alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURKS v. EVANS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1952.

Richard L. Garnett, Glasgow, for appellant.

C. M. Redford, Louie B. Nunn, and J. R. White, all of Glasgow, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

The appellee, Blaine Evans, obtained a judgment for $2,000 for personal injuries, including a face cut, a fractured rib and an injured knee, and damage to his automobile resulting from a collision with appellant’s small truck on State Highway No. 80 in Barren County on the drizzly morning of January 6, 1950.

The appellee, Evans, was driving home in the direction of Bowling Green from Glasgow where he had been serving on .a jury. About twenty-eight feet beyond a road sign indicating a curve in the road toward his left, the collision occurred with the appellant’s truck which was traveling toward Glasgow. The testimony dearly showed that appellee’s car was on his right side of the median line of the highway after the collision, and that the front wheels of appellant’s track rested across the median line on appellee’s side of the highway with the rear wheels of the truck a few feet from the edge of the surfaced portion of the highway on the appellant’s right side. After the collision all traffic passed on appellent’s side of the highway by traveling partially an the paved portion and partially on the shoulder. Traffic could not pass on the appellee’s side at all.

We find that the instructions fairly submitted all questions to the jury. There was no evidence which justified an instruction that either party was intoxicated. Nor do we find prejudicial the court’s refusal to continue the case because of the failure of two of appellant’s witnesses to appear. Their testimony dealt mostly with the damages suffered by the appellant and not with the cause thereof, and the gist of their testimony was given to the jury by affidavit. The damages allowed were not unreasonable.

The judgment is affirmed.
Order entered June 2 1 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01379
- CR DAVID WAYNE WELCH, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cr iminal Court No. 8

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA18
- 70849
- J



### O RDER
We REINSTATE the app e al

. By order entered April 11, 2019, the Court abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine why appellant’s brief h as not been filed. Before the Court is appellant’s June 19, 2019 motion to substitute counsel and reinstate the appeal. Attached to appellant’s motion is an order signed by the trial court indicating appellant has not abandoned his appeal , he desires to prosecute the appeal, and that present appellate counsel was not appointed by the trial court to represent appellant. The trial court has appointed the appellate division of the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office to represent appellant. Appellant’s m otion requests that Christian T. Souza be substituted in as appellant’s counsel of record.– 2

–

The Court GRANTS appellant’s motion and DIRECT S the Clerk of the Court to REMOVE Olegario Corral Estrada and SUBSTITUTE Christian T. Souza as counsel for appellant. All future correspondence should be sent to Christian T. Souza; Assistant Public Defender ; Dallas County Public Defender’s Office ; 133 N. Riverfront Bld., Lock Box 2; Dallas , Texas 75 207 ; telephone: (2 14 ) 653

- 3550 ; facsimile: (2 14 ) 653

- 3539.
We VACATE o ur April 11, 2019 order to the extent it requires the trial court to conduct a hearing or file findings.
We EXTEND the time to file appellant’s brief until THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
----

| 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. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | November 12, 2010 | /s/ Ronald H. Braam     |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|
|   |              | Ronald H. Braam         |
|   |              | Chief Executive Officer |

----
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Brian Robert Costello Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER 2 (0)-1947
#### MEACHAM et ux. v. LYLES.

No. 5825.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Nov. 17, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1947.

*882E. T. Miller and W. F. Nix, both of Amarillo, and 'W. J. Bragg, of Memphis, for appellants.

Hamilton & Deaver, of Memphis, for ap-pellee.

LUMPKIN, Justice.

The appellants, C. V. Meacham and wife, brought this action against the appellee, A. L. Lyles, for the specific performance of a sales contract involving several tracts of land situated in Hall County, Texas. To appellants’ original petition the appel-lee urged the exception that the pleadings showed on their face that the contract in question was null and void. After examining a copy of the contract, which was attached to the appellants’ petition, the trial court sustained the exception. The appellants were given an opportunity to amend their pleadings, but when they failed to do so, the cause was dismissed. To this action of the court the appellants duly excepted and gave notice of appeal.

