alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]               
[Page 35845]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-128]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

 
National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that three 
meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts 
will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate):
    Artist Communities (application review): July 20-21, 2010 in Room 
730. A portion of this meeting, from 3:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on July 
21st, will be open to the public for a policy discussion. The remainder 
of the meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 20th, and from 9 a.m. 
to 3:45 p.m. on July 21st, will be closed.
    Presenting (application review): July 27-28, 2010 in Room 716. This 
meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on July 27th and from 9 a.m. to 1:00 
p.m. on July 28th, will be closed.
    Presenting (application review): July 28-29, 2010 in Room 716. This 
meeting, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 28th and from 9 a.m. to 3:15 
p.m. on July 29th, will be closed.
    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
November 10, 2009, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman. If you need any accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National 
Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: June 18, 2010.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2010-15167 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
#### Mollie C. JONES, Appellant, v. BAYLOR HOSPITAL, Appellee.

No. 15012.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Nov. 4, 1955.

McNicholas & Schmold'er, Dallas, for appellant.

Burford, Ryburn, Hincks & Ford and Roy L. Cole and H. Sam Davis, Jr., Dallas, for appellee.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

Appellant Mollie C. Jones sued appel-lee Baylor Hospital for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a nurse employed by the Hospital. The trial court sustained appellee’s special exceptions to appellant’s petition on the ground that appellee, being a charitable institution, is exempt from liability for injuries to its patients caused by the negligence of its employee unless it is shown that it was negligent in hiring or retaining said employee. Appellant declined to amend, so the suit was dismissed.

It is conceded by appellant that Baylor Hospital comes within the legal classification of a charitable institution. That being so, there is no doubt the trial court correctly sustained the special exception. Southern Methodist University v. Clayton, 142 Tex. 179, 176 S.W.2d 749 (Opinion adopted).

Appellant’s counsel is well aware of the rule as stated in the above cited case, but in an able presentation says that it is a rule of judicial decision which should no longer be followed for two reasons: (1) It should never have been adopted by our courts, and (2) it is no longer applicable because of changed conditions.

Appellant says that the “immunity rule” had its origin in the United States in *930McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 1876, 120 Mass. 432, which was based on the English case of Haliday v. St. Leonard’s, 142 Eng.Reprint 769 (1861), which had followed the dictum in Duncan v. Findlater, 7 Eng.Reprint 934. Apparently the; Massachusetts court believed it was adopting the common-law rule, but as a matter of fact the Duncan case had already been overruled in England in Mersey Docks, Trustees, v. Gibbs, , 11 Eng.Reprint 1500 (1866), and the Haliday case was disapproved in Foreman v. Mayor of Canterbury, L.R. 6, Q.B. 214 (1871). Appellant says further that the rule ought not to be applied today, because charitable institutions such as Baylor Hospital may protect themselves by taking out liability insurance. ■

Be that as it may, the rule is well established in Texas and this Court is bound to apply it under the principle of stare decisis. 11 Tex.Jur. 843.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**








Michael
      V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the Sole
      Manager of Vestin Fund I, LLC (the “Registrant”), and John Alderfer, as Chief
      Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. §1350, that





(1)
            the
                Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005,
                as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
                hereof
                (the “Report”), fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section
                13(a) or Section 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.





Dated:
      February 8, 2006











/s/
      Michael V.
      Shustek


Michael
      V. Shustek*


Chief
      Executive Officer


of
      Vestin
      Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the Registrant








Dated:
      February 8, 2006











/s/
      John Alderfer


John
      Alderfer*


Chief
      Financial Officer


of
      Vestin
      Mortgage, Inc., Manager of the Registrant











*
      Michael
      V. Shustek and John Alderfer function as the equivalent of the Chief Executive
      Officer


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer, respectively, of the Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of McRae Industries, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. Date: December 22, 2004 /s/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.Vice President of Finance
49
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, John H. Curtis, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, 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 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, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)

[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]

c)

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

d)

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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to 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 control over financial reporting.





|Dated: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ John H. Curtis                    
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                       |  | John H. Curtis
Chief Executive Officer
#### Kenneth L. MELTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27211.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1955.

