alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of: William E. BEAVER, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO, United Parcel Service, and Liberty Mutual Insurance, Respondents.

No. 83CA0387.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Sept. 1, 1983.

Sarney, Trattler & Waitkus, Alan J. Wa-itkus, Denver, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., William Levis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Com’n of the State of Colo.

Zarlengo, Mott & Zarlengo, Tama L. Levine, Denver, for respondent United Parcel Service and Liberty Mut. Ins.

TURSI, Judge.

This matter is before the court on petitioner’s Motion for Rehearing on an order of dismissal entered by this court because of the petitioner’s failure to join a claimed indispensable party within the statutory time limit. As grounds for rehearing, the petitioner contends that the form as filed *809containing the statement that it was an appeal from the Commission’s order and identifying the claim, adequately advised the Industrial Commission, the employer, and the insurer of the fact of the timely filing of the petition for review and, therefore, no prejudice to the rights of any responding party has occurred. We agree.

In *Shaklee v. District Court,*636 P.2d 715 (Colo.1981), the court held that the failure to name the court and judge as respondents in the caption of an original proceeding filed with it was a technical defect at most, and was appropriately remedied by later correction of the caption on the court’s own motion. *See Williams v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.,*670 P.2d 453 (Colo.App.1983).

Here, it is undisputed that the Industrial Commission received proper and timely service of the petition and designation of parties. Therefore, we hold that the defect in the caption was technical at most and the previous order to dismiss is vacated. The clerk of this court is instructed to amend the caption to show the Industrial Commission of Colorado as a party, and the caption is herewith so amended.

The motion for rehearing is granted, the order of dismissal is withdrawn, and the petition for review is hereby reinstated. The respondents are given ten days from the date of this order to file an answer to claimant’s petition.

ENOCH, C.J., and BERMAN, J., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4057-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 16, 2012.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 6, 2012.

Grant, Laurel, Lawrence, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, and Morgan Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2012-7399 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1106
#### Mrs. Carol Stone BRUNDAGE v. BEAN ENERGY, INC.

No. 87-C-1503.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Brundage, Carol Stone, Mrs.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. *46186-CA-1052; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 54788.

Prior report: La.App., 509 So.2d 112.

Denied.
September 27, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with Exelon 

Attendees: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held of the comments submitted by Exelon on the proposed Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards.
##### 



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 Form 10-Q of AMH Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended April
2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael Caporale, Jr., Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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, as amended; and2)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 17, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael Caporale, Jr.Michael Caporale, Jr.President, Chief Executive Officer andDirector(Principal Executive Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. -26-
September 17, 2015

Mr. Adam Davis

President

Ozark Gateway Regional Tourism Association

P.O. Box 4049

Batesville, AR 72503

Dear Mr. Davis:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your exemption request on behalf of Ozark Gateway Regional Tourism 

Association filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2774 on July 7, 2015, but we are unable to 

process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1916

CLARK C. KIRKLAND, SR.; SHARON S. KIRKLAND, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus
RUSSELL CHASTAIN, Individually, d/b/a Kirby of Simpsonville, South Carolina; LISA CHASTAIN, Individually, d/b/a Kirby of Simpsonville, South Carolina; HARRY BOWEN, Individuallyd/b/a Tri State Kirby, Franklin, North Carolina; SCOTT FETZER CORPORATION, d/b/a Kirby Company USA, Westlake, Ohio; RONNIE RICHARDS, Individually; RALPH ALVERSON, Individually; DAVID RICE, Individually; TOWN OF WOODRUFF,SOUTH CAROLINA; J. CARLISLE OXNER, JR., Individually; CHET MORRIS, Individually; JERRYCOOPER, Individually; NANCY SKINNER, Individually; PHOEBE WADDELL, Individually; WOODRUFF STATE BANK SHARES, d/b/a Woodruff State Bank; DOUGLAS RICHARDSON, Individually; GEORGE GREEN, Individually; COUNTY OF LAURENS, SOUTH CAROLINA; HAROLD LEE, Individually; COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA; LAURENS COUNTY,SOUTH CAROLINA, SHERIFF AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, SHERIFF AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross And erson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3370-6-3AK)
Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 9, 199623 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clark C. Kirkland, Sr., Sharon S. Kirkland, Appellants Pro Se. Eddie R. Harbin, Greenville, South Carolina; Ronald Keith Wray, II, GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; William Stevens Brown, V, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina; Edwin Calhoun Haskell, III, SMITH &HASKELL, Spartanburg, South Carolina; James John Raman, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Oscar William Bannister, Jr., David Garrison Hill, HILL, WYATT & BANNISTER, L.L.P, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (1994) complaints, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants' state law claims. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kirkland v. Chastain , No. CA-95- 3370-6-3AK (D.S.C. May 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Larry SAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 2, 1986.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the sentencing order of the trial court which exceeded the guidelines and remand with directions to either enter a sentence within the guidelines or to enter a written order setting out clear and convincing reasons under the law for any deviation from the guidelines.

