alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KANSAS CITY v. NATIONAL ENGINEERING *&*MANUFACTURING CO., Inc.

No. 43734.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

March 8, 1954.

*385Thomas E. ¡Hudson, Hudson, Whitcraft & Cavanaugh, Kansas City, for appellant.

David M. Proctor, City Counselor, Benj. M. Powers, Associate 'City Counselor, Frank O. Knight, Asst. ¡City ¡Counselor, Kansas City, for respondent. ■ ■

LO Z IERj' ’ Commi ssioner.

'■ This appeal is from a judgment in a proceeding wherein the City of Kansas City condemned private properties for rights of way for the Sixth Street Expressway. Upon Tract No. 63, at 519 Wyandotte Street, was a building owned by James A. Harper and James A. Harper, Trustee, and occupied by appellant National Engineering and Manufacturing Company, Inc. The company’s uncontroverted evidence , was that the value of the fixtures installed by-it and left in the building was $12,600. The evidence as to the value to the company of the unexpired term of its lease varied from $8,360 to $14,000. The jury awarded the company $16,000. The company appealed to this court. (Because of the appeal, the trial court allowed the company to receive the $16,000 without entering satisfaction of record.)

We do not have jurisdiction of the appeal. Sec. 3, Art. V, Const., V.A.M.S. The “amount in dispute, exclusive of costs,” does not exceed $7,500. “The record must show affirmatively that the amount in dispute exceeds $7,500, independent of all contingencies and speculation as to the amount in dispute, and a mere chance that the amount in dispute may exceed $7,500 is insufficient.” State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Schade, Mo.Sup., 265 S.W.2d 383, decided concurrently herewith.

In its new trial motion, the company stated (inter alia): “The verdict based upon all the evidence shows that it was inadequate.” In its brief here, the company contends that, under the uncontroverted evidence, it “was entitled to a minimum recovery of” -$20,950 and “it stands without question that appellant was not awarded the value of its fixtures and improvements by the jury.-that .under the law it was entitled to receive.” As the award to the company was $16,000, the maximum amount in dispute, “independent of all contingencies and *386speculation,” is only $4,950. Thus, the record fails to affirmatively show that the amount in dispute is sufficient to vest this court with appellate jurisdiction.

 Nor do we have jurisdiction under Sec. 3, Art. V, Const., on any other ground. “Appellant does not question that the land is being taken for public use, therefore, title to real estate is not involved.” State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Schade, supra. The city, as such, is not a “political subdivision” insofar as this court’s appellate jurisdiction is concerned. Long v. City of Independence, 360 Mo. 620, 229 S.W.2d 686, 687[2].

The cause is transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.

VAN OSDOL and COIL, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by LOZIER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All concur.
**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

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge: 

 

 (a)        the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

 (b)        the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: March 18, 2009

 

/s/  Kevin R. Hoben______________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer 

 

/s/  Paul J. Kane_________________________

 

Paul J. Kane

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 08
- 00004
- CV
AMERICAN HOUSING FOU NDATION, WACO PARKSIDE VILLAG E, LTD
. , AND WACO ROBINSON GARDEN , LTD. , Appellant s v. MCLENNAN COUNTY APPR AISAL DISTRICT , Appellee

From the 170th District Court McLenna n County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002
- 4038
- 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
American Housing Foundation, Waco Parkside Village , Ltd., and Waco Robinson
Garden , Ltd. sued the McL ennan County Appraisal District, challenging the denial of their applications for exemp tions under section 11.182 of the Tax Code. See T EX
. T AX
. C ODE A NN
. § 11.182(b), (e) (Vernon 2008 ). On appeal, AHF, Parkside, and Robinson
raise several issues challenging the trial court’s denial of their partial motion for summary judgment and granting of the Appraisal District’s summary judgmentAm. Hous. Found. v. McLennan County Appraisal Dist. Page 2

motion . However, the two apartment complexes for which they sought an exemption
were constructed before December 31, 2001. Id . at § 11.182(e). Section 11.182(e) applies only to housing projects constructed after December 31, 2001. Am. Hous. Found. v. Brazos County Appraisal Dist. , 166 S.W.3d 885, 889 (Te x. App.