The record reveals that on August 23, 1947, the transcript in this case was filed in this court; that on September 8, 1947, this court notified each of the attorneys of record that the case was set for submission on November 3, 1947; that on October 14, 1947, or fifty-two days after the transcript was filed, the appellants’ brief, together with a motion for leave to file brief, w,as tendered the clerk; and that on October 30, 1947, finding that the appellants had failed to show good cause for not presenting their brief within the thirty-day period as prescribed by Rule 414 as amended, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this court overruled the appellants’ motion for leave to file brief.

On November 3, 1947, the appellee filed a brief and appeared by counsel. We have examined the trial court’s judgment and find it can be affirmed under the view presented by. the appellee in his brief. The record shows no reversible error. Pursuant to Rule 416, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, without further examination of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Guaranty Old Line Life Ins. Co. v. Leonard, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1091; Letcher v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 341; Bute v. Ruland et al., Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W.2d 854.
R18 - 2 - 202. Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)

A. The primary ambien t air quality standards for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide, are: 1. 0.03 parts per million (ppm) (80 μg/m3) -- annual arithmetic mean. 2. 0.14 parts per million (ppm) (365 μg/m3) - maximum 24 - hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. 3. 75 parts per billion (ppb) - maximum one - hour concentration. The one - hour primary standard is met at an ambient air quality mon itoring site when the three - year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum one - hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion, as determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix T. B. The secondary ambient air qualit y standard for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide, is 0.5 parts per million (ppm) (1300 μg/m3) -- maximum three - hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. C. The level of the standards shall be measured by a reference method base d on 40 CFR 50, Appendix A or A - 1, or by a Federal Equivalent Method designated according to 40 CFR 53. D. The standards in subsections (A)(1) and (2) shall apply: 1. In an area designated nonattainment for a standard in subsection (A)(1) or (2) as of Augu st 23, 2011, and areas not meeting a state implementation plan call for a standard in subsection (A)(1) or (2), until the state submits pursuant to section 191 of the Act, and the Administrator approves, a state implementation plan providing for attainment the standard in subsection (A)(3) in that area. 2. In areas other than those identified in subsection (D)(1), until the effective date of the designation of that area, pursuant to section 107 of the act, for the standard in subsection (A)(3). Historical N ote Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76 - 5). Former Section R9 - 3 - 202 repealed, new Section R9 - 3 - 202 adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79 - 1). Amended effective October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79 - 5). Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80 - 4). Amende d subsection (B) effective May 28, 1982 (Supp. 82 - 3). Amended by deleting subsections (C) through (E) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83 - 5). Former Section R9 - 3 - 202 renumbered without change as Section R18 - 2 - 202 (Supp. 87 - 3). Amended effective Septembe r 26, 1990 (Supp. 90 - 3). Amended by final rulemaking at 11 A.A.R. 3305, effective October 3, 2005 (Supp. 05 - 3). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R.

1542, effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12 - 2).
**Exhibit21.1**

 

**Click2learnSubsidiaries**

 
| **Subsidiary  Name**                    |   | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
| **Operating Subsidiaries**              |   |                              |   |
| Click2learn Limited                     |   | United Kingdom                    |   |
| Click2learn Canada, Ltd.                |   | Nova Scotia                       |   |
| Click2learn Software Private Limited    |   | India                             |   |
| Communication Strategies, Inc.          |   | Texas                             |   |
|                                    |   |                              |   |
| **Subs with no Employees or Assets**    |   |                              |   |
| IntelliPrep Technologies, Incorporated. |   | Delaware                          |   |
| Asymetrix GmbH                          |   | Germany                           |   |
| Asymetrix SARL                          |   | France                            |   |
| Aimtech Corporation                     |   | Delaware                          |   |
| Meliora Systems, Inc.                   |   | New York                          |   |
| Click2learn Asia Pty Ltd                |   | Australia                         |   |

 

----
September 4, 2015

Mr. Wayne Christopher Harris

Off Road Photography

11400 White Bluff Road Ap ar t ment 23

Savannah, GA 31419− 1556

Dear Mr. Harris :

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

p art 21 ; § § 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b)(1), 91.119(c), 91.121,

91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) , and 91.409(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 22, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Off Road Photography filed

in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2299 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

