alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter F. GUTH, Appellant, v. Nell F. HOWARD, Appellee.

No. 78-502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 27, 1978.

Walter S. McLin, III of McLin, Burnsed & Cyrus, Leesburg, for appellant.

William F. Brewton of Brewton, Council & Swann, Dade City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner/appellant seeks to appeal an order which reads “that [respondent’s] motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby granted.” This is not a final order within the contemplation of Fla.R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Likewise, this is not a non-final order which may be reviewed by an interlocutory appeal. Fla.R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Since we have no jurisdiction, the appeal, sua sponte, is dismissed. *Arnold v.*Brady, 178 So.2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1965); *Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels,*99 So.2d 719 (Fla.3d DCA 1958).

GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
#### Walter McBRIDE (Deceased), Marie McBride, Widow, Petitioner, v. The ZACK COMPANY, Risk Management Services, Inc. and the Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 40940.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 4, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J„ and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or 78o(d), 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:  September 9, 2010 | /s/ Robert S. Hekemian                            |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Robert S. Hekemian                                |
|                               | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
No. 10534.

#### Urick *v.*Flora et al., Commissioners, et al.

Decided April 28, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Preble county.

*Messrs. Risinger & Risinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Crisler & Cahill,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Union Real Estate Equity
and Mortgage Investments (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
and 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:  August 14, 2002                     /s/ Neil H. Koenig
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Neil H. Koenig
                                           Principal Executive Officer


Date:  August 14, 2002                     /s/ Neil H. Koenig
                                           ------------------------------------
                                             Neil H. Koenig
                                             Interim Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 77th District Court of Limestone County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on April 13,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Teddie Davenport v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00280-CR Trial Court Number: 13,187-A

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 13, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 7, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### E. H. HOLCOMB, Jr., Appellant, v. C. C. STONESIFER, Appellee.

No. 70-876.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. v. FRED S. CONRAD CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 38095.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 215 So.2d 45.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Howard R. Levine, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officerof Family Dollar Stores, Inc., (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

·                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 25,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 28, 2007

 
| /s/ Howard R. Levine |                                                                             |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Howard R. Levine                                                                 |
|                 | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                      |                                                                                  |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and will be retained by Family DollarStores, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 11.1

Computation of Earnings Per Share

The
following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted
average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                                 |           |  |      |   |           | 
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | --------- |  | ---- | - | --------- | 
|                                    |  | Three months endedSeptember
30, |          
|                                    |  | 2010                            |           |  | 2009 |  
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                 | 1,589,411 |  |      |   | 1,589,411 | 
|Net Income                          |  | $                               | 786,938   |  |      | $ | 468,248   | 
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                               | 0.50      |  |      | $ | 0.30      | 
|                                    | 
|                                    |  | Nine months endedSeptember
30,  |          
|                                    |  | 2010                            |           |  | 2009 |  
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                 | 1,589,411 |  |      |   | 1,589,411 | 
|Net Income                          |  | $                               | 1,915,623 |  |      | $ | 1,538,067 | 
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                               | 1.21      |  |      | $ | 0.97      | 

No common stock equivalents exist.
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2023*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter 829.03

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT** MONEY

COUPONS

CHANGE^

3-Year Note 7/17 40.00 0.00

10-Year Note (r) 7/17 32.00 0.00

30-Year Bond (r) 7/17 18.00 0.00 84.89 5.11

10-Year TIPS 7/31 17.00 0.00

20-Year Bond (r) 7/31 12.00 0.00

2-Year Note 7/31 42.00 0.00

2-Year FRN 7/31 24.00 0.00

5-Year Note 7/31 43.00 0.00

7-Year Note 7/31 35.00 0.00 184.96 -11.96

3-Year Note 8/15 42.00 2.00

10-Year Note 8/15 37.00 2.00

30-Year Bond 8/15 23.00 2.00 84.03 17.97

2-Year FRN (r) 8/25 22.00 0.00 0.00 22.00

30-Year TIPS (r) 8/31 8.00 0.00

20-Year Bond 8/31 16.00 1.00

2-Year Note 8/31 44.00 2.00

5-Year Note 8/31 45.00 2.00

7-Year Note 8/31 36.00 1.00 104.01 44.99

3-Year Note 9/15 44.00 2.00

10-Year Note (r) 9/15 34.00 2.00

30-Year Bond (r) 9/15 20.00 2.00 35.14 62.86

10-Year TIPS (r) 9/29 15.00 0.00

2-Year FRN (r) 9/29 22.00 0.00 0.00 37.00

671.00 493.03 177.97

Estimates are italicized. r = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 1,007

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Maturing amount is based on private holdings as of 07/31/2023 and subject to change based on Fed purchases.