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and CO-WART, EDWARD D., Associate Judge, concur.
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 22

HUDSON HOTELS CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                STATE OF INCORPORATION OR
NAME                                  ORGANIZATION              DOING BUSINESS AS
----                            -------------------------       -----------------
<S>                                     <C>                   <C>    
Watertown Hotel Corp.                   New York              Watertown Hotel Corp.
Delray Beach Hotel Corp.                New York              Delray Beach Hotel Corp.
Brookwood Funding Corp.                 New York              Brookwood Funding Corp.
Ridge Road Hotel Corp.                  New York              Ridge Road Hotel Corp.
950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.               New York              950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.
Victor Hotel Corp.                      New York              Victor Hotel Corp.
Canandaigua Hotel Corp.                 New York              Canandaigua Hotel Corp.
Hudson Tonawanda Corp.                  New York              Hudson Tonawanda Corp.
HHC Management Corp.                    New York              HHC Management Corp.
Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.          New York              Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.
HH Properties-Southwest, Inc.           New York              HH Properties-Southwest, Inc.
HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.           New York              HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.
HH Properties-I, Inc.                   New York              HH Properties-I, Inc.
HH Properties-II, Inc.                  New York              HH Properties-II, Inc.
HH Bridge G.P., Inc.                    Virginia              HH Bridge Corp.
HHC Bridge, Inc.                        New York              HHC Bridge, Inc.
HHC Perm-I, Inc.                        New York              HHC Perm-I, Inc.
HHC Sub-I, Inc.                         New York              HHC Sub-I, Inc.
</TABLE>
#### Elmer S. CANADY and Florence E. Canady, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Wayne R. SHELDEN and Rosalie A. Shelden, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 80CA0647.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Nov. 3, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1983.

Certiorari Denied July 9, 1984.

Richard L. Hentzell, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Raymond N. Satter, Denver, for defendants-appellants.

*1206VAN CISE, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Elmer S. and Florence E. Ca-nady, commenced this action in June 1979, seeking the removal of a chain-link fence which defendants, Wayne R. and Rosalie A. Shelden, had installed in 1969 allegedly 12 to 14 inches on plaintiffs’ side of the boundary between the parties’ respective properties. Plaintiffs also sought $1,000 damages for loss of use of this part of their property. Defendants denied any encroachment on plaintiffs’ property, and pled statutes of limitations as a bar.

After trial to the court, it found that the chain-link fence was on plaintiffs’ property and ordered it moved back in accordance with plaintiffs’ survey. The damage claim was denied for lack of proof. Defendants appeal. We affirm.

I.

Defendants first contend that the court erroneously tried this case as a boundary dispute case when it was pled as a trespass action, that the superior court has no jurisdiction to determine and establish disputed boundaries, and that the court failed to proceed according to the applicable statute pertaining to boundary disputes, § 38-44-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Repl.Vol. 16A). We do not agree.

We do not view this as a boundary dispute case. However, even if it were, the superior court, having jurisdiction “concurrent with the district court,” § 13-7-102(2), C.R.S.1973, has jurisdiction to try such matters, including a proceeding under § 38-44-101, C.R.S.1973, so long as the amount of the claim or the value of the property involved does not exceed $5,000. There is nothing in the record to show that the value of the 12 to 14 inch strip is more than that amount, and the defendants admitted in their answer that the relief prayed for, including the damage claim, does not exceed that limit. And, in view of the language of § 38-44-101, C.R.S.1973, stating that one *“may*bring an action” under that particular statute, it is not mandatory that a boundary dispute be resolved under the provisions of that particular statute to the exclusion of other statutory or common law proceedings.

II.

Defendants further contend that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the six-year statute of limitation applicable to trespass actions, § 13-80-110(l)(e), C.R.S.1973.

We agree that the six-year statute applies to the claim for damages for loss of use of the strip of land. However, that claim was denied for failure of proof.

The claim asking for the fence to be moved from plaintiffs’ land is an action for recovery of possession of real property, and the 18-year statute, § 38-41-101(1), C.R.S.1973, is applicable. Hence, this action, commenced 10 years after the fence was erected, is not barred.

The other contentions of defendants are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lance Rosenzweig, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PeopleSupport, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the
registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control which
could adversely affect the
registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other
employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal
controls. Date: November 15, 2004 /s/ Lance Rosenzweig
#### STATE ex rel. Larry J. BOYER v. Richard STALDER, Warden, Wade Correctional Center.

No. 87-KH-1248.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Boyer, Larry J.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, writ of prohibition and mandamus; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 79-2784.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cord Blood America, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew L. Schissler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.







Date: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/ Matthew L. SchisslerName:
Matthew L. SchisslerTitle:
Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.3



|                                                                                                      |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|LOGO                                                                                                  |  | 
|1100 LOUISIANA SUITE 3800 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218    TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191    FAX
(713) 651-0849

June 26, 2009

Mr. Aquiles Rattia Regalado

Director de Control de Reservas

Repsol YPF, S.A.

Paseo de la Castellana 278-280

28046 Madrid

Spain

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Mr. Rattia Regalado:

Ryder Scott Company, L.P. confirms its independence with respect to Repsol YPF and hereby consents to the references to Ryder Scott Company, L.P. and the
inclusion of information derived from its reports in Section 2.2 Oil and Gas Reserves of Repsol YPF, S.A.s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, and in the Supplementary Information on Oil
and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited information) in the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein.

Ryder Scott Company audited certain areas in which Repsol YPF has interests in Algeria, Libya, Spain and Colombia using an as of date of September 30, 2008.





Sincerely,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. TBPE License No. F-1580/s/ Herman G. Acuña, P.E.Herman G. Acuña, P.E.Managing Senior International Vice President


Houston, Texas



|                            |  |                             |  |                    |  |                   
|--------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------
|1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.  |  | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 358    |  | TEL (403) 262-2799 |  | FAX (403) 262-2790
|621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550 |  | DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501 |  | TEL (303) 623-9147 |  | FAX (303) 623-4258