alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Center for Audit Excellence

Policy for Determination of Qualified Personnel and Entities

Overview

This policy establishes criteria for determining personnel and entities qualified to receive training, 

technical assistance, products, and services from the Center for Audit Excellence.

Purpose

There are many potential audiences and recipients for training, technical assistance, products, and 

services from the Center. The statute establishing the Center, 31 U.S.C. § 791, provides the 

Comptroller General with broad discretion to establish and publish criteria for determining qualified 

personnel and entities. 

Eligibility Policy

The Center will provide affordable, relevant, and high-quality training, technical assistance, and 

products and services to qualified personnel and entities of governments (including the Federal 

Government, State and local governments, tribal governments, and governments of foreign 

nations), international organizations, and other private organizations. In order to be considered 

qualified, the Center Director must determine that a potential recipient meets the following criteria:

(1) the potential recipient is associated with the domestic or international accountability 

community; and

(2) the potential recipient would not create a conflict for the Center for any reason, such as any 

individual or entity whose participation in Center activities would compromise or appear to 

compromise the independence or integrity of GAO.

Limitations of Eligibility

(1) Center activities will be limited based on available personnel, financial resources, and other 

considerations, including GAO’s independence. A determination of eligibility does not entitle a 

potential recipient to any training, technical assistance, products, or services from the Center.

(2) The Center Director may reconsider eligibility for Center training, technical assistance, 

products, and services at any time for any reason, including failure to adhere to Center policies 

or comply with agreements entered into with the Center.
Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SANDRA LYNNE JONES, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT 

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until June 26, 2023, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 92-4947

______________________________

PATRICK BREAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(91-CV-184)

______________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

(January 5, 1994)

Befor e POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After the district court remanded this case to the ALJ for

further findings, it denied Breaux's application for attorneys fees

under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This court affirmed in an

unpublished opinion, finding the case cont rolled by B ertrand v.

Sullivan

, 976 F.2d 977, 979-80 (5th Cir. 1992). B reaux v.

Secretary

, No. 92-4947, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 12009 (5th Cir. May 6,

1993) (per curiam). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for

further proceedings in light of its later decision in Shalala v.

Schaefer

, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (1993). B reaux v. Shalala

, 114 S.Ct. 297(1993).

Shalala v. Schaefer holds that a party who obtains a remand

pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) qualifies as

a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees under the EAJA.

113 S.Ct. at 2631-32. Schaefer overruled Part IV of B ertrand v.

Sullivan , 976 F.2d at 979-80, which stated that a fee application

by a plaintiff who has obtained a remand order should be denied "as

premature and without prejudice."

The district court's denial o f Breaux's application is

REVERSED and REMANDED to allow the district court to award

reasonable attorney fees.
#### Patricia and Wynetta BENNETT, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, POLK COUNTY, Florida et al., Respondents.

No. 40670.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1








January 9, 2014Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK Partners to Participate in


UBS MLP One-on-One Conference





TULSA, Okla. – Jan. 9, 2014 – ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the UBS MLP One-on-One Conference on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2014, in Park City, Utah.





Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners president and chief executive officer-designee, and Robert F. Martinovich, ONEOK Partners executive vice president, commercial-designee, 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 Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Tuesday, Jan. 14, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).








ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and 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. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 41.2 percent of the overall partnership interest, as of Dec. 31, 2013. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than two million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.





For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com .





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





###
AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     THIS AMENDMENT to an Executive Employment Agreement, dated October 20,
1999, is made this 17th day of November, 1999, between PFC BANK, a Pennsylvania
business corporation located at Fourth Street and Ford Avenue, PO Box 311, Ford
City, Pennsylvania 16226 (the "Bank") and PEOPLES FINANCIAL CORP., INC., a
Pennsylvania business corporation located at Fourth Street and Ford Avenue, PO
Box 311, Ford City, Pennsylvania 16226, (the "Corporation") and R. B. Robertson,
an adult individual residing in Pennsylvania (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Bank and Corporation desire to extend from August 31, 2001 to
August 31, 2003 the term under which R.B. Robertson shall serve as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Bank and the Corporation under the terms and
conditions set forth in the Executive Employment Agreement, dated September 1,
1997, amended October 20, 1999, with all other terms and conditions unmodified.

ATTEST:                                     PFC BANK


/s/ Timothy Reddinger                       /s/ Frank T. Baker
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
Timothy Reddinger, Secretary                Frank Baker, Chairman of the Board


ATTEST:                                     PEOPLES FINANCIAL CORP., INC.


