alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thelma WILLIAMS’ ADM’X (Bertelle Deaton), Appellant, v. LLOYDS OF LONDON et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

*528Don A. Ward', Hazard, for appellant.

J. W. Craft, Jr., J. W. Craft, Craft & Stanfiíl; C. W. Napier, Jr., C. W. Napier, Napier & Napier, Hazard, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

■This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Perry Circuit Court, Courtney C. Wells, Judge, dismissing plaintiff’s .complaint, which sought pro rata satisfaction of a judgment against defendant’s insurance carrier.

In short, four plaintiffs recovered judgments against defendant, Jerry M: Smith, in varying amounts, due to his negligent operation of a taxicab. Smith had no property to satisfy these judgments and his insurance carrier, Lloyds of London, was brought into the case. The insurer claimed its total liability was only $5,000 and paid that amount into court. The trial judge ordered this amount paid to Lavodice Jones, one of the plaintiffs, in satisfaction of his judgment, and further adjudged defendant’s insurer was liable to each plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. The insurance carrier appealed from this judgment but did not supersede, it. This court reversed that judgment and construed the insurance carrier’s total liability to be only $5,000. Underwriters for Lloyds of London v. Jones, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 686.

Plaintiff, Bertelle Deaton, administratrix, then moved the trial court to order the'insurance carrier to pay her $1,133.78 and interest, which represented her pro rata share 'of the $5,000, the insurance carrier had paid into court. When the trial judge dismissed her complaint against the insurance carrier, she moved this court for an appeal.

 At the outset of this case in the lower court the administratrix sought by her intervening petition to have the $5,000 paid into court. The insurer paid this amount into court in conformity to an order of the trial court; We have held that a judgment, though afterwards reversed, is sufficient justification for all acts performed in obedience to it prior to reversal. Harp v. Brookshire, 197 Ky. 794, 248 S.W. 177; Bridges v. McAlister, 106 Ky. 791, 51 S.W. 603, 45 L.R.A. 800. Therefore, the insurer was not in error in paying the money into court and is not now accountable to the ad-ministratrix. Especially is this true where the money was paid into court on motion of the administratrix.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

The undersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Insight Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|   | /s/ KIM D. KELLY                                                                                          |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                           |   |
|   | **Kim D. Kelly President and Chief Executive Officer Insight Capital, Inc. August 8, 2003**               |   |
|   |                                                                                                      |   |
|   | /s/ DINESH C. JAIN                                                                                        |   |
|   |                                                                                                           |   |
|   | **Dinesh C. Jain Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Insight Capital, Inc. August 8, 2003** |   |
Exhibit 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                                       OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of I-trax, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
Tomaro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Anthony Tomaro
------------------
Anthony Tomaro
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 14126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0090]


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption 
Renewal for Automobile Carriers Conference and Auto Haulers Association 
of America; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department 
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of provisional renewal of exemption; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In a notice of provisional renewal of exemption published in 
the Federal Register on February 21, 2024, FMCSA announced its decision 
to provisionally renew an exemption requested jointly by the Automobile 
Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations and the Auto 
Haulers Association of America to relieve motor carriers operating 
stinger-steered automobile transporter equipment from the requirement 
to place warning flags on projecting loads of new and used motor 
vehicles. The provisional exemption renewal contained an error in the 
Summary section regarding the term of the provisional exemption. The 
Agency corrects this error.

DATES: This correction is effective February 26, 2024. Comments on the 
notice of provisional renewal of exemption must still be received on or 
before March 22, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside 
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, 
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-
9209; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99d4dac9cacfd9fdf6edb7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="763b352625203612190258111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2024-03446 on page 13135, in the third column, in the 
Federal Register of February 21, 2024, correct the provisional renewal 
term cited in the last sentence of the Summary section to read:
    ``The exemption is renewed for 6 months, unless revoked earlier.'' 
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03830 Filed 2-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1788 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from 

flexible spending accounts for certain dental products. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself and Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from flexible spending accounts for certain 

dental products. 

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 ‘‘Dental Health Pro5 motion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLEXIBLE SPENDING AC7 COUNTS FOR CERTAIN DENTAL PRODUCTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 106 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions by employer 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1788 IH

1 to accident and health plans) is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(g) DENTAL CARE PRODUCTS UNDER FLEXIBLE

4 SPENDING ARRANGEMENT.—An arrangement shall not 

5 fail to be treated as a health flexible spending arrange6 ment under this section or section 105 merely because 

7 such arrangement provides reimbursement for products 

8 used to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent the 

9 onset of tooth decay (caries), periodontal diseases, and 

10 conditions ailing the teeth, gums, and mouth, or affecting 

11 the proper function thereof, for which reimbursement 

12 without regard to this subsection would not otherwise be 

13 allowable.’’. 

