alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Horace L. MONROE, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Deceased minor, Robert L. Monroe, and Horace L. Monroe, Jr., individually, Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and E. Wilson Purdy, Sheriff, etc., Appellees.

No. 71-1392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 1972.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, for appellants.

Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of City of Miami v. Horne, Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 10.
October 15/2015

TO: Chhristopher A. Pine

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

301 Fannin St., Room 245

Houston, Texas-77002-2062

TO: Civil Rule art. 4.2 and 4.5:

Mr.C.A.Pine:

IM'IO - \5~-OJ

"filed in " 14th COURT OFAPPEALS

OCT 20 201 j

CHRlbiOHHEri A. PHir

CLERK

^Bdn

My rule book was printed in 2003 and I need to know if

this rule still applies today in Civil cases where a court's

order order that was issued to a plaintiff on July 28,2014,

but the plaintiff did not receive any notice until October 8,

2014but the plaintiff October 8, 2015 and received by the dated

of the post marke on the envelope October 5, 2015. That was

on the envelope and was given to Risley on the October 8,2015

by the T.E.C.J.-ID mail room clerk on the 9th , 2015.

This rule states that the time limit begin's on the date

he receives actuall knowledge of that court's order of dismissal.

Tex. R. C iv. Proc. art. 4.2 and 4.5.

I need to know if these two rules art still true.

thankyou for your help in this matter.

CC/

2400 Wallace Pack Road

Navasota,Texas-77868-4567
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30089]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 02/02-5386]


Pan Pac Capital Corporation; Notice of License Surrender

    Notice is hereby given thatPan Pac Capital Corporation (``Pan 
Pac''), 121 East Industry Court, Deer Park, New York 11729, has 
surrendered its license to operate as a small business investment 
company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''). Pan Pac was licensed by the Small Business 
Administration on June 12, 1980.
    Under the authority vested by the Act and pursuant to the 
regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender of the license was 
accepted on September 30, 1997, and accordingly, all rights, 
privileges, and franchises derived therefrom have been terminated.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: November 5, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-30089 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Opinion issued September 1 5 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 16 - 00234 - CV

——————————— ALFRED BERNAT AND JO HN DOE (L.S.) , Appella nts V. TOMAS SOTELO AND BENANCIA SOTELO , Appell e e s On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2011 - 61031
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Alfred F. Bernat and John Doe (L.S.), filed a notice of appeal stating they desired “to appeal from the appealable Order cause 2015

- 55357 dismissed Bill of Review and void Judgment cause 2011

- 61031 signed 22 February 2013 . And another Void Judgment 23 August 2013”. Two appeals were assigned2

to this Court: one for the judgm ent in trial court cause 2011

- 61031 (appellate cause 01

- 16

- 00234

- CV) and one for the judgment in trial court cause 2015

- 55357 (appellate cause 01

- 16

- 00235

- CV). Appellants subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal in appellate cause 01

- 16

- 00234

- CV, ad ding an appeal of the judgment in justice court cause EV12C0024097. 1 Appellees filed a motion to dismiss claiming we have no jurisdiction because the notice of appeal is untimely. We grant the motion. A lthough a ppellants state they are appealing a judgme nt signed February 22, 201 3 in trial court cause 2011

- 61031 , the clerk’s record shows the final judgment was signed on August 23 , 2013
. Appellant’s notice of appeal from this judgment was filed on March 16, 2016. As a general rule, a notice of appeal is d ue within thirty days after the signing of the judgment. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1. The deadline is extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed if a party files a timely post

- judgment motion under Rule 329b, or in some cases, a request for findin gs of fact and conclusions of law. See id.; T EX . R. C IV . P. 329b(a), (g). The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days after the date the notice of appeal is due, the appellant

1 Because the amended notice of appeal seeks appeal from a judgment in a different trial court cause number, we have forwarded that notice of appeal to the trial court clerk. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1(a).3

properly files a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.5(b), 26.3. Appellants’ notice of appeal is untimely as to the 2013 judgment in cause 2011

- 61031. The notice of appeal filed on March 18, 2016 was filed more than two and a half years after judg ment was signed . Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1. Appellants’ response to the motion to dismiss presents no authority demonstrating that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Becau se we have no jurisdiction , we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss this appeal. 2 T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Higley and Huddle.

2 The appeal in cause number 01

- 16

- 00235

- CV of the February 9, 2016 order dismissing the bill of review is unaffected by this opinion and judgment and remains pending.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASIDNGTON, D.C.

MICHAEL HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Complainant,



### v. AIR MEDICAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC, Respondent. ) ) ) ) DMS No. FAA-2014-0552 ) FAA Case No. 2014WP910076 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Judge: Richard C. Goodwin ) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE TheDepartment ofTransportation, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby designates the following Agency Attorney as its representative inthe captioned case: Adam Runkel, Attorney FAA, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division- Western Team 1601 LindAve., S.W. Renton, WA 98056 Phone (425) 227-2914 Facsimile (425) 227-1007 Email: adam.runkel@faa.gov This designation supersedes any previous designation ofrepresentation. Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement

By: Adam Runkel Enforcement Division, Western TeamCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certifY that the foregoing Notice ofAppearance, inFAA Case No. 2014WP910076, has been sent this date by facsimile and CertifiedMail- Return Receipt Requested to: Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Fax: (202) 267-1293 Andthat a true copy ofthe above has been sent this date by facsimile, Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested, and e-mail this date, to the following: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Bldg., Ground Floor, RoomE11-310 Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 Email: richard.goodwin@dot.gov And that a true copy ofthe above has been sent this date by facsimile, Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested, and e-mail this date, to the following:

Dated: Gregory S. Winton The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Fax: 301-294-2525 Email: greg@aviationlawexperts.com 

## JAN 2 12016

2
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;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      5, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K. Collawn               |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   | Patricia      K. Collawn                   |
|                                         |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                         |   | Public      Service Company of New Mexico  |

----
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #10 – 4.02(1) Demonstration that Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably 

Estimated to Enable the Plan to Avoid Insolvency 

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably 

estimated to achieve the level necessary to avoid insolvency for the extended period, including 

illustrations regarding the plan’s solvency ratio and available resources? See section 4.02(1). 