/s/ Timothy Reddinger                       /s/ Frank T. Baker
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
Timothy Reddinger, Secretary                Frank Baker, Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:


/s/ James L. Kifer                          /s/ R. B. Robertson
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                            R. B. Robertson
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

I, Michael J. Post, President, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of Gasel
Transportation Lines Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that,:

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant for the period ended
December 31, 2004 (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 Registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc. and will be retained by Gasel
Transportation Lines, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: April 15, 2005

                                                     /s/ Michael J. Post
                                                     Michael J. Post, Treasurer
                                                     & Chief Executive Officer
EXHITBIT 10.2

June 29, 2001

      The undersigned vendor, Xatnu, Inc. dba Entertainment Marketing ("Vendor")
acknowledges that it has performed certain services for and on behalf of
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. ("Company") for which invoices in the amount of
$42,457 have been issued by Vendor. As of June 29, 2001, Vendor has received
379,688 shares of Company's common stock (the "Stock" herein) toward the payment
of the abovementioned invoice. Company agrees that it shall issue an additional
767,800 shares of its Stock, with a market price per share of $0.037 as of June
27, 2001, to Vendor's employees, Michael Blum and Phil Alexander; and Company
shall cause to be filed immediately a Registration Statement on Form S-8
registering the Stock, to permit the sale of the Stock as a means of reducing
Company's outstanding obligation to Vendor. Provided, however, that the Stock
shall be sold into the public market in an orderly and non-disruptive manner. In
the event that the net proceeds, after deducting taxes and commissions, from
Vendor's sale of Stock are less than the amount of $42,457, Company shall pay
Vendor the difference between $42,457 and the net proceeds in cash within 10
days of presentation by Vendor to Company of documentation of the amount of net
proceeds. Further, in the event that the total Stock sold by Vendor exceeds
$65,000, then, the remaining Stock will be returned to the Company or, with the
Company's approval, sold with additional amounts applied as a credit for the
Company.


Xatnu, Inc. dba Entertainment Marketing

By:_____________________________      _____________
   Michael Blum                           Date


Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.

By:_____________________________      _____________
   Richard Wade, President                Date
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 25 ) ll-K - (B)-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:48AM Sheet 25of 325P. 2 

# /A Pl H-K-(B)-1 3
SUMMAR YO F MODELING ISSUE S DISCUSSE D B YTH E INFORMA

L ANALYSI S WORKIN G GROUP . Lette r fro

m R.L . Short , EPArEA B t o Informa l Analysi s Workin g Group . Octobe r 19 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-1 3
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00121-CR

__________________

BRANDI RHNEE SHELTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B230038-R

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 20, 2023, Brandi Rhnee Shelton filed a notice of appeal in which she 

gave this Court notice of her intent to appeal from a ruling from the 163rd District 

Court of Orange County denying her petition for habeas relief. Her notice of appeal 

failed to state whether the trial court had signed a written order denying her petition 

and failed to state the date on which the order (if there was one) was signed. 

On May 4, 2023, we notified the parties that it appeared no appealable order 

had been signed in the case. We also notified the parties and the trial court that we 
2

had not received a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal. We warned the 

parties that unless our jurisdiction was established over Shelton’s appeal by May 19, 

the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. 

Subsequently, neither party filed responded to our notice. Thus, there is 

nothing in our record to explain how this Court has jurisdiction over Shelton’s 

appeal. We have not neither received a copy of an order denying Shelton’s 

application for a writ of habeas corpus, nor have we received a certification that 

shows Shelton has a right to appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 20, 2023

Opinion Delivered June 21, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
#### The STATE of Florida on the relation of Glenn STORY, as Director of the Building and Zoning Department of the City of North Miami, Florida, and Sidney Markwell, as Building Official of the City of North Miami, Florida, Relators, v. Francis X. KNUCK, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition denied.
#### Max FINESMITH et al., Appellants, v. Leo GROSSMAN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

*100Tobias Simon, Miami, Broad & Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Englander & Burnett, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before SWANN, C. J., HENDRY, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment for the defendants.

The final judgment contained three findings of fact. An examination of the record and briefs demonstrates that the trial court did not commit any error in this finding of fact in Paragraph Three.

> “3. The proceedings in those certain actions contained in the original Court files introduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits ‘8’ and ‘9’, are not binding upon the Defendants in this Cause as said exhibits affirmatively, indicate that the Defendants were not parties to those proceedings and that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendants in the present cause had notice of said proceedings.”

The validity of Paragraph Three makes plaintiffs’ arguments for reversal under Points One and Two moot.

