alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Berry, Admr., Appellee, *v.*Chambers et al., Appellees; Craig et al., Appellants.

(No. 28696

Decided October 1, 1941.)

*Messrs. Lawson, Berry & McClain,*for appellee, Theodore M. Berry, administrator.

*596
      *Mr. Joseph M. Fulton,*for appellees, Bertha L. Chambers and others.

*Mr. W. W. VanDeren*and *Mr. Mitchell Wilby,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
**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 ofOn-Site Sourcing Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, Jason Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Jason Parikh        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Jason Parikh            |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2003         |

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-101569, 333-86595, 333-65721, 333-40697, 333-34677, 33-65412, 33-97512,33-65414, and 33-88114, of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. on Form S-8 ofour report dated March 11, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting forgoodwill and other intangible assets during the year ended February 1, 2003),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific Sunwear of California,Inc. for the year ended February 1, 2003.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
EXHIBIT 11.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                   Three Months Ended                           Nine Months Ended
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Sept. 30, 1997        Sept. 30, 1996         Sept. 30, 1997        Sept. 30, 1996
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                             <C>                    <C>                      <C>                 <C>    
Net income (loss) in
thousands                                        $  2,079                  $394               $  4,751              ($1,336)
                                    ===========================================================================================
Weighted average common
shares outstanding                             10,105,888             5,023,131              9,405,102             3,199,202
Weighted average preferred
shares outstanding                                      -             1,838,113                      -             1,838,113
Effect of conversion of
convertible subordinated
debentures                                              -             1,202,965                      -             1,202,965
Additional shares pursuant to
SAB 83                                                  -                     -                      -               922,599
Additional shares for options
and warrants outstanding
under treasury-stock method                     1,479,890             1,007,339              1,027,602                     -
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               11,585,778             9,071,548             10,432,704             7,162,879
                                     ===========================================================================================
                                              $0.18                  $0.04                 $0.46                 ($0.19)
                                     ===========================================================================================

</TABLE>

                                     - E-1 -
Date: July 19, 2011

Subject: Recommended Acute Factor for Determining Hazard Quotient for Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing Sources

Wool Fiberglass and Mineral Wool RTR

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-10

RTI Project No. 0210426.004.010

From: Cindy Hancy

Dave Reeves

To: Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a recommendation for the acute factor 

that should be used in determining the hazard quotient (HQ) for the risk associated with

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. This 

work is being performed as part of the residual risk assessment for facilities that are subject to 

the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (40 CFR 63, subpart NNN).

To determine an appropriate acute factor, RTI compiled data on plant production capacity

for the 30 wool fiberglass manufacturing plants currently in operation. These data were 

provided in the responses to the section 114 information request completed by the wool

fiberglass industry in 2010. RTI compared those annual production capacities to the annual 

production rates used to determine the HAP emission rates for the residual risk modeling that 

was performed earlier in April 2011. RTI calculated a plant-specific acute factor as the ratio of 

plant production capacity to the modeled production rates. Most of the plant-specific factors for 

the melting furnaces ranged between 2.0 to 2.8. Based on these results, and to allow for 

additional uncertainty in emissions, RTI recommends an acute factor of 3.0.

Please note that, because the production data used in determining plant-specific acute 

factors have been claimed as confidential business information (CBI) by the respective 

companies, we are submitting the spreadsheet used to calculate the plant-specific factors 

separately through EPA's CBI Office.
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 EP  MedSystems,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 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
         operation of the Company


Date:  August 19, 2003              /s/ Matthew C. Hill
                                        Matthew C. Hill
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS   SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF
EARNINGS  AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET  FOR  THE
PERIOD  ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FILED WITH THE  SECURITIES
AND  EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED  IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              890,700
<SECURITIES>                      2,478,309
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,496,040
<ALLOWANCES>                       (74,112)
<INVENTORY>                       1,494,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,074,492
<PP&E>                              939,663
<DEPRECIATION>                    (277,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    9,350,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,230,576
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,600
<OTHER-SE>                       16,743,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      9,350,928
<SALES>                           2,606,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,606,650
<CGS>                             1,545,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     4,918,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,569,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,569,974)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,569,974)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.47)
                                           

        

</TABLE>
J-S61032-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Cou rt. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee

v. LONNIE DALE WINGROVE, JR., Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : No. 641 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2014, In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001430-2013

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, and STRASSBUR GER, * JJ. MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED OCTOBER 8, 2014 Lonnie Dale Wingrove, Jr., (Appellant), appeals fro m the judgment of sentence entered following his guilty plea to one c ount of indecent assault - complainant less than 13 years of age. 1 After review, we affirm. In July of 2013, Appellant was arrested and charge d with sexually assaulting his paramour’s minor daughter in May of that year. On January 8, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to the above-mention ed offense, graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree. On April 2, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to a term of two-and-one-half to five years’ incarc eration. Additionally, Appellant was designated by the trial court as a se xually violent predator (SVP). As a result, Appellant was ordered to compl y with the lifetime

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7).J-S61032-14

-2-

registration and quarterly reporting requirements o f the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). 2 Appellant timely filed a motion to reconsider his s entence, which was denied on April 21, 2014. This timely appeal follo wed. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Appellant argues that the registration a nd reporting requirements imposed by SORNA are punitive in natur e, manifestly excessive, and thus, constitutionally infirm. Appel lant’s Brief at 8. Our Courts have considered, and rejected, the issue raised by Appellant multiple times. These prior decisions re ason the imposition of the registration and notification requirements does not constitute punishment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams , 832 A.2d 962, 986 (Pa. 2003) (upholding as non-punitive the registration, notifi cation, and counseling provisions of Megan’s Law II); Commonwealth v. Rhoads , 836 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same). More recently, this Court upheld the constitutionality of SORNA’s registration requireme nts in Commonwealth v.

Perez , -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 3339161 (Pa. Super. July 9, 2 014). Appellant has failed to convince us that another co nstitutional analysis of SORNA should produce a different result. Accord ingly, we determine that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41.J-S61032-14

-3-

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/8/2014
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.5


                        AMENDMENT DATED DECEMBER 7, 1999
                                     to the
                      APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                             1991 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 6(e) of the Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

                    "(e) LIMITED TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS. Except as otherwise
               determined by the Committee in the case of nonstatutory options,
               no option may be transferred other than by will or by the laws of
               descent and distribution and during the participant's lifetime an
               option may be exercised only by the participant."


                                        1
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 Netopia, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Mark H. Perry, as Interim Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ Mark H. PerryMark H. Perry Interim Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) Date: May 10,
2005




Page 43
[Cite as State v. Davis, 134 Ohio St.3d 592, 2012-Ohio-5761.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . D AVIS , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State v. Davis, 134 Ohio St.3d 592, 2012-Ohio-5761.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Howard. (Nos. 2012-1514 and 2012-1528—Submitte d December 4, 2012—Decided December 7, 2012.) A PPEAL from and C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 97636, 2012-Ohio-3570.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is affirmed on the authority of State v. Howard , 134 Ohio St.3d 467, 2012-Ohio-5738, 983 N.E.2d 341. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van and James M. Rice, Assistant Pr osecuting Attorneys, for appellant. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Cullen Sweeney, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

_______________________
#### GONZALES v. SINGER.

No. 9643.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 26, 1935.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1935.

Todd & Todd, of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.

H. R. Sutherland and I. M. Singer, both of Corpus Christi, for defendant in error.

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Hexiquio Gonzales from a judgment in favor of William Singer for the amount of a debt established and for foreclosure of a vendor’s lien on lots 1 and 2, block 6, Highland Park addition, in the city of Corpus Christi, Tex.

This suit was brought by Gonzales to set aside a judgment by default previously obtained by Singer in another suit, and to cancel a note and vendor’s lien. The two cases were consolidated. Upon a trial before the court, without a jury, the former judgment was set aside, and judgment was rendered in favor of Singer for the balance due on the vendor’s lien note, taxes advanced, and insurance premiums paid, and for foreclosure of lien.

Gonzales executed and delivered to B. B. White a certain promissory note, the basis of Singer’s suit, 'for the principal sum of $1,000, dated January 22, 1927, payable to White, or order, in monthly installments of $20 each, providing for interest and attorneys’ fees, and reciting, its execution in part payment of the property above mentioned. A deed from White to Gonzales, dated the same date, conveying the property, described the note as a part of the consideration, and recited the reservation of a vendor’s lien to secure payment of the note. This deed is the evidence of title, upon which Gonzales depends for ownership of the property.

Upon the trial, Gonzales rather vaguely sought to show that the note was paid, and that, in any event, the note represented a simulated transaction encumbering his homestead that he had previously purchased. And these are the issues presented by his present attorney upon appeal.

The plea of payment is not sustained by the evidence. While some receipts for payments are *in*the record, they are whol*274ly insufficient to total the amount of this particular note. And, in fact, Gonzales admitted on the trial that he owed something on the note, but differed as to the amount of the debt.

The defense of homestead is, likewise, untenable in the light of all the evidence. Whatever the previous transactions between Singer and Gonzales may have been, there was no instrument or other evidence to show that Gonzales acquired title to the property prior to, or other than by, the deed from White to Gonzales. And the vendor’s lien reserved in this deed was superior to the homestead rights.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
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 Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin Salinas, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 10, 2008



/s/ Martin Salinas, Jr.Martin Salinas, Jr.Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to
and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2377 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building and United 

6 States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Day7 ton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter 

8 H. Rice Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2377 IS

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

3 States to the Federal building and United States court4 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and 

6 United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40809 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAY PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:00-CR-439-7

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ray Perez appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for possessing 470 kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He contends that the district court should have awarded him a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He has not established that the district court clearly erred in denying the reduction because he has not shown that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.”No. 03-40809 -2- United States v. Lokey , 945 F.2d 825, 840 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Gallegos , 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989). Perez also complains about the district court’s consideration of the Government’s motion for a downward departure based upon Perez’s substantial assistance, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. To the extent Perez asserts that he was not awarded a departure, he is incorrect. To the extent that Perez is arguing that the 55-month reduction he received was insufficient, he has not established that the district court abused its discretion in the extent of the departure. See United States v. Bell , 371 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 4, 2004) (No. 04-5954). The judgment of the district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.