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

No. 14173.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

July 12, 1940.

Austin F. Anderson and Martin, Moore & Brewster, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Rogers & Spurlock and Slay & Simon, all of Fort Worth, for appellee.

SPEER, Justice.

This is an appeal by Kenneth L. Wickett from an interlocutory order of the District Court refusing to dissolve an injunction therétofore issued upon the application of the wife, Blanche Wickett. ■

The original injunction, which the court declined to dissolve, enjoined appellant from prosecuting a divorce proceeding then pending in Arkansas.

At a former day of this term', we advanced the case for hearing to June 14, 1940. On the date set for submission, 'appellant’s counsel filed in this court a motion showing that they had not previously represented the appellant, but that subsequent to the date of the judgment from which the-appeal was perfected, they were informed that appellant had prosecuted the divorce proceedings and obtained a decree of divorce, attaching a copy of the decree to the motion.

Counsel expressed their intention to no longer prosecute the appeal and asked that it be dismissed.

Appellee’s counsel filed a reply to the motion, indicating their willingness to the sustaining of the motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal, but asked that the order of dismissal not affect the judgment as entered by the District Court.

The motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal is therefore sustained. This order shall in no way affect the validity or force of the decree of injunction heretofore entered by the trial court, nor the judgment refusing to dissolve it, from which this appeal was perfected. The appeal is dismissed and the costs incurred are taxed against the appellant.
Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ALLYSON RASKIN et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLAY JENKINS et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-02012-E-BH

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 3), and Plaintiff Raskin’s 

Opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Electronic Voting Systems, (Doc. 10). The 

United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. 

No objections were filed. The court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 3), is DENIED as moot, as—in accordance with 

the United States Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation—

Plaintiff(s) timely filed their First Amended Complaint on November 11, 2022. (Doc. 

16; see Doc. 15 at 15 (“If Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, however, 

Case 3:22-cv-02012-E-BH Document 43 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 8960
Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page 2 of 2

Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be DENIED as moot, and the action should be 

allowed to proceed on the amended complaint.”)).1

2. Plaintiff Raskin’s Opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Electronic 

Voting Systems, (Doc. 10), is DENIED in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

4th day of April, 2023.

___________________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The Court notes that, on November 23, 2022, Defendants moved again to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 22). This Order is not an adjudication of Defendants’ November 23, 2022 Defendants’ Response to 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which moves for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 22).

Case 3:22-cv-02012-E-BH Document 43 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 8961
----

Appeal brought on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras against the judgment delivered on 15 July 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 between G. Gouvras and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-420/04 P)

(2004/C 284/24)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 July 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 between G. Gouvras and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras, represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that the Commission had provided the applicant with the information necessary to enable him to maintain his interests before agreeing to be seconded in the interest of the service. In fact, it did not inform him of the decision to fix his place of posting in Athens or of the financial consequences thereof such as the withdrawal of his right to the expatriation allowance and of his right to the payment of the costs of annual travel as well as the application to his remuneration of the correction coefficient for Greece.

Also, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that the conditions laid down by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations were satisfied in this case. In fact, the recovery of sums paid but not due under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations presupposes a payment irregularity of which the recipient was aware or whose erroneous nature is so obvious that he could not fail to be aware of it. In the absence of express provisions in the Staff Regulations governing the fixing of the place of posting, it could not be a matter, in this case, of an irregularity, and, in any event, in the light of the Commission's own uncertainties regarding the applicant's entitlements, he cannot be presumed to have been aware of it.

Finally, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that, notwithstanding the exceptional situation of the applicant whose place of posting was changed more than 9 months after his secondment, the Commission could lawfully reject his claim made in accordance with Article 38(d) of the Staff Regulations, for the transfer, in the conditions provided for by Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, of the sums indispensable to cover the expenses which he had to meet in Luxembourg, the place of his usual posting.

