12 (2) any business with respect to which the Gov13 ernment of the People’s Republic of China, directly 

14 or indirectly through any contract, arrangement, un15 derstanding, relationship, or otherwise, owns 25 per16 cent or more of the equity interests of the business. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

18 (1) the term ‘‘United States’’ means the several 

19 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

20 of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

21 Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the 

22 United States Virgin Islands, and any other terri23 tory or possession of the United States; and 

24 (2) the term ‘‘covered Federal lands’’ means— 

25 (A) land owned by the United States and 

26 under the jurisdiction of— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8693 IH

1 (i) the Secretary of the Interior; 

2 (ii) the Secretary of Defense; and 

3 (iii) the Secretary of Agriculture, with 

4 respect to land managed by the Forest 

5 Service; or 

6 (B) land that is Indian country under sec7 tion 1151 of title 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Varley Appeal.

Argued May 7, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*563May 8, 1969:

*Edward J. Zetusky,*for appellants.

*Joseph E. Pappano,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Jones dissents.
WILLIE MATHIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4463

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baker County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Willie Mathis, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney 

General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
(Reap. Dec. 8734)

#### Otto Kadmon *v.*United States

Entry No. 905716-2/3.

(Decided January 17, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States is the appraised unit value legs item of buying commission.

> *581IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the appraised unit value, less the item of buying commission.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Same *v.*Same.

— Appeal from order denying new trial for newly discovered evidence dismissed, without costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.;

Cullen, J., not sitting. ,
(Reap. Dec. 9530)

#### Sage Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 918479.

(Decided November 2, 1959)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter (Howard, Clare Carter*of counsel) for tbe plaintiff.

*George Cochran Dowd,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for tbe defendant.

Foed, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the involved merchandise consists of “Spun Rayon Girls’ Cabana Sets” imported from Japan; that the market value or price of the merchandise, at the time of exportation, at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including all costs and charges specified in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was $3.10 per set, FOB Kobe; and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

*523Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis of value of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is $3.10 per set, FOB Kobe.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
TODD CURTIS WEST

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 504

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed May 11, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Hulsey , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Att orney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL

, OSTERHAUS

, and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
(Reap. Dec. 8882)

Entry Nos. 896777; 816592.

#### Otto Kadmon D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the invoice unit values plus cost of packing as invoiced, plus 2 per cent.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

*552On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for' the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit values, plus cost of packing, as invoiced, plus 2 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8157 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8157

    To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from carrying out certain 
   spillage operations on the Lower Snake River dams, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

