alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McEACHERN v. TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK et al.

No. 5945.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 30, 1934.

Goggans & Ritchie, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

McBride, O’Donnell & Hamilton and Henry P. Edwards, all of Dallas, for defendants in error.

CURETON, Chief Justice.

This is a zoning case, here by writ of error. We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a statement of the ease. 34 S.W.(2d) 676.

The principal question involved is the validity of the zoning ordinance of the city of Highland Park, an incorporated town adjacent to the city of Dallas. The ordinance is a comprehensive one, similar in purpose to the zoning ordinance held valid by us in the ease of Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 73 S.W.(2d) 475, this day decided, but not yet reported [in State Reports).

It is unnecessary to discuss the validity of the ordinance before us, since it is in its general effect plainly valid under the Lom-bardo Case, just mentioned, and the authorities therein cited. The lot upon which the plaintiff in error desires to construct a gasoline filling station is a residence lot in a dwelling or residential district as zoned by the city. There is nothing peculiar to or incident to the property which would make the zoning ordinance inapplicable to it. A residence is on the property now, and so far as this record shows it is suitable for that purpose. Under the Lombardo opinion and the authorities cited, it is not a denial of due process or equal protection of the law to refuse the plaintiff in error the permit, or deny him the right to erect a filling station thereon in violation of the zoning ordinance. There is no merit in plaintiff in error’s insistence that because he applied for a permit and filed a suit upon its refusal before the zoning ordinance was enacted, the ordinance cannot be invoked against him. The Court of Civil Appeals made a correct disposition of that question.

In addition to the authorities cited in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, see also City of Tucson v. Arizona Mortuary, 34 Ariz. 495, 272 P. 923; Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381, 38 A. L. R. 1479; Ware v. City of Wichita, 113 Kan. 153, 214 P. 99.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.
# Exhibit 21.1

# SUBSIDIARIES OF POWELL
INDUSTRIES, INC.

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                                                                                           
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Domestic Subsidiary                 
Delta-Unibus Corp.                          
Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co.         
     Powell Power Electronics Company, Inc. 
Powell-Process Systems, Inc. (Inactive)     
Powell-ESCO Company                         
Unibus, Inc.                                
Powell Energy Systems Inc. (Inactive)       
Transdyn Controls, Inc.                     
Traction Power Systems, Inc.                Name of Foreign Subsidiary                 
Powell Foreign Sales Corporation | State of Incorporation
Illinois
Delaware
Delaware
Utah
Texas
Ohio
Nevada
California
DelawareCountry of Incorporation
Barbados, West Indies
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**





I,
      Steven
      D. Eversole, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-Q of Kentucky
      USA Energy, Inc. ,
      for the
      fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of Kentucky
      USA Energy, Inc..





Date:
                October 2, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Steven D. EversoleSteven
                D. EversoleChief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN


The Idaho Power Company Employee Savings Plan, amended and restated as of January 1, 2016 (the "Plan") is amended to reduce the maximum aggregate contribution from 100% to 80% of a Participant's Compensation, as set forth below. This amendment shall be effective January 1, 2018.


1.    The first sentence of Section 3.1.1 (a) is amended to read as follows:


"Upon enrollment, a Participant may direct that his or her Employer make Deferral Contributions to the Trust Fund of from 1 percent to 80 percent of his or her Compensation (in 1 percent increments) for each pay period."


2.    The last sentence of Section 3.1.1 (e) is amended to read as follows:


"A Participant's Deferral Contributions, After-Tax Contributions and Roth Deferrals are limited to 80 percent of a Participant's Compensation for a Plan Year."


3.    The first paragraph of Section 3.3 is amended to read as follows:


"Upon enrollment, a Participant will be entitled to contribute to the Trust Fund an amount between 1 percent and 80 percent of his or her Compensation (in 1 percent increments) for each pay period as an After-Tax or Roth Contribution which is nondeductible. Deferral Contributions, After-Tax and Roth Contributions are limited to 80 percent of a Participant's Compensation."




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Amendment this 29th day of October, 2017.


IDAHO POWER COMPANY 
Employer






By:  /s/ Lonnie G. Krawl
           Lonnie G. Krawl
           SVP of Administrative Services and
           Chief Human Resources Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Kitcher Resources Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raminder Badyal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of September, 2007.


/s/ Raminder Badyal
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Suraj
Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended November 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jos
D’Souza, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director,
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 and
belief:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:  January
12, 2009
  JOS D'SOUZA Jos
D’Souza
 Chief
Accounting Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
Exhibit 32.1

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

     This  certification  is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002.  This
certification  is  included  solely  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the
provisions  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose.  In connection with the accompanying  Qarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Aspen Racing  Stables,  Inc. for the quarter ended April  30,2007,  I,
Dwight  McLellan,  hereby certifies in my capacity as an officer of Aspen Racing
Stables, Inc. that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aspen Racing Stables,  Inc. for
          the quarter ended April 30, 2007, 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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of
          Aspen  Racing  Stables,  Inc.  for the quarter  ended April 30,  2007,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Aspen Racing Stables, Inc.

Date:    July 27, 2007                /s/ Dwight McLellan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Dwight McLellan, President
                                       and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive, Financial
                                       and Accounting Officer)
From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov> 

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, 

<rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, Maureen Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 03/17/2010 01:46 PM 

Subject: Meeting to discuss joint notice of intent 

You may remember from the last call that CEQ was interested in making sure changes in final

rule do not impact the notice of intent. I got a specific request for a face to face meeting with

you all on just this topic this week (instead of a conference call or a document). I will include

CEQ and OECC for this meeting. Looks like 12 noon tomorrow and 4PM tomorrow are the only

available times on our end. Would those work for you?

  

Thanks

Chandana
EXHIBIT 99.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,John J. Dolan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of FirstCommonwealth Financial Corporation ("the Corporation") certify thatthe Quarterly Report of the Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe Corporation at the end of such period and the results of operations of theCorporation for such period.

 

DATED:  AUGUST 13, 2002      /S/John J. Dolan                             _____________________________________                             John J. Dolan                              Executive Vice President and                             Chief  Financial Officer
BLD-300 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3358

___________

IN RE: REGINALD YOUNG,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civil Action No. 2-05-cr-00307-003)

____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed R. App. P.

September 29, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 12, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Reginald Young filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 

seeking an order that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania be compelled to rule on his pending motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A 
2

mandamus petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the 

requested relief, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. 

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). 

As a general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is 

within its discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). 

Indeed, given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no “clear and 

indisputable” right to have the district court handle a case on its docket in a certain 

manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). Nonetheless, 

mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to 

exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79.

Young filed his § 2255 motion on November 15, 2010. Thereafter, the 

Government requested, and was granted, an extension to file a response by March 2011. 

On March 3, 2011, the Government filed a response to Young’s § 2255 motion. On 

March 24, 2011, and on August 9, 2011, Young filed motions to expedite consideration 

of the action. Then, on September 22, 2011, he filed the current petition for a writ of 

mandamus. 

Some time has passed since the filing of Young’s motion, and a delay in ruling on 

it could become a matter of concern, see id. (noting that a seven-month delay in 

adjudicating a habeas petition may be “of concern”). However, under the circumstances, 

and despite Young’s argument to the contrary, the delay does not amount to a failure to 
3

exercise jurisdiction at this point. Furthermore, we are confident that the District Court 

will expeditiously rule on Young’s motion.

For these reasons, we will deny Young’s mandamus petition. Our denial