----
## From Boucher Michael 

### Sent Wednesday November 12 2008 

### 126

# AM

# GMT To Goldberg Seth 

### SGoldbergsteptoe 

# com Cc Boucher Michael 

## mbouchermckennalong 

# com Subject 

# RE Nalco Response to

### Buckman

Dear Seth Thank you for

### your response 

# We will share 

### and discuss it

### withour client Sincerely Michael 

### Boucher Counsel to

### Buckman Laboratories Inc Michael 

### Boucher McKenna Long Aidridge LLP 1900 Street 

## NW Suite 100 Washington 

### DC 20006-1110 

# 202 496-7729 -7756 

## fax e-mail 

### mboucher@mckennalong.com



## From Wersinger Kate 

### On Behalf Of Goldberg Seth 

### Sent Tuesday November 

### 11 2008 

### 459 PM 

## To Boucher Michael Subject Nalco Response to Buckman Attached is letter responding to letter on behalf of Nalco responding to your November emailon behalf of

### Buckman Best regards Seth Goldberg
EXHIBIT 31.4





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Dean P. Freeman, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of GCP Applied Technologies Inc.; and




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




Date: March 7, 2019





/s/ DEAN P. FREEMANDean P. FreemanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

We hereby consent to the references to our firm in "Items 1 and 2 Description of
Business  and  Properties"  and to the use of our  report,  dated March 6, 1997,
presenting  estimated reserves and future revenue for the oil and gas properties
of National Energy Group, Inc., in National Energy Group,Inc.'s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                           NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                           By: /s/ Frederick D. Sewell
                                              ------------------------
                                               Frederick D. Sewell
                                               President


Dallas, Texas
March 31, 1997
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of PACE Health Management Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Pappajohn,
Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/   John  Pappajohn                                                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | John PappajohnActing Principal Executive Officer andActing Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2005

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

---
National Council on Disability Quarterly FOIA Report

Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter Q1

1. Ten Oldest Pending Requests: 3

2. Ten Oldest Requests Closed: 0

3. Agency Component Abbreviations

Component 

Abbreviation Component Name

NCD National Council on Disability

Agency / 

Component

Number of requests 

backlogged

Number of requests 

processed

Number of requests 

received

NCD 9 3 12
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70338-70339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29865]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-94-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 16, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation

[[Page 70339]]

(Northwest) tendered for filing and acceptance its compliance filing in 
response to the Commission's order issued on October 27, 2000, in 
Docket Nos. RM96-1-014 et seq. (Order).
    Northwest states that it is in compliance with the Order, which 
pertains to imbalance netting and trading transactions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29865 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Burke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                                               
|----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                             
|                  |  |  |  | John P. Burke                                                                                                 
|                  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Treasurer of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.
YOUTH and FAMILY ENGAGEMENT CONTINUUM*

DEVELOPMENT

INTERVENTION

LEADERSHIP

SYSTEMIC CHANGE and YF EMPOWERMENT

Data collection, consultation & informing service delivery

Shared decision making

Exercising leadership	

Changing/institutionalizing fed agency practices and policies to support family partnership

Family & Youth Services

Individual, episodic; disconnected outreach

Fed agency requests families evaluate services

Ad hoc listening sessions

Family & Youth Development

Prioritizing; including families in program work

 Provide comment on publications

 Membership on grantee advisory board

Family & Youth Leadership

Require/Monitor family involvement in programs; regular-routine, Department-wide

Co-participation in presentations or trainings

 Agency supports peer-to-peer network/ advocacy work

Membership on grantee governance board

Family & Youth Engagement & Partnership

Cross-Agency, Formal

Agency procedures for partnering with families/youth

Family participation in research and creation of resources for youth & families

Serve as peer reviewers

Staff position for family/youth representative

*Adapted from the Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10KSB FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           14543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14543
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   14543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                       13533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     14543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   305
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4178
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (3873)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3873)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3873)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.001)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1165 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1165

 To provide that the 10-percent additional tax on early distributions 
 from qualified retirement plans shall not apply to distributions from 
                             certain plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

  Mr. Coyne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the 10-percent additional tax on early distributions 
 from qualified retirement plans shall not apply to distributions from 
                             certain plans.

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

SECTION 1. 10-PERCENT ADDITIONAL TAX ON EARLY DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 
              QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLANS NOT TO APPLY TO CERTAIN PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 72(t) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply to any distribution from a defined 
contribution plan which was the subject of a multiemployer collective 
bargaining agreement which was originally effective on December 1, 
1967, and with respect to which favorable determination letters were 
issued by the Internal Revenue Service on August 21, 1986, and February 
19, 1980.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after December 31, 1986.

                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAVIER DIAZ-SOTO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10004

D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00861-JMR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John M. Roll, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Javier Diaz-Soto appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Diaz-Soto’s

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

FILED

MAY 26 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10004

to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.