^ Change is with respect to previous auction. For securities with reopenings, change from new cusip to new cusip, 1st reopening

 to 1st reopening, and etc.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of 

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Peabody Energy Corporation and Arch Coal, Inc. D09391

03 13 2020 

597920 

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

number of each counsel or representative entering an partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

appearance in the above proceeding, this Notice of Appearance is being filed. 

Jonathan Lasken (Attorney)

 jlasken@ftc.gov

U.S. Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Phone Number: 202-326-2604

Fax Number: 202-326-3384

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Dominic Vote

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED 

(Daniel Matheson) 3/13/2020

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Docket No. In the Matter of 

D09391

Peabody Energy Corporation and Arch Coal,

Inc.

STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 

Jonathan Lasken

U.S. Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2604

Fax: 202-326-3384

Email: jlasken@ftc.gov

 In connection with the Notice of Appearance filed on March 13, 2020, and pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 4.1

(d), I state that I am eligible to practice before the Commission as a member of the Bar of the District of

Columbia (Bar No. 997251). As requested by 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 (d), I further state that I am a member of

good standing within the legal profession.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________

No. DA 22-0696

IN THE MATTER OF D.A., L.A., and F.A.,

Youths in Need of Care.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Father’s one week motion for 

extension of time,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Father is granted an 

extension of time to and including March 31, 2023, within which to 

prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 20 2023

03/20/2023
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7902 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire psychiatrists. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. HIMES, Mr. PETERS, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire 

psychiatrists. 

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 ‘‘Expedited Hiring for 

5 VA Trained Psychiatrists Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7902 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRISTS BY VETERANS 

2 HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 74 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7406 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 7406A. Appointment of certain psychiatrists who 

7 complete residencies 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subject to subsection (b), the 

9 Secretary may appoint, without regard to civil service or 

10 classification laws, a psychiatrist who completes a resi11 dency under section 7406 of this title to a position under 

12 section 7401 or 7405 immediately after such residency, 

13 if the psychiatrist meets the qualifications established in 

14 regulations prescribed by the Secretary for such position. 

15 ‘‘(2) The Secretary may begin the process of appoint16 ing a psychiatrist under paragraph (1) before the psychia17 trist completes a residency. 

18 ‘‘(b) POSITIONS PERMITTED.—The Secretary may 

19 appoint a psychiatrist under subsection (a) if the position 

20 to which the psychiatrist is appointed has been unfilled 

21 for not less than 35 days as of the date of the appoint22 ment.’’. 

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7902 IH

1 after the item relating to section 7406 the following new 

2 item: 

‘‘7406A. Appointment of certain psychiatrists who complete residencies.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 10589.

#### Workman, Admr., v. The Cleveland, Akron & Columbus Railway Co.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Knox county.

*MY. W. Stillwell; Mr. A. J. Workman*and *Messrs. D. F. & J. D. Ewing,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Waight & Moore*and *Messrs. Henderson, Livesay & Burr,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1








August 11, 2014Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Stephanie Higgins918-591-5026








ONEOK and ONEOK Partners to Participate in the


Tuohy Brothers Annual Energy Conference





TULSA, Okla. – Aug. 11, 2014 – ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the 5 th Annual Tuohy Brothers Annual Energy Conference on Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2014, in New York City.





Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK and ONEOK Partners president and chief executive officer, and other members of the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners management team will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners website s, www.oneok.com and www.oneokpartners.com , on Tuesday, Aug. 12, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).








ONEOK, Inc. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is the general partner and as of June 30, 2014, owns 38.5 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.





For more information, visit the websites at www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews and @ONEOKPartners .





###
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING

ON THE PROPOSED POLICY FOR ADOPTING FULL

- FUEL

- CYCLE ANALYSES

INTO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROGRAM

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585

Room 1E

- 245 Thursday, October 7, 2010



## Purpose

The U .S. Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this informal public meeting to present and discuss its proposal to modify the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards for covered products and covered equipment on energy use and emissions and to expand the energy use and emissions information made available to consumers. Specifically, DOE proposes to use full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) measures of energy and emissions, rather than the primary energy measures it currently uses. It also proposes to consider the impacts of standards on the energy

- related emissions of two additional greenhouse gases (GHG),

methane and nitrous oxide. Additionally, DOE proposes to work collaboratively with the

Federal Trade Commission to make FFC energy and GHG emissions data available to the public

to enable consumers to make cross

- class comparisons.



## Agenda

9:00

- 9:30 am Welcome, Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review Doug Brookman

9:30

- 9:45 am Overview of Key Proposals/Questions Anthoney Perkins/Mark Friedrichs

9:45

– 10:45 am Brief Opening Statements from Interested Parties Doug Brookman

10:45

- 11:00 am Break

11:00

– 12:15 pm Shift from Primary Energy to Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Energy, using GREET Model, follow ed by discussion Anthoney Perkins/Michael Wang/Mark Friedrichs

12:15

- 1:15 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:15

– 2:00 pm Addition of Energy

- Related Emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide to Estimated Impacts on CO2 Emissions, followed by discussion

Mark Fried richs2:00

– 3:00 pm Improving Information Available to Consumers, followed by

discussion Anthoney Perkins/Mark Friedrichs

3:00

– 3:15 pm Final Remarks and Questions from Interested Parties Doug Brookman

3:15

– 3:30 pm Next Steps and Closing Anthoney Perkins, Doug Brookman

3:30 pm Adjourn
#### Joe PIPKIN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47755.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 18, 1974.

*182Robert J. Kelly, Nelson G. Conover, Oxford, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Wayne Snuggs, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice.

Joe Pipkin pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Marshall County to a charge of assault and battery with intent to kill and murder.

On February 23, 1971, the court sentenced defendant to one year in the state penitentiary, the order further providing that “the court hereby suspends the execution of the above sentence for a period of one year and the defendant is hereby placed under the supervision of the State Probation and Parole Board, until the court in term time, or the Judge on vacation, shall alter, extend, terminate or direct the enforcement of the above sentence.”

On March 3, 1972, on a petition filed by the district attorney, the court revoked the suspension and ordered defendant transported to the penitentiary, but again suspended sentence on good behavior. On March 28, 1973, defendant’s probation was again revoked, and he was ordered sent to the penitentiary. An appeal was allowed by a Justice of this Court.

Defendant argues that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to revoke probation because (1) the court could not modify or revoke probation after expiration of the period of probation stated in the original judgment, and (2) the court had previously ordered termination of probation on February IS, 1972, on a petition filed by defendant’s probation supervisor.

 The state does not argue that the revocation of probation and the order re-sentencing defendant to the penitentiary was valid, but contends that the aforesaid order is not appealable. We agree that the case should be dismissed because the order is not appealable. Habeas corpus is the proper remedy.

An order revoking a suspension of sentence or revoking probation is not appealable. Ray v. State, 229 So.2d 579 (Miss. 1969); Kittrell v. State, 201 Miss. 514, 29 So.2d 313 (1947); Cooper v. State, 175 Miss. 718, 168 So. 53 (1936). The remedy is habeas corpus to determine whether (1) the court has jurisdiction to issue the order, (2) rendered a valid judgment, Ray v. State, *supra,*and (3) defendant had notice and was granted a public hearing as required by due process. Mason v. Cochran, 209 Miss. 163, 46 So.2d 106 (1950).

Leonard v. State, 271 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1973), appears to support defendant’s argument that an order revoking probation is appealable, but the question was not raised in that case.

This Court is reluctant to dismiss a proceeding because one seeks the wrong remedy; and a mere misnomer of the procedure should ordinarily not result in a dismissal; however, the attempt to appeal an unappealable order is a total departure from the orderly administration of justice and cannot and should not be approved.

The bail bond in the present proceeding shall remain in force until a hearing is held on any habeas corpus proceeding filed by defendant within ten days from this date.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
#### Alberta SHEFFIELD et al., Appellants, v. Malcolm ESTES et al., Appellees.

No. 71-973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.