The final judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.
#### Oather James MANNINGS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-558.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 14, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
|                                                  |                                                      |         |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| MASSEY      ENERGY COMPANY                            |
|                                                  |                                                      |
| By:                                                   | /s/ John M. Poma                                          |         |
| Name:                                                 | John      M. Poma                                         |         |
| Title:                                           | Vice      President and ChiefAdministrative Officer  |         |
|                                                  |                                                      |    |
|  /s/ Michael K. SnellingMICHAEL      K. SNELLING |
Exhibit 5.1
                           Law Offices
                          McAfee & Taft
                   A Professional Corporation
                10th Floor, Two Leadership Square
                       211 North Robinson
               Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7103
                         (405) 235-9621
                       Fax (405) 235-0439
                    http://www.mcafeetaft.com

                          June 30, 2000




Fleming Companies, Inc.
6301 Waterford Boulevard
Post Office Box 26647
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73126

                              Re:  2000 Stock Incentive Plan

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to your Registration Statement on Form S-8
to  be  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission  today
with respect to 1,900,000 shares of common stock, $2.50 par value
per  share  (the  "Common Stock") to be issued  pursuant  to  the
Fleming Companies, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

     We  have examined your corporate records and made such other
investigations as we deemed appropriate for the purpose  of  this
opinion.

     Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

1.   Fleming  Companies,  Inc  (the  "Company")  has  been   duly
     incorporated and is validly existing as a corporation in good
     standing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

2.   The issuance of the Common Stock has been duly authorized by
     appropriate corporate action on behalf of the Company.

3.   When  issued pursuant to the Plan, the Common Stock will  be
     validly issued, and will be fully paid and non-assessable.

     We  hereby  consent to the inclusion of this opinion  as  an
exhibit to the above mentioned Registration Statement.

                              Very truly yours,

                              MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
                              McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation
#### Anne Stender FALGOUT v. Barney FALGOUT et al.

No. 8404.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1971.

Wilmore J. Broussard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Houma, for appellant.

Stanley L. Perry, of Perry & Perry, Galliano, Gordon F. Wilson, Jr., of Hammett, Leake & Hammett, New Orleans, for appellees.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in the case of Falgout, et al. v. Falgout, et al., 251 So.2d 424 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971), we find the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury to be liable for damages suffered by plaintiff herein.

We also note that Barney Falgout, made a defendant herein, is plaintiff’s husband, and suit was properly dismissed as to him on exceptions for that reason.

Anne Stender Falgout suffered severe cuts and lacerations on her forehead and around her mouth. She suffered a severe fracture of her left wrist, cracked two ribs, and had some teeth broken. She was hospitalized from December 17 until December 24, 1965, for the immediate effects of the accident. She missed two months work as a teacher, and testified that she was considerably embarrassed by her appearance when she returned to work. She was operated on in August, 1966, by a plastic surgeon, for her facial scars. The facial scarring was initially severe, and detracted from her appearance, particularly the scarring of the lower lip. As a result of the surgery, the scars, although discern-able, were no longer seriously disfiguring by the time of the trial. She suffered no other residual disability from her injuries. The district judge awarded her $18,000.00 for all of her injuries.

*428After reviewing the foregoing, we find that the award made is not so far out of line with awards made in similar cases as to constitute an abuse of the great discretion allowed the trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury is to pay all costs for which they are liable under the law.

Affirmed.
#### David Mark LUTERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1081.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Progenitor, Inc. on Form S-1 (File No. 333-05369) of our report dated December
4, 1997, on our audits of the financial statements of Progenitor, Inc. as of
September 30, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended September 30, 1997, 1996 and
1995 and for the period from May 8, 1992 (date of inception) to September 30,
1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                                 COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Columbus, Ohio
December 23, 1997
<PAGE>

                               AMENDMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into as of May 25, 2000 by
and between BioSignal Inc. 1744 rue William, Montreal, Quebec CANADA H3J 1R4
(hereinafter, BIOSIGNAL) and Vanderbilt University, through the Office of
Technology Transfer, having an office at 1207 17th Avenue S. Suite 210,
Nashville TN USA 37212 (hereinafter, VANDERBILT).

   WHEREAS, BIOSIGNAL and VANDERBILT entered into a License Agreement relating
   to: "Optical Assay of Protein Interactions" as of September 11, 1998
   (AGREEMENT), and

   WHEREAS, BIOSIGNAL and VANDERBILT wish to amend the AGREEMENT,

   NOW, THEREFORE, BIOSIGNAL and VANDERBILT agree as follows:

The AGREEMENT is hereby amended effective as of the date first written above as
follows:

   Section 3 CONSIDERATIONS & ROYALTIES is amended by inserting a new Clause
   3.8, to read as follows:

   "For sales of a LICENSED SERVICE in combination with other products and/or
   services ("COMBINATION SERVICE") the earned royalty shall be [* * *] of the
   NET SALES of the COMBINATION SERVICE that could not have been performed but
   for the INVENTION."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals and duly
executed this AGREEMENT on the dates indicated below, to be effective on the
date first written above.

BioSignal Inc.                                  Vanderbilt University

By:  /s/ Daniel Chelsky                         By: /s/ Janis Elsner
     --------------------------                     ----------------------------
     Daniel Chelsky, Ph.D.                          Janis Elsner
     President                                      Assoc. Director


[* * *] Indicates information omitted pursuant to a request for confidential
treatment and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.