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

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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

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

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps an swer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

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

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

at least 120 d ays before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

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

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
EXHIBIT 23









INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-42859 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust
III, Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital
Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P. on Form S-3 of our reports
dated March 22, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill
Lynch Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the year ended December 26, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


New York, New York
March 22, 2004
Motion Granted and Order filed August 13, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00488

- CV

____________ GENSETIX, INC. , Appellant

V.
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF ME DICINE, DIAKONOS RES EARCH, LTD.,

AND WILLIAM K. DECKER , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 02003



### ORDER
The parties’ agreed motion to set a briefing schedule is GRANTED. Appellant’s initial brief is due on or before September 27, 2019. Appellees’ brief is
due on or before November 26, 2019. Appellant’s reply brief is due on or before December 20, 2019.

PER C URIAM
Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844-3157

September 01, 2020

Jane K. Castro

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Mr. James Lee Hankins

Hankins Law Office 

929 Northwest 164th Street

Edmond, OK 73013

Mr. Grant R Smith

Office of the Federal Public Defender 

Districts of Colorado and Wyoming

633 17th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

RE: 19-2028, 19-2029, United States v. Channon (Brandi)

Dist/Ag docket: 1:13-CR-00966-JCH-KK-2

Dear Counsel: 

Enclosed is a copy of the opinion of the court issued today in this matter. The court has 

entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1), any petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 

days after entry of judgment. Please note, however, that if the appeal is a civil case in 

which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, any petition for rehearing must 

be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment. Parties should consult both the Federal 

Rules and local rules of this court with regard to applicable standards and requirements. 

In particular, petitions for rehearing may not exceed 3900 words or 15 pages in length, 

and no answer is permitted unless the court enters an order requiring a response. If 

requesting rehearing en banc, the requesting party must file 6 paper copies with the clerk, 

in addition to satisfying all Electronic Case Filing requirements. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Rules 35 and 40, and 10th Cir. R. 35 and 40 for further information governing petitions 

for rehearing.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Appellate Case: 19-2029 Document: 010110399880 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 1
2

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of the Court 

cc: Holland Sergent Kastrin

Stephen R. Kotz

Paige Messec

Margaret M. Vierbuchen

CMW/lg

Appellate Case: 19-2029 Document: 010110399880 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

             SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: March 11, 2005

By: /s/ LEO LIEBOWITZ
    -----------------
Leo Liebowitz Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
EXHIBIT  32.2
                                                                   -------------

                             CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT  TO
                  SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002
                            (18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350)

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Hyperdynamics  Corporation
(Hyperdynamics),  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steven M. Plumb,
Chief  Financial  Officer of Hyperdynamics, 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 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.


Date:  May 22,  2006

                 (signed)
By:       /s/  Steven  M.  Plumb
          ----------------------
          Steven  M.  Plumb
          Chief  Financial  Officer
II 

Calendar No. 510 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3472 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRETT E. GORNEWICZ MEMORIAL 

4 POST OFFICE. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, 

7 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser8 geant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3472 RS

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 ‘‘Sergeant Brett E. 

5 Gornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 510 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3472 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostGornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. Alden, New York, as the ‘‘Sergeant Brett E. al Service located at 13127 Broadway Street in 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3230 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3230

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   Making continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown to 
provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve components of the 
  Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty training during such period.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR CERTAIN 
              RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 
2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for 
any period during which interim or full-year appropriations for fiscal 
year 2014 are not in effect such sums as are necessary to provide pay 
and allowances to members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
(as named in section 10101 of title 10, United States Code) who perform 
inactive-duty training (as defined in section 101(d)(7) of such title) 
during such period.
    (b) Termination.--Appropriations and funds made available and 
authority granted pursuant to this section shall be available until 
whichever of the following first occurs: (1) the enactment into law of 
an appropriation (including a continuing appropriation) for any purpose 
for which amounts are made available in this section; (2) the enactment 
into law of the applicable regular or continuing appropriations 
resolution or other Act without any appropriation for such purpose; or 
(3) January 1, 2015.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3230

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   Making continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown to 
provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve components of the 
  Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty training during such period.
```