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

15 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1107 Prepped by Ollie Stewart


### Document

Number: 

# 50 ) IV-E- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-81-2 1

Printed 4/11/20083:03:47

PM Sheet 50of 90P. 2

TELEPHON E CAL L RECOR D •incomin gCal l SJOutgoln gCal l Perso nCallin g . I i Perso nCalle d 

## ty/meth forttfilmsb'

3i8-Wl-4r7£\ i'rojec t No . 

### Z3/-OZ3 - IO-

C 

# A-8J- 2

IV-E- 6 Projec t Nam e ^ Tin e 

# b/ZP/gfr ztob Activit y 

## fivLay\ fori). tlvlt y / 

## JB£$. 

# k£F

Genera l Subjec t 

## £c?sf s of-

rc^WoWi.h^

£D£ ^ra^> jpnkr TOPIC S DISCUSSE D AN D ACTIO N TAKE N 

## <?Mlmrfi&d

gfyartzfeb, -far

<?ac4 -/&#£*£itf&rfar&-&Y~ encl\ -trmlr wejrr p^hlmatfA hy -sample ^r e yesif SJrsayi 

# 2#e greatest

cod #4*/tf/yrrexfrrs'

a&uxsfrfttff

I&ZL /dorf half 4 4k*.$6&o : 

## 6CQ ,"77 ^ ejghhofos *frJ//d>d */>s&rir<J

-1MJL&£1 

### /??jp<.



# A&*d?r WL 

# /ZtfO-bef*

S ign atur e 

# itfcw

*$&*i<
#### SCOTT et al. v. TURNER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 21, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1955.

*422T. E. Nickel, Greenup, R. H. Riggs, Russell, for appellants.

Harvey Parker, Jr., Vanceburg, John F. Coldiron, Frank K. Warnock, Greenup, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This suit involves the right to use the property of the Pentecostal Church of Christ at Flatwoods, Kentucky. The plaintiffs and defendants each claim the opposing parties withdrew from the Church. The Chancellor found for the defendants and dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs which sought an injunction and other relief.

The Pentecostal Church of Christ came into existence by that name in 1916 when a tract of land was conveyed to its trustees. Subsequently other property was acquired in that name.

In 1917 there was organized a Conference of several of these churches and up until 1953 the Flatwoods Church was affiliated with this Conference. Early in the year 1953 the defendants, who consisted of the majority of the Church members present at a regular meeting, voted to withdraw the Church from the Conference. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the membership of the Church could not take such action and that the Conference is the supreme governing body of the Church.

We have examined the Manual of the Conference, which we may consider was binding upon the Flatwoods Church as long as it was a member of the Conference. However, we find nothing in the Manual or the other exhibits filed that in any way deny the right of any member church to withdraw from it at any time. In addition, there is nothing in the Manual or the laws of the Conference which could be construed to vest it with title to the property conveyed to member churches. As a matter of fact, Article 3 of the Manual recognizes that church property may be held independent of the Conference.

The Chancellor found, and we agree, that the Flatwoods Church and the other churches associated with it in the Conference were of the congregational form and were separate and independent units with the right to govern themselves. The Conference organization was not set up as the supreme and irrevocable governing body, which is the presbyterial form of church government.

While it is true that one faction of a church may not repudiate the fundamental principles of the church and assume control of the church property, it is apparent from the record that the defendants are continuing and intend to continue the Flatwoods Church exactly as it has existed for a great number of years, and they have not created and do not intend to create a new organization.

The Chancellor in an excellent opinion carefully considered all of the contentions made on behalf of the plaintiffs, and we believe he reached the proper conclusion in dismissing their petition.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sino-Biotics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Curtis Hunsinger, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Sole Director of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



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







/s/   Curtis Hunsinger

Curtis Hunsinger, President, Chief Executive

Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal

Executive Officer), Sole Director





Date:  February 14, 2006
GK 

Gallagher&Kennedy 

December 5, 2013 

VIA HAND DELIVERY 

Barnes Johnson 

Acting Director 

Office Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Environment al Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Proposed Rule on the Definition of "Solid Waste," 76 Fed. Reg. 44,094 

(July 22, 2011} (EPA Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742c} 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (Freeport} appreciates the opportu nity to meet 

with you today to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's} 2011 Proposed 

Rule on the definition of "solid waste" and the specific concerns raised in Freeport' s 2011 

Comment (EPA Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742-0363). To facilitate review of Freeport's 

citations to EPA's public records noted at our meeting and in Freeport's 2011 Comment, we 

have enclosed copies for your reference. We also have enclosed a copy of today's presentation 

summarizing our concerns, regulatory options, and proposed alternatives for EPA's 

consideration. 

Very truly yours, 

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 

EPA REGION IX W ASTE M ANAGEM ENT DIVISION, RCRA ENFORCEMENT O FFICE, RCRA COM PLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT FOR 

PHELPS D ODGE M IAMI, INC. (Apri l 9 , 2002); 

(3) EPA REGION IX W ASTE M ANAGEMENT DIVISION, RCRA ENFORCEMENT O FFICE, RCRA COM PLIANCE EVAlUATION INSPECTION REPORT FOR 

BHP COPPER SAN M ANUEL FACiliTY (April 8, 2002) (unofficial copy); and 

(4) EPA REGION IX W ASTE M ANAGEM ENT DIVISION, RCRA ENFORCEM ENT O FFICE, RCRA COM PLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT FOR 

AsARCO INC. RAY COMPLEX HAYDEN SM ELTER (April l6, 2002) (unofficial copy). 

3930419 vl/2 5 0 0 0 -0410 

2575 East Camelback Road I Phoenix. Arizona 85016·9225 I P. 602-530·8000 I F: 602·530·8500 I www.gknet.com
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),Richard A. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),that to his knowledge:

 

(1)   The report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by theReport and the results of operations  of the Company for the period coveredby the Report.

 

 
| Sign:                                  | /S/ | Richard A. Smith |   |
|----------------------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Smith                       |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| November 14,  2005                |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or asa separate disclosure document.  A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 23


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated November 18, 1999 included in
Registration Statement Nos. 33-2915, 33-12555, 33-24975, 33-40616, 33-48288,
333-11485, 333-22377, 333-47589 and 333-79029. It should be noted that we have
not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent to October 30,
1999 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.



                                           /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
January 3, 2000
#### Ex parte Jesse Cleveland SMITH.

No. 28003.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*719DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant here, relator in the court below, sought bail, by writ of habeas corpus, upon an accusation pending against him in the Criminal District Court, No. 2, of Dallas County,' Texas. '

Upon a hearing before the judge of that court, bail was granted in the sum of, $10,000.

From that order, notice of appeal' was ' given to this court.

The record is before .us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The record does not reflect that error was committed by the order entered.

The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX E 

QUALITY CONTROL DATA 

Appendix - 178
Appendix - 179
Appendix - 180
Appendix - 181
Appendix - 182
Appendix - 183
Appendix - 184
Appendix - 185
Appendix - 186
APPENDIX F 

PROCESS OPERATING/PRODUCTION DATA 

Appendix - 187
Appendix - 188
Appendix - 189
Appendix - 190
Appendix - 191
Appendix - 192
Appendix - 193
Appendix - 194
Appendix - 195
Appendix - 196
Appendix - 197
Appendix - 198
Appendix - 199
Appendix - 200
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION





Exhibit 32

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

I, Bertram  Cutler,  President  and CFO of Global  Assets & Services,  Inc. (the
"Company"), certify that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10QSB of the Company  for the period  ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

         Dated:  August 9, 2004           Officer:   Bertram Cutler

                                        Name:       /s/ Bertram Cutler
                                                    ----------------------------
                                        Position:  President, CFO
Op inion i ssued July 12 , 2012
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 11
- 0 0 996
- CV

____________ TAMIEKA SINGH , Appellant

V.
HELDA H. SHAGHAGHI , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 1002508

MEMORANDUM O PINION On November 16, 2011, a ppellant Tamieka Singh filed an affidavit of indigence with the trial court clerk. Although appellant has not filed a notice of2

appeal, the trial court clerk assigned this appeal to this Court, based upon the affidavit of indigence

. The filing of a notice of appeal by any party invoke s the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1(b). A court of appeals has jurisdiction over any appeal where the appe llant files an instrument that was filed in a bona fide attempt to invok e appellate court jurisdiction. Linwood v. NCNB Tex. , 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994); Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist. v . Southern Parts Imports,
Inc. , 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991). If the appellant timely files a document in a bona fide attemp t to invoke the appellate court’ s jurisdiction, the court of appeals, on appellant’ s motion, must allow the appellant an opportunity to perfect the appeal by amending or refiling

. See Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist. , 813 S.W.2d at 500. Appellant has not filed a no tice of appeal, but has filed an affidavit of indigence

. An affidavit of indigence is not an instrument that is filed to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. In re R.B.M. , 338 S.W.3d 755, 757 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th] 2011, no pet.). The affidavit concerns the separate question of whether app ellant must pay appellate costs in advance. Id. ; see In re J.W. , 52 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an affidavit of indigence does not constitute a bona fide attempt to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
In re R.B.M. , 338 S.W. 3d at 757.3

On March 29, 2012 , we notified appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by April 11, 2012 , s he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
P ER CURI A M
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes

.
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 13, 2022 No. 04-21-00361-CV CITY OF GREY FOREST , Appellant
v. Edwin SCHARF and Irene Scharf,

Appellees From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-23245 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On September 8, 2022, appellees filed an unopposed motion to expedite issuance of the court’s mandate in this appeal. The motion is GRANTED, and the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to issue this court’s mandate in this appeal contemporaneously with the issuance of this order. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 18.1(c).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court