Document 10.1 provides a demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably 

estimated to achieve the level necessary to avoid insolvency for the extended period. 
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #10 – 4.02(1) Demonstration that Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably 

Estimated to Enable the Plan to Avoid Insolvency 

10.1 

Document 10.1 

Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably Estimated 

to Enable the Pension Plan to Avoid Insolvency 

This application filed on behalf of the Pension Plan includes an actuarial certification of plan 

solvency under ERISA § 305(e)(9)(c)(i) and IRC Section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) as of the effective date of 

the proposed benefit suspension, which is January 1, 2018. See Document 7.1 of Checklist Item 

#7. 

Exhibit III of Checklist Item #7 provides an illustration based on the deterministic basis showing 

that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated to avoid insolvency throughout the 

extended period. This illustration provides the market value and solvency ratio for the period 

beginning on July 1, 2016 and ending on June 30, 2063. As of June 30, 2063, the funding 

percentage for the Pension Plan is projected to be less than 100%. 

The stochastic projections are not required for the Pension Plan. See Revenue Procedure 2016-

27, Section 4.02(2). 

Exhibit VI of Checklist Item #7 describes the actuarial assumptions and methodology used in the 

reports filed with this application, as required under Revenue Procedure 2016-27, Section 

4.02(3).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97C-0466]


Archer Daniels Midland Co.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that 
Archer Daniels Midland Co. has filed a petition proposing that the 
color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 
astaxanthin from Phaffia rhodozyma as a color additive in salmonid fish 
feeds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aydin Orstan, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C 
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3076.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a 
color additive petition (CAP 8C0252) has been filed by Archer Daniels 
Midland Co., P.O. Box 1470, Decatur, IL 62525. The petition proposes to 
amend the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of 
astaxanthin from P. rhodozyma as a color additive in salmonid fish 
feeds.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is 
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: October 31, 1997.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 97-30336 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
EXHIBIT 31


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

     I,  John Van-Zyll,  certify  that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diversified
Product Inspections, Inc.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

     4. The registrant`s other certifying officers 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 registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant`s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant`s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant`s auditors and the audit
committee of registrant`s board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant`s ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant`s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant`s internal controls; and

     6. The registrant`s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 13, 2004



                         /s/ John Van-Zyll
                         --------------------------------------
                         By: John Van-Zyll
                         Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer



                                       12
#### VANZANT v. DAVIES.

No. 38126.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 215 So.2d 504.
#### Albert L. ROMINES, Appellant, v. Leonard H. LEETZOW et al., Appellees, Manatee National Bank of Bradenton, Garnishee.

No. 72-708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Robert A. Oakes, Respondent, *vs.*The Mound City Mutual Life Insurance Company, of St.. Louis, Mo., Appellant.

1. *Practice, civil*— Supreme *Court*— Evidence.—In law oases this court will not weigh the evidence.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.*

*Bland 8? Baher,*for Appellant.

*Spencer 8?*Hatch, for Respondent.

The verdict was that of a jury, on evidence properly before them, and this court will not disturb it.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on a contract for a year’s service as bookkeeper, alleged to have been made by the defendant with the plaintiff on the 20th day of January, 1871, for the sum of $2,000.00.

The service had already commenced on the first of January, 1871, when the contract was entered into. The plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully and without any reasonable cause discharged, against his consent;, in August, 1871, and claims damages for the balance of the contract price, asserting, that he was ready and willing to perform the contract on his part, and that he was without employment during the balance of the time.

The defendant justified upon the ground that the plaintiff proved to be wholly incompetent to discharge the duties of a book-keeper, and. also denied that there was any contract for a definite term of service.

Each party gave evidence conducing to prove the issues on their respective parts. The court refused all instructions asked by the parties, but on *its own*motion gave instructions which seem to have fairly presented the case to the jury.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial was overruled and.final judgment rendered on *the*verdict for plaintiff — which was affirmed at General Term, and an appeal taken by the defendant to this court.

There seems to be nothing in this case except a question in *238regard to the weight of evidence, and we are asked to review the evidence, — both in regard to whether there was such a contract as was declared on, and as to whether the plaintiff was so incompetent as a book-keeper as to justify the defendant in discharging him.

"Without going into the evidence on either j>oint it is sufficient to say that we have examined it, and it seems to be contradictory, and the jury might have found either way ; but tbe Circuit Court having better opportunity than we can possibly bave to sift tbe evidence, has ratified tbe finding of the jury, and we see no good reason for violating the well settled practice in this court by overruling this action of the Circuit Court.

Let the judgment he affirmed.

Judge Wagner absent, the other Judges concur.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-06071 |
|------------------------------------|-----------|

 

DWS Institutional Funds

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 12/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 12/31/08 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;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:   August      5, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Charles N.      Eldred                            |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   | Charles      N. Eldred                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                       |   | Executive      Vice President and                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                       |   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                       |   | PNM      Resources, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SHAWN KAFTOUSIAN,

Appellant,

v.

N ADIA REZAEIPANAH

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00019

- CV

Appeal from the

219 th Judicial District Court

of Collins County, Texas

(TC# 219

- 55034

- 2011 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

part of the judgment as to the dividing of the marital estate . We therefore reverse that part of the

judgment and remand for a new trial, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We affirm the

remainder of the divorce decree.

We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee the costs of this appeal. This

dec ision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.