Mr. Newhouse (for himself, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mr. Fulcher, and 
  Mr. Bentz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from carrying out certain 
   spillage operations on the Lower Snake River dams, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SPILLAGE OPERATIONS ON LOWER SNAKE RIVER 
              DAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary may not carry out any spillage 
operations on any of the Lower Snake River dams unless such operations 
are approved by the Secretary and the Administrator of the Bonneville 
Power Administration.
    (b) Considerations.--In determining whether to approve spillage 
operations under subsection (a), the Secretary and the Administrator 
shall consider all Columbia River System operations.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Lower snake river dams.--The term ``Lower Snake River 
        dams'' means the following dams in the State of Washington, 
        authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 
        19, 59 Stat. 21):
                    (A) Ice Harbor Dam.
                    (B) Lower Monumental Dam.
                    (C) Little Goose Dam.
                    (D) Lower Granite Dam.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
                                 <all>
```
#### Craddock *v.*State.

In Banc.

Dec. 13, 1948.

(37 So. (2d) 778)

J. M. Alford, for appellant.

*607R. O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*608Griffith, C. J.

 In view of the verdict we will accept the testimony introduced by the State as constituting a true account of what happened, but at the same time, in view of the fact that the burden of proof is on the State, we must must interpret that testimony in favor of the defendant when it is manifestly capable of two reasonable interpretations, and so construing it, the proof is that the defendant pointed his pistol at the deputy who was attempting to arrest him and that the defendant at the same time said to the deputy that he, the defendant, would shoot the deputy if he moved. The deputy did not move and the defendant did not shoot, as he easily could have done.

*609 This brings the case within Stroud v. State, 131 Miss. 875, 95 So. 738, wherein it was said: “The intent in such a case is the main ingredient of the offense; and where the facts show that the intent to kill was conditioned upon the happening of some other event, which may, within reason, fail to take place, the real intent to kill and murder does not come into existence. ’ ’ See also Toler v. State, 143 Miss. 96, 108 So. 443. Therefore the testimony does not support the verdict and judgment of a felonious intent to kill and murder, and the judgment must be reversed, and the defendant acquitted so far as the charge last stated is concerned.

 We are not authorized, however, to discharge the defendant, for as said in the Stroud case, supra, the testimony is sufficient to sustain the charge of assault, wherefore the case will be remanded.

When the case comes up on the remand with the charge of intent to kill and murder eliminated, it will be observed that the indictment as it will then stand charges three different offenses. It charges an assault; it charges the pointing or aiming a pistol at or toward another, and it charges the resisting of arrest. We express no opinion as to what the Court should do with or under the indictment as it shall then stand, our sole purpose in adding this paragraph being to make it known that we intimate no opinion as to what the Court shall now do with or under the indictment, that matter not being directly before us on this appeal, and not having been argued by the parties to the record.

Reversed and remanded.
#### James D. White, *Respondent, v.*Eliakim Cheesbro, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 137396 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 137396 COA: 276824 Ingham CC: 06-000720-FC ROBERT JERMINE OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
EX-3.5

          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                        CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                      TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                  OF
                    POINT GROUP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED


I, John Fleming, certify that:

     1.  The original articles of incorporation of the Company were
filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 19, 2001.

     2.  Pursuant to a unanimous written consent of the board of
directors of the Company, the Company hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Articles of Incorporation of this Company:

     Article 1 is amended to read as follows:

Name of corporation is GamezNFlix, Inc.

     3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the
corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the
voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be
required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be
required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted
in favor of the amendment by written consent is: 246,222,800.


Dated: January 26, 2004                /s/  John Fleming
                                       John Fleming, President
#### William W. Smith v. Preston Mitchell.

'Where plaintiff in error failed to give notice of suing out tlio writ of error, but served assignment of errors, anil defendant in error a year and a half thereafterjnovod to dismiss the writ for want of notice of its being issued, it was *held*be was too late to take advantage of the omission.

*Heard and decided October*29th.

Error to Calhoun Circuit.

*JS. A. & I. Gf. Noyes,*

moved to dismiss the writ of error in’"this cause, on the ground that no notice of the issue of the writ was ever served on defendant in error or his attorney, as required by the rules.

*~W. 3. JDrown, contra,*

objected that the motion came too late. The writ of error was issued in March, 1860, and Mr. Brown showed by affidavit that in April, 1860, the attorney for defendant in error was served with copy of the assignment of errors, and that in receiving it he made the remark that it was all right, or something to that effect.

The Court

held that the application was too late. The object of requiring notice to be given of the writ, is that the defendant in error may be apprised of the proceedings which are being taken; and when he is otherwise informed, and does not move promptly to take advantage of the omission, he will be held to have waived the objection.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William D. Eglin, Chief Financial Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                      |  | William D. Eglin       
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Filed 1/21/16 P. v. Polito CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not 

certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been 

certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY JOSEPH POLITO,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B265331

(Super. Ct. No.2014010577)

(Ventura County)

Anthony Joseph Polito appeals a judgment following his no contest

plea to possession of cocaine for sale, a felony. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) 

The trial court denied his motion to vacate his plea. 

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. After 

examination of the record, his counsel filed an opening brief requesting the court 

to make an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On October 27, 2015, we advised Polito that he had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to 

consider. No response has been received to this date. After examination of the 

record, we are satisfied that Polito's attorney has fully complied with his
2

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 

Cal.3d at pp. 441, 443.) 

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
3

Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TS-EUTM01

Attachment #1

Safety Data Sheet

The following page provides the safety data sheet (SDS) on the new chemical substance.