alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 5,423.

#### In re GILE.

[5 Law Rep. 224; 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 87.]

District Court, D. Vermont.

July 25, 1812.

Bankruptcy — Withdrawal of Petition after Decree- Assent of Assignee.

3. A voluntary petition for a decree of bankruptcy cannot be withdrawn and further proceedings stayed, after a decree of bankruptcy has been made, without the concurrence of all whose interests may be affected.

2. It seems, that the assent of the assignee to such a course, is not absolutely necessary in all cases.

The petitioner [John Gile] having been declared a bankrupt on the twenty-fourth of May last, on his own application, now filed a petition praying, for the reasons therein set forth, that the decree of bankruptcy might be set aside and all further proceedings stayed.

PRENTISS, District Judge.

At the last May term of the court, applications were made for leave to withdraw petitions which had been filed for the benefit of the bankrupt act [of IS 11 (5 Stat. 440)], and upon which orders of notice had been issued and published for a hearing at that time. The applications were granted, and the petitions ordered to be dismissed. Other applications of a like nature, since presented, have been disposed of in the same way. In neither of the cases was there any appearance on the part of any of the creditors; and as to the power or right of the court, under such circumstances, to dismiss a petition, for good reasons, on motion of the petitioner, before a decree of bankruptcy. I entertained no doubt whatever. But the application in the present case, being after a decree of bank-ruptey has passed and intervened, presents an entirely new and different question. By the decree, all the property and rights of property of the bankrupt have passed from him and become vested in the assignee, for the benefit of his creditors. The effect of setting aside the decree would be to divest the assignee of the property and restore it to the bankrupt; and I do not see how this can be done without the concurrence of all whose interests may be affected by it. If the consent of the assignee and the creditors is obtained, there would seem to be, on principle, no good objection to the proceeding; for no one else can have any possible interest in the matter. I believe there is no instance in the English practice, where a commission of bankruptcy has been superseded, on application of the bankrupt, in any case at all analogous to the present, without the actual consent of the creditors; and it appears to me that their consent, at any rate, cannot be dispensed with. Perhaps the actual consent of the assignee may> not be indispensable. If he has not taken possession of the property, or done any act under the decree, he can be put to no possible harm, nor have any real interest adverse-ho the application. If, however, he should refuse his consent, having no good reason to withhold it, the court, with the concurrence of the creditors, might order the decree vacated, and all further proceedings stayed in the case, on notice to him to show cause against the motion.
No. 56063.

protest 172389-K (Ogdensburg).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Rex E. Bosen, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provide Commerce, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 2, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8758 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8758

   To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to expand 
              coverage under such Act to public employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2024

Mr. Deluzio (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to expand 
              coverage under such Act to public employees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Service Worker Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended by striking ``but does not 
include'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ``including the United States, a State, or a political 
subdivision of a State.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to affect the application of section 18 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667).
    (c) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this Act and the 
        amendment made by this Act, shall take effect on the date that 
        is 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
            (2) Exception for states and political subdivisions.--This 
        Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on 
        the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this 
        Act with respect to a workplace of a State, or a political 
        subdivision of a State, that does not have a State plan 
        approved under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16341-16342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-362-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 26, 2007 Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A attached to the filing, bearing a proposed effective date of 
April 26, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and

[[Page 16342]]

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an 
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32747760717d5c5e5b5c57614742425d404672545740511c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e585b4c5d51707277707b4d6b6e6e716c6a5e787b6c7d30797168">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6210 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

3/25/2015 COA Case No. 01-13-00373-CR

CLARK, NORMA JEAN Tr. Ct. No. 1295757 PD-0172-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time

in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the petition

has been extended to Wednesday, March 25, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS

WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition for Discretionary Review must be filed

with the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

1ST COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002-7006

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Stephen Carroll for the Removal of Daniel P. Wilson, Justice of the Peace.

Motion granted and Wilson removed.
#### National Fire Insurance Company *v.*Celluloid Shoe Protector Company, Respondent, and Eliza G. Wilson, *Appellant.*

— Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Daniels, J..
(V.D. 95)

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 108867.

(Decided January 14, 1959)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 529, Abstract 61847, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remand of protest consists of Enlargers, Accessory Lenses and Printing Boards, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of Manca, *Inc.*vs *The United States,*Abstract 61847, on April 22, 1958, wherein it is stated “* * * and remand the matters pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.O, § 2636(d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided by law”.

> *420IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the enlargers described below do not have as a component of chief value a photographic lens, and that at the time of the exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were as follows:

> Invoice Less Price Dis- U.S. $

> Entry No. Merchandise ea. count per ea.

> WH 108867_ 10 Enlargers Focomat lia.._ $213.96 46% 116.54

> Accessory lens_ 26.40 46% 14.26

> Printing boards_ 13. 92 46% 7. 52

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remand of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00475-CV

IN RE G.E.T.,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-00671

The Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on September 3, 2019. On September 3, 

2019, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief.

The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is 

required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was

filed. Id. 

The motion is GRANTED, and appellant’s brief must be filed no later than September 

23, 2019. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) 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 Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

        

Date: November 13, 2009

/s/ John L. Key                John L. Key        Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

40

----
Before the Third Division,

October 24, 1949

No. 53656.

protests 116298-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32(a)



                             TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO


         The undersigned, Paul O'Malley, Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive of TXU Energy Company LLC (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:

    1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
         September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended; and

    2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
         Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 12th day of November, 2004.




                                 /s/ Paul O'Malley
                            ----------------------------
                            Name:    Paul O'Malley
                            Title:   Chairman of the Board, President
                                     and Chief Executive











    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
    provided to TXU Energy Company LLC and will be retained by TXU Energy
    Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
    staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.7


February 27, 2001

Mr. James K. Randolph, Sr. Vice President
Chief of Utility Operations
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale Street, 32/nd/ Floor
San Francisco, CA  94105

Dear Jim:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you.  Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom
PG&E Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-
Term Incentive Plan.  The amount of your grant is $1,250,000 and it translates
into 95,715 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common
stock on February 21, 2001, of $13.06 per share.  An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement.  For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me, Brent
Stanley, or Gordon Smith.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
February 21, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting.  Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting.  Awards not deferred will
be paid in cash in January of the year following vesting.

Jim, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E Corporation's
success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM H. BAER, 

Petitioner, 

- vsWARDEN, GRAFTON 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

Respondent. 

Case No. 2:10-cv-1164 

District Judge George C. Smith 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. #21), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b ), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and time for filing such objections 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Petitioner is also DENIED a certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to the 

United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would not be taken in objective good faith. 

s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:10-cv-01164-GCS-MRM Doc #: 22 Filed: 02/26/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>