alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M. J. TIAN, Appellant, v. Henry KEMPENSKI, Appellee.

No. 3235.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Jan. 13, 1955.

*166Mac L. Bennett, Jr., Normangee, M. E. Gates, Huntsville, for appellant.

Parten & Parten, Franklin, for appellee.

HALE, Justice.

On December 22, 1954, appellee filed in this cause his motion to have the case affirmed on certificate. Attached to the motion are certified copies of certain pleadings filed in the trial court, of the judgment rendered therein, and of the appeal bond. From the certified copies so attached to the motion, it appears that on March 12, 1954 final judgment was rendered in the trial court in favor of appellee for the sum of $500, to which judgment appellant duly excepted and gave notice of appeal to this court. The certificate further shows that a proper appeal bond was executed under date of April 9, 1954, but the same was not filed with or approved by the clerk of the trial court until April 13, 1954.

Under date of May 4, 1954, appellant filed in this court his motion for an extension of thirty days from and after the expiration of the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure for the filing of a transcript and statement of facts in this court, alleging in substance therein that final judgment had been rendered on March 12, 1954 and that he had given proper notice of appeal and filed supersedeas bond in the time and manner required by law. The motion was granted and an order entered by this court extending the time for filing transcript and statement of facts for thirty days after the expiration of the time otherwise provided by law and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Since it now appears from the certificate attached to appellee's motion to affirm, that the appeal bond was not filed within thirty days after the rendition of judgment in the trial court, as required by Rule 356 T.R.C.P., this court has acquired no jurisdiction whatsoever of the attempted appeal and therefore we cannot affirm the judgment of the trial court on certificate. Pryor v. Krause, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W. 972; Greer v. Poulter, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 883. However, since the time for filing transcript, as heretofore extended, has expired, this court does not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction to consider the case on its merits. Therefore, the attempted appeal will be and it is hereby dismissed from the docket of this court for want of jurisdiction.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

July 13, 2011

The Honorable Robert M. Summers

Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On June 23, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision 

to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). The SIP revision pertains to the adoption of EPA’s Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for drum and pail coating and includes amendments to Regulation .13 under 

COMAR 26.11.19 – Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. EPA has determined 

that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, 

at (215) 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

Sincerely,

 /s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: George S. Aburn, Director, MDE

Brian Hug, MDE
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 15, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 46 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-182, CP2024-188.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-03095 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Jessie L. HAVENS et al., Appellants, v. Cordelia CLEM et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1955.

*71Gardner & Rose, West Liberty, for appellants.

Lewis A. White, Mt. Sterling, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal by W. G. Spencer and Jessie L. Havens from a judgment ejecting them from a small farm and declaring Cordelia Clem and her four sons to be entitled to possession of the property. Appellants claim appellees failed to establish title by record from the Commonwealth or from a common source, or by adverse possession. They also contend the verdict of the jury was flagrantly against the evidence, the giving of “Instruction No. 1” was erroneous, and áppellees were barred by laches from maintaining this action.

Appellees met the requirement of title by proving both conveyances derived from a common source, namely, Mary M. Spencer. It was proper to allow the jury to determine whether appellants had established their title to the farm by adverse possession because the evidence was conflicting on this point. Nor do we believe the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence. Instruction No. 1 correctly told the jury appellants had the burden of proving they had acquired title by adverse possession, for the reason that appellees had first established a prima facie case as to their title. We also conclude appellants did not obtain title to the farm by laches. See Huddleston v. Huddleston, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 942.

The motion is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1849

CLARENCE BURNETT JENKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC, Employer; AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE CO., 

Carrier,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-03734-TLW)

Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1849 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Burnett Jenkins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Jenkins’ civil complaint without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Jenkins v. 

Amazon.com DEDC, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-03734-TLW (D.S.C. July 15, 2022). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1849 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1843 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ‘‘John Pangelinan Gerber 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2011 

Ms. BORDALLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the 

‘‘John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JOHN PANGELINAN GERBER POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, 

7 Guam, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John 

8 Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1843 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Pangelinan Ger5 ber Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Milton Henry BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28363.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The .offense is driving while license suspended; the punishment, a fine of $25.

The record is before the Court without a statement of . facts . or, bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                  Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
                (Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002)

         In connection with the filing by microwave Transmission Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2002 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best
of his knowledge:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) and 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.