— Waco 2005, pet. denied) ; see Am.
Hous. Fou nd. v. Calhoun County Appraisal Dist. , 198 S.W.3d 816, 818

- 19 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (same); see also T EX
. T AX
. C ODE A NN
. § 11.182(e). In
their second issue, AHF, Parkside, and Robinson urge us to revisit our holding in Brazos County Appraisal District

. We decline to do so. Accordingly , we overrule issue two and
need not address the remaining issues

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. The tria l court’s judgment is affirmed.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna , a nd Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 25, 2009 [CV06]
R18-2-204. Carbon monoxide

A. The primary ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are:

1. 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) -- maximum eight-hour concentration 

not to be exceeded more than once per year.

2. 35 parts per million (40 milligrams per cubic meter) -- maximum one-hour concentration 

not to be exceeded more than once per year.

B. An eight-hour average shall be considered valid if at least 75% of the hourly averages for the 

eight-hour period are available. In the event that only six or seven hourly averages are 

available, the eight-hour average shall be computed on the basis of the hours available using 6 

or 7 as the divisor.

C. When summarizing data for comparison with the standards, averages shall be stated to one 

decimal place. Comparison of the data with the levels of the standards in parts per million shall 

be made in terms of integers with fractional parts of 0.5 or greater rounding up.

Historical Note

Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76-5). Former Section R9-3-205 repealed, 

new Section R9-3-205 adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective 

October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80-4). 

Amended by deleting subsections (B) through (D) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 

83-5). Former Section R9-3-205 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-205 

(Supp. 87-3). Former Section R18-2-204 renumbered to R18-2-203, new Section R18-2-

204 renumbered from R18-2-205 and amended effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90-

3).
Ernst
              & Young LLP
            Phone:
              (312) 879-2000Sears
              Tower
            www.ey.com233
              South Wacker DriveChicago,
              Illinois 60606-6301




Report
      on
      Management's Assertion on Compliance


with
      Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the


*Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*




Report
      of
      Independent Accountants




Board
      of
      Directors


LaSalle
      Bank Corporation




We
      have
      examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report
      of* *Management,* that
      ABN
      AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (AAMG, a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank
      Corporation) complied with the servicing standards identified in Exhibit A
      to
      the *Report
      of Management* (the
      "specified minimum servicing standards") as set forth in the Mortgage
      Bankers Association of America's *Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP)
      during the year ended December 31, 2005. Management is responsible for AAMG's
      compliance with those specified minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility
      is to express
      an opinion on management's assertion about the AAMG's compliance based on our examination.




Our
      examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American
      Institute of Certified
      Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
      evidence about
      the
      AAMG's compliance with the specified minimum servicing standards and performing such
      other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
      that our examination
      provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
      a legal
      determination on AAMG's compliance with the specified minimum servicing
      standards.




In
      our
      opinion, management's assertion that the AAMG complied with the aforementioned specified
      minimum servicing standards during the year ended December 31, 2005, is fairly stated,
      in all material respects.




**/s/
      Ernst & Young LLP**




February
      28, 2006






A
      Member
      Practice of Ernst & Young Global
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4434 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyraflufen-ethyl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyraflufen-ethyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PYRAFLUFEN-ETHYL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4- 

Fluorophenoxyacetate 

(Pyraflufen-ethyl) (CAS 

No. 129630–19–9) (provided for in subheading 

2933.19.23) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4434 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Quarterly Report of Bidgive International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), I, James P. Walker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  August 18, 2009 /s/James P. Walker, Jr.     Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5

<LEGEND>                                    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS
                                            SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                                            EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
                                            THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 1,
                                            1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                                            ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                       0000090045
<NAME>                                      SI HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000

       

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-01-1996
<CASH>                                                     3,885
<SECURITIES>                                                 500
<RECEIVABLES>                                              3,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                1,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          11,101
<PP&E>                                                     6,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                             5,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            13,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      5,193
<BONDS>                                                       38
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   2,451
<OTHER-SE>                                                 5,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              13,028
<SALES>                                                   11,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          11,053
<CGS>                                                      7,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              7,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              776
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          718
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .29
        

</TABLE>
1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4030

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Patrick Jefferson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 6, 2001

 Filed: April 26, 2001 

___________

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with

intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

(1994). The District Court1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years

supervised release. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.
-2-

We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find

that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States

v. Grimaldo, 214 F.3d 967, 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 330 (2000) and

121 S. Ct. 784 (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral

reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson.

See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-69 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District

Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in

connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 532-33 (8th

Cir. 1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred

by double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988). Finally,

Jefferson's sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

121 S. Ct. 600 (2000).

We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,377 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 172    | 140    | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 6      | 24     | 0      | 19     | 1      | 9      | 3      | 0      | 13    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 3      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023