alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FRANCISCO ROLON, ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA SANCHEZ

RODRIGUEZ

v.

TRYSTAN H. DAVIES, M.D., LANCASTER EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES, LTD., MATTHEW C. WIGGINS, M.D.,

LANCASTER RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, LTD., JOSEPH F. VOYSTOCK, M.D.,

SURGICAL SPECIALISTS OF LANCASTER, P.C. AND LANCASTER

GENERAL HOSPITAL

PETITION OF: JOSEPH F. VOYSTOCK,

M.D. AND SURGICAL SPECIALISTS OF LANCASTER, P.C. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 282 MAL 2020

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of December, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Dale CHATTELIER v. OCHSNER FOUNDATION et al.

No. 60564.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Dale Chattelier applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1285 

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2005 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott 

Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott 

5 Street in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
2 

•S 1285 IS

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 

Æ
No. 99-7765.

#### Mayberry *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification
      of Officers Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q
      of Greater Community Bancorp (the "Company") for the nine months ended September
      30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief
      of
      the signatory, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and that
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.





Date:
      November 8, 2006








*/s/
      Anthony M. Bruno, Jr.*


Anthony
      M. Bruno, Jr.


Chief
      Executive Officer








*/s/
      Stephen J. Mauger*


Stephen
      J. Mauger


Chief
      Financial Officer







E-5
DISMISS; Opinion Filed March 31, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00369-CV

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-08-12857

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Evans

This is an appeal from a 2009 default judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. 

Appellant has filed a motion for out of time appeal asserting he “just learned” that the criminal 

charge that led to the forfeiture of certain of his property was dismissed and the dismissal entitles 

him to a return of his property. An appellate court, however, cannot enlarge the time for 

perfecting a civil appeal beyond the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no pet.). The deadline 

to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment or, if notice of the judgment is not 

received within twenty days after the judgment is signed, from the date notice is received but no 

later than ninety days from the signing of the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2, 26.1. Rule of 

appellate procedure 26.1 provides four time frames for filing the notice. See id. 26.1. These time 

frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appealed and range from twenty days in 
–2–

an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. Additionally, rule 26.3 

provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See id. 26.3.

The judgment here is being appealed five years after it was signed, outside any time 

frame provided by the rules. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely and appellant’s motion is 

denied. And, because the appeal is untimely, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and dismiss it. 

See Harris Cnty. Toll Rd. Auth. v. Sw. Bell Tel., 263 S.W.3d 48, 53 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2006), affirmed on other grounds by, 282 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2009).

 

 

 

140369F.P05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

No. 05-14-00369-CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-08-12857.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee The State of Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Senrick Wilkerson.

Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2014.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
      10.58




**MEMORANDUM
        OF AGREEMENT**
 
 This
        MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (the "Memorandum") is made as of November 10, 2005
        by
        and between, Vitronic Machine Vision Ltd., a Georgia limited partnership
        and
        Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having a place of business
        at 400 Massasoit ("Distributor" and together with Vitronic, the "Parties"
        and
        each singularly a "Party"). Reference is made to that certain Distributorship
        Agreement by and between the Parties made as of August 17, 2004 (the
“Distributorship Agreement”). Distributor and Vitronic intending to be legally
        bound agree as follows:
  That
        the
        twelve month periods for minimum turnovers set forth in Section I.D of the
        Distributorship Agreement shall each be delayed by six months. For example,
        the
        minimum turnover set forth in the Distribution Agreement for the twelve months
        ending December 31, 2005 shall now be the minimum turnover for the twelve
        month
        period ending on June 30, 2006.
  That
        for
        the purposes of calculating turnover for the twelve month period ending June
        30,
        2006, those Products (as defined in the Distributorship Agreement) purchased
        in
        June 2005 shall be deemed to have been purchased on July 1, 2005.
  That
        the
        initial term of the Distributorship Agreement set forth in Section VIII.A
        shall
        be extended by six months.
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands by their duly
        authorized representatives as of the day and year first above
        written.
  
  VITRONIC,
                  INC. as General Partner
                VITRONIC
                  Machine Vision Ltd.
              NESTOR
                  TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.By:
              /s/
                  Gerhard Bar, Michael Schindler
              By:
              /s/
                  Nigel P. HebbornName:
              Gerhard
                  Bar, Michael Schindler
              Name:
              Nigel
                  P. HebbornTitle:
              Vice
                  Presidents
              Title
              President
                  & CEO
 
  For
                  the sole purpose of evidencing VitronicGmbH's
                  consent to the above modification of the Distributorship
                  Agreement:VITRONIC
                  GMBHBy:
              /s/
                  Gerhard Bar, Dr. Heiko FrohnName:
              Gerhard
                  Bar, Dr. Heiko FrohnTitle:
              Vice
                  Presidents
#### K. C. MOORE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Respondent.

No. 77-2083.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1978.

*20R. Stephen Miles, Jr. of Miles & Cumbie, Kissimmee, for petitioner.

Barry S. Sinoff of Jacobs, Sinoff, Edwards, Alford & Burgess, Jacksonville, for respondent.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

The petitioner, K. C. Moore, is here seeking to overturn an order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board suspending his contractor’s license for one year.

An administrative complaint was filed alleging that Moore allowed his license to be used on a construction project while not actively participating as a contractor on the project himself. A hearing examiner conducted a trial and concluded in his recommended order and findings of fact that Moore was not guilty. The board, in an order which made no finding as to Moore’s guilt or innocence or discussed the hearing examiner’s findings, suspended his license for one year.

The law requires that an agency in its final order either accept or reject the findings of fact of the hearing officer. Section 120.57(l)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1975). If the findings are rejected by the agency its order must state with particularity which findings are rejected and why. *Harvey*v. *Nuzum,*345 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

In his findings of fact the hearing examiner stated in part:

> K. C. Moore, in accordance with the contract, applied and received the building permit, provided insurance on the construction project, inspected the project, met and discussed the progress of construction with Arduengo and guaranteed all work done for a period of one year from the completion of the residence against defects and materials and workmanship.

The examiner made other findings also indicating Moore’s active participation in the construction project in question. We can find no evidence in the record contrary to the hearing examiner’s conclusion. Since the board made no findings in its suspension order and there is no evidence in conflict with the hearing examiner’s findings, we have no alternative but to set aside the suspension order as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. *Boyette v. State Professional Practices Council,*346 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Moore has also asserted on appeal that the respondent board has acted with malice or bad faith thereby entitling him to attorney’s fees and costs under Section 120.-57(l)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1975). However, we can find no basis in the record for this assertion.

*21Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the final order of August 29, 1977 is hereby quashed with directions that an order be entered in accordance with this decision. The petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
No. 99-8322 (99A684).

#### In re Bryan.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                        JURISDICTION OF
         SUBSIDIARIES                   OWNERSHIP        INCORPORATION
--------------------------------        ---------       ---------------

Echo Bay Inc.                              100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Finance Corporation               100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Round Mountain Gold Corporation            100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Minerals Company                  100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Sunnyside Gold Corporation                 100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Exploration Inc.                  100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Management Corporation            100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
White Pine Gold Corporation                100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Alaska Inc.                       100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Resources Inc.                    100%         Delaware, U.S.A.
Echo Bay Sales Ltd.                        100%         Alberta, Canada
Corp. Air Inc.                             100%         Alberta, Canada
Echo Bay Mexico, S.A. de C.V.              100%         Mexico
Kuranakh Gold Mining Corp.                  50%         Russia
Echo Bay (Barbados) Ltd.                   100%         Barbados
Echo Bay Ecuador, S.A.                     100%         Ecuador
Echo Bay Mines Chile Ltda.                 100%         Chile
Echo Bay Exploration Mexico SRL            100%         Mexico
Silk Road Gold Corp.                        50%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay International B.V.                100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Mexico B.V.                       100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Venezuela B.V.                    100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Ecuador B.V.                      100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Peru B.V.                         100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Brazil B.V.                       100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Philippines B.V.                  100%         The Netherlands
Echo Bay Do Brazil Servicios Ltda.         100%         Brazil
Echo Bay Mines Do Brazil Ltda.             100%         Brazil
Minera Echo Bay del Peru, S.A.             100%         Peru
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.



Dated: January 23, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries III, Inc.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2315 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of carded camel hair. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of 

carded camel hair. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. YARN OF CARDED CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.86 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 yarn of carded camel hair) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2315 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Parts 1 and 2

[Docket No. 970410086-7174-02]
RIN 0651-AA92


Revision of Patent and Trademark Fees for Fiscal Year 1998; 
Correction

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark Office published in the Federal 
Register of July 29, 1997, a document revising certain patent fee and 
trademark service fee amounts for fiscal year 1998. Inadvertently, an 
incorrect planned recovery amount was stated. This document corrects 
the planned recovery amount for fiscal year 1998.

DATES: Effective on October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Lee by telephone at (703) 305-
8051, fax at (703) 305-8007, or by mail marked to his attention and 
addressed to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Office of 
Finance, Crystal Park 1, Suite 802, Washington, D.C. 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule revising certain patent fee and 
trademark service fee amounts for fiscal year 1998 was published as FR 
Doc. 97-19901 in the Federal Register of July 29, 1997 (62 FR 40450). 
The final rule contains an error in the Recovery Level Determinations 
section. The planned recovery amount anticipated for fiscal year 1998 
was incorrectly stated as $763,391,000. This correction revises the 
planned recovery amount.
    In rule FR Doc. 97-19901 published on July 29, 1997 (62 FR 40450), 
make the following correction. On page 40450, in the third column, 
change the planned recovery amount to $748,320,000.

    Dated: August 6, 1997.
Albin F. Drost,
Deputy Solicitor.
[FR Doc. 97-21239 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42969-42970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-181-005]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Tariff Filing

August 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 31, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, with an 
effective date of June 1, 1997:

Second Sub. Original Sheet No. 386A

    CNG states that the purpose of its filing is to revise CNG's FERC 
Gas Tariff in compliance with the July 16 Letter

[[Page 42970]]

Order in the captioned proceeding, to reflect CNG's June 1 
implementation of business practice standards of the Gas Industry 
Standards Board (GISB). These GISB standards have been incorporated by 
reference in the Commission's regulations through Order No. 587-C. At 
Sheet No. 386A, CNG has listed the additional GISB Business Practice 
Standards that are to be adopted by reference, at Section 31 in the 
General Terms and Conditions. CNG also requests a further extension of 
time with regard to its implementation of certain systems-based and 
EDM-related business practice standards.
    CNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to CNG's 
customers and interested state commissions, and to parties to the 
captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21070 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Max Landau & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7894.

Entry No. 712892, etc.

(Decided October 20, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked *“A”*and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.