Stafford, Atlas & Spilman, by Morris Atlas, McAllen, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is a companion case to that of Waggoner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 821, this day decided on the State’s Motion for Rehearing, appellant also having been assessed six months in jail for the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

For the reasons stated in Waggoner v. State, our original opinion is withdrawn, the order reversing the conviction and dismissing the prosecution in the County Court at Law is set aside and the judgment is now affirmed.
Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 3820 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014

- SW

- 024

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM



### ☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point

for guidance. 

### Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the co mments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

### Choose one.

If other, explain:

Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

If YES, we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with 

### Insert text because 

### Insert justification We disagree with



### Insert text because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If NO , we don’t agree because 

### Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

### Choose one.

If other, explain: 

### Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text.Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

If YES, we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with 

### Insert text because 

### Insert justification We disagree with



### Insert text because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If NO , we don’t agree because 

### Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double

- click here
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 1930.4 OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 686

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2018, upon the recommendation of the 

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted 

without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3) in the interest of efficient 

administration:

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rule 1930.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended in the 

attached form.

This order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on September 28, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50642

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICOLAS ALEJANDRO VALDEZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2683-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Nicolas Alejandro

Valdez-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James Kevin Holmes, Appellant

No. 06-19-00096-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 18-

0193X). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss 

and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, James Kevin Holmes, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 20, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Henry O. BATES et al., Appellants, v. Thomas PRATHER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 4, 1955.

Elmer Drake and Virgil Fowler, Lexington, for appellants.

Marshall A. Dawson, Versailles, for ap-pellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appellants, descendants of John Bates, sued the appellee, Thomas Prather, to recover $25,000 damages for obliteration and desecration of the graves of the *429deceased members of the family. They appeal a judgment for the defendant.

John Bates had laid aside, a small plot as a family burial place in a parcel of land he owned. In course of time he and twelve or fourteen others were buried there. The property passed out of the ownership of this family some years ago, and the appellee became the owner in 1949. There was no reservation of the graveyard in the deeds> but Prather knew about it.

The evidence of the plaintiffs is, in summary, that they had put a wire fence around the plot in 1940, attached to posts and trees and enclosing about one-half acre. There had been a rock fence around at least a part of it long before that time. The new fence took in a larger area for the purpose of making a place for others of the family. The graves were marked by field stones placed on end, except one that was flat on the ground. Several members of the family testified that in April, 1952, they had gone to the place and found Mr. Prather and his employee cutting up the graveyard with a tractor and harrow. However, he then insisted he was not touching any grave. These witnesses describe the results in detail and make out quite a strong case of invasion of the graveyard and the desecration of graves by leveling them and doing away with the stones.

On the contrary, Prather and several witnesses testified that in later years there was no fence around the burial plot; that it was in a grove of cedar trees, which had been cut down, and the remaining stumps marked the boundary. The harrowing described by the appellants’ witnesses was outside the boundary of the burial plot, which was actually only about 50 x 60 feet in size. Care had been taken not to invade the graves and none were touched. The place had been permitted to grow up in briars, “polecat bushes” and weeds. Several photographs show this condition. They reveal the presence of stumps, some tombstone rocks and a general neglected and dilapidated condition. It is probable that some parts of the one-half acre area claimed by the appellants as the burial plot was cleaned up by the appellee, but the appellants’ evidence as to an invasion of the actual burial plot and of any graves is fully and completely contradicted.

This is simply a case of controverted evidence of facts which was submitted to a jury. A verdict for either party could be sustained. The only point made on the appeal is that the verdict for the defendant is contrary to the evidence. We find ample evidence to sustain the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6806

VICENTE JUAREZ HUERTA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland 

Biggs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00306-LCB-JEP)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vicente Juarez Huerta, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vicente Juarez Huerta seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Huerta has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED