alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34023.

#### LOVETT et al. v. BUSSELL.

Hill, Justice.

Prior litigation involved the budget of the office of Sheriff of Laurens County for the year 1977. *Bussell v. Youngblood,*239 Ga. 553 (238 SE2d 89) (1977). This litigation involves the sheriffs 1978 budget.

The Laurens County Commissioners disapproved the sheriffs 1978 budget and he applied to the superior court for resolution of the dispute. The superior court ordered the county commissioners to provide the sheriff with funds so that he could pay six of his deputies sums equal to that paid policemen in comparable positions in the Dublin Police Department.

Although the superior court has jurisdiction to review the administration of county affairs by the county commissioners *(Bussell v. Youngblood,*supra, 239 Ga. at 556), as was held in *Dunn v. Beck,*144 Ga. 148 (1) (86 SE 385) (1915), "In the administration of county affairs county commissioners are vested by law with a broad discretion, and the reviewing power of a judge of the superior court should be exercised with caution, and no interference had unless it is clear and manifest that the county authorities are abusing the discretion vested in them by law.” See also *Moore v. Baldwin County,*209 Ga. 541 (2) (74 SE2d 449) (1953).

Notwithstanding the similarities between the training, duties and responsibilities of sheriffs’ deputies and city policemen and notwithstanding the fact that they live in the same economic area and compete for the same jobs, these deputies have been allowed a 10% pay increase in 1977 and again in 1978 and no clear or manifest abuse of discretion by the Laurens County Commissioners has *406been shown. To rule otherwise would be to delegate to city officials the authority to set county pay scales, and vice versa, for law enforcement officers, firemen, building inspectors, clerical personnel, sanitation workers and so on wherever similar county and city jobs exist.

Submitted September 19, 1978

Decided October 18, 1978.

*J. Leon Green, III,*for appellants.

*H. Dale Thompson,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [OR-130-1020-PH; GP7-0053] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

The Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet Friday, February 23, 2007 at the Spokane District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1103 North Fancher Road, Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-1275. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will start at 8 a.m., adjourn at 4 p.m., and will be open to the public. The meeting will focus on establishing the Council's agenda for calendar year 2007. The meeting will also include updates on the status of projects and issues discussed at previous meetings. There will be an opportunity for public comment at 3 p.m. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Pavey or Sandie Gourdin, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-1275, or call (509) 536-1200. 

Dated: January 18, 2007. 

Richard Bailey, 

Acting District Manager.

 [FR Doc. E7-989 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### DODGE v. CASEY.

May 22, 1835.

*Rule to show cause why an alias fieri facias should not be set aside.*

*A fieri farias*having issued on a judgment, a *scire facias*is not necessary to enable the plaintiff to have another execution, although more than five years have elapsed between the issuing of t *he fieri facias*and *alias fieri facias.*The act of the 26th of March 1827 relates solely to the limitation of the lien of a judgment on real estate.

THIS action was originally instituted by *capias*to December terra 1826.

October 8th, 1828; judgment was entered for the plaintiff *de bonis*; amount to be settled by attorneys.

June 3d, 1829 ; the amount of the judgment was settled at 3858 dollars 20 cents, subject to defendant’s discharge under the insolvent laws.

A *fieri facias*issued on this judgment to September term 1829, and was returned *nulla bona.*

This *alias fieri facias*was issued to June term 1835, and a levy was made- on the defendant’s personal property.

This was a rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the *alias fieri facias*to June term 1835, should not be set aside.

*Bradford,*for the rule,

contended, that no execution could issue on this judgment, five years having elapsed since the issuing of the *fieri facias*to September term 1829, and no *scire facias*having issued to revive the judgment or to demand execution ; and relied on the act of the 26th of March 1827, *Purd. Dig.*422.

*D. P. Brown*and *Ritiera, contra.*

Pee Curiam.

The act of the 26th of March 1827 relates to the limitation of the time when judgments shall be a lien on real estate: this case does not fall within any of its provisions. A *fieri facias*having been issued on this judgment, no *scire facias*is necessary to enable the plaintiff to have another execution and levy the same on *14defendant’s *‘personal property,*although more than five years have elapsed between the issuing of the *fieri facias*and *alias fieri facias.*

Rule discharged.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and will be retained by Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





November 22, 2010
/s/ Feng YanFeng Yan (Chief Executive Officer)November 22, 2010
/s/ John W. PolingJohn W. Poling (Chief Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 31.2**

Certification of CFO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

I, Gary M. Wetstein, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-KSB of Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Company’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s annual report for the year ended July 31, 2006 that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditor and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: November 2, 2007
Before the Third Division,

January 25, 1939

No. 40530.

#### Protest 971398-G of Damascus Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of apricot paste or pulp similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Sahadi*(23 C. C. P. A. 293, T. D. 48165). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 735 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM IMATRON
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000720477
<NAME>                          Imatron Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          10862
<SECURITIES>                    14171
<RECEIVABLES>                    6710
<ALLOWANCES>                    (1110)
<INVENTORY>                     10393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                42685
<PP&E>                          16814
<DEPRECIATION>                  (6712)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  53192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            9643
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                        89223
<OTHER-SE>                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    53192
<SALES>                         25768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                25768
<CGS>                           24787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   24787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 10465
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                    10465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.14)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19822]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 97-101]


Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before August 
28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Harry Lupuloff, 
Office of General Counsel, Code GP, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Carmela Simonson, Office of the Chief Information Officer, (202) 
358-1223.

    Reports: None.
    Title: Patent License Report.
    OMB Number: 2700-0010.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: Each licensee is required to report annually on its 
activities in commercializing its licensed inventions and any royalties 
due. NASA uses information collected to monitor the activities of its 
licensees.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-
profit.
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 100.
    Hours Per Request: 30 min.
    Annual Burden Hours: 50.
    Frequency of Report: Annually.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-19822 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                       19,754
<SECURITIES>                                    367
<RECEIVABLES>                                10,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,190
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             41,016
<PP&E>                                        5,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                2,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               90,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        13,097
<BONDS>                                       2,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           177
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   72,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 90,539
<SALES>                                      73,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             73,725
<CGS>                                        51,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                51,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (12,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (3,450)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (8,660)
<DISCONTINUED>                                1,050
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (7,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                $(0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                $(0.50)



</TABLE>
A97A0322.

#### WASHINGTON et al. v. SOUTH GEORGIA MEDICAL CENTER.

(511 SE2d 629)

Andrews, Judge.

In *Washington v. South Ga. Med. Center,*226 Ga. App. 554 (487 SE2d 125) (1997), the Washingtons appealed from the trial court’s order dismissing their action against South Georgia Medical Center (the hospital) on the basis that they wilfully failed to appear for their depositions which were noticed to them by the hospital’s co-defendant, Swindle. We reversed, concluding that the trial court had no authority to grant the hospital’s motion for the sanction of dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) because the depositions were noticed, not by the hospital, but by Swindle. Id. In *South Ga. Med. Center v. Washington,*269 Ga. 366 (497 SE2d 793) (1998), the Supreme Court reversed this Court, held the trial court had authority to grant the hospital’s motion for sanctions, and remanded the case to this Court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the judgment *248of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court.

Decided February 5, 1999.

*Elizabeth Pelypenko,*for appellants.

*Young, Thagard, Hoffman, Scott & Smith, F. Thomas Young, Elizabeth C. Cleveland,*for appellee.

In imposing the sanction of dismissal against the Washingtons pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) for failure to appear for their depositions, the trial court found that the failure was conscious or intentional. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s dismissal of the Washingtons’ action against the hospital. *Smith v. Mullinax,*122 Ga. App. 833 (178 SE2d 909) (1970).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Pope, P. J., Beasley, P. J., Blackburn, Smith, Ruffin, Eldridge and Barnes, JJ, concur.*
<PAGE>


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             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, David Shamy, 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 on
Form  10-QSB  of  Digitalpreviews.com,  Inc.  for  the  quarterly  period ending
September  30,  2002  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  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the  financial  condition and results of operations of Digitalpreviews.com, Inc.


                                   By:      /s/ David Shamy
                                           -------------------------------------
                                   Name:   David Shamy
                                   Title:  Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                           Chief  Financial  Officer

                                   Date:   November 14, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elizabeth GUERRA and Patrick Theriault.

No. 98-KK-2685.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Guerra, Elizabeth; Theriault, Patrick; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Tangipahoa 21st Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 77078; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number KW98 1842

Denied.

LEMMON, J. not on panel..
No. 42149.

#### Protests *977554-G,*etc., of Calarco Importing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302), Abstract 40880, and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 101]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3013]]

Public Law 111-101
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To name the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratory of the 
  Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, and the facility of the 
   United States Postal Service located at 310 North Perry Street in 
  Bennington, Oklahoma, in honor of former Congressman Wesley ``Wes'' 
            Watkins. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2009 -  [H.R. 1713]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 
                              LABORATORY, LANE, OKLAHOMA.

    (a) Redesignation.--The South Central Agricultural Research 
Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, shall be 
known and redesignated as the ``Wes Watkins Agricultural Research 
Laboratory''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the South Central 
Agricultural Research Laboratory shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Wes Watkins Agricultural Research Laboratory''.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WES WATKINS POST OFFICE, BENNINGTON, 
                    OKLAHOMA.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 310 North Perry Street in Bennington, Oklahoma, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Wes Watkins Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Wes Watkins 
Post Office''.

    Approved November 30, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1713:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Sept. 16, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```