/s/ P. David Spurlin
--------------------
P. David Spurlin,
President




/s/ D. Susan King
-----------------
D. Susan King,
Principal Accounting Officer


August 16, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Steven Wallace Hopkins v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00221-CR

Trial court case number: 1518270

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss his appointed 

appellate counsel and appoint new counsel. The motion is denied. The relief requested by 

appellant must be directed to the trial court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Gordon Goodman___

 Acting individually 

Date: ___July 2, 2019__
Order entered October 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00076-CR

RONNIE BUSH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-75228-R

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s October 3, 2019 second motion for extension of time to 

file its brief. The State has tendered its brief with the motion. We GRANT the motion and 

ORDER the State’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KRONOS INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1948

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-00091-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Kronos Incorporated moves to dismiss this appeal for 

failure to prosecute. Lakshmi Arunachalam has not responded to the motion to dismiss.

On January 28, 2022, the court reactivated Dr. Arunachalam’s appeal and set February 22, 2022, as the due 

date for her informal brief. Alternatively, Dr. 

Case: 21-1948 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 06/01/2022
2 ARUNACHALAM v. KRONOS INCORPORATED

Arunachalam was required to file her formal opening brief 

by April 4, 2022. To date, however, no opening brief has 

been filed. 

“[F]ailure to comply with this court’s rules, including 

the requirements for preparing and filing briefs, appendices and other papers, may result in dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute.” Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 

1572, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

(3) All pending motions are denied as moot. 

June 1, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: June 1, 2022

Case: 21-1948 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 06/01/2022
#### James Tracy SUMMERVILLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28996.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1957.

John P. Spiller, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The testimony of a regular and an auxiliary policeman of the City of Deer Park reflects that they observed an automobile violating certain traffic regulations, pursued it, and found the appellant to be the driver, and “three or four other people” riding in the automobile, in the glove compartment of which they found a pistol.

We need not pass upon the legality of the search of the automobile because we find the evidence insufficient to establish that the pistol was in the possession of the appellant. It was not shown to be his automobile, and the mere fact that he was driving an automobile in which there were other occupants would not be sufficient to charge him with knowledge that there was a pistol in the glove compartment or sufficient to establish that he had such pistol in his possession. An examination of Article 483, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which denounces the offense herein charged will reveal that the Legislature intended that in order to be guilty the accused must be shown to have the prohibited weapon in his immediate personal possession.

So far as this record is concerned, the pistol might just as easily have been the property of any other of the occupants of the automobile.

Finding the evidence insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

WOODLEY, Judge

(dissenting).

Three or four passengers riding in the car which appellant was driving “got out of the car staggering and falling and using abusive language and there was something wrong with them.”

There is nothing in the record to suggest that either of these passengers owned or was in control of the automobile appel*914lant was operating while being pursued by the officers.

Proof that the accused carried a pistol 'in the glove compartment of his car warrants his conviction of carrying on or about his person a pistol. Hutspeth v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 254 S.W.2d 130; Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 636, 183 S.W.2d 573; Spears v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 506, 17 S.W.2d 809.

Proof of ownership of the car which appellant was driving was not essential to the State’s case.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Request To Release Airport Land at the Gwinnett County 
Airport--Briscoe Field

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the 
request to release .426 acres of federally obligated airport property 
at the Gwinnett County Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office Attn: Krishina Green, Planner, 1701 Columbia Ave., 
Suite 220, College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to the Gwinnett County Airport Authority, Attn: Mr. 
Matt Smith, 600 Briscoe Blvd., Lawrenceville, GA 30046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishina Green, Airport Planner, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, 
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-6749. The application may 
be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release a parcel of land totaling 0.426 acres at the 
Gwinnett County Airport--Briscoe Field. The FAA determined this request 
to release submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements 
of the FAA and the release of the property does not and will not impact 
future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, 
in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication 
of this notice.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 6, 2024.
Joseph Parks Preston,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2024-02792 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pages 11-27 - *Access to FIFRA health and safety data is restricted under FIFRA
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Exhibit 31.2

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


I, Kevin R. Griffith, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IDI Global,
Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

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

4.    The small business issuer'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
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                                 /s/ Kevin R. Griffith
Date: August 14, 2004           ______________________________________________
                                Kevin R. Griffith, Principal Financial Officer
#### SUDHA NANGIA *v.*VINOD NANGIA

(14023)

Dupont, C. X, and Heiman and Spear, Js.

Argued December 8, 1995

decision released January 30, 1996

*Vinod Nangia,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Michael K. Conway,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and cannot conclude that the trial court abused *917its discretion in its decision as to financial orders. We may not have decided the case as did the trial court were we the fact finders but that is not the test for determining whether an abuse of discretion exists.

A trial court has broad discretion in domestic relations cases because it has the opportunity to observe the parties and to assess the evidence. In order for us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did. *Wolfburg*v. Wolfburg, 27 Conn. App. 396, 398, 606 A.2d 48 (1992). We can conclude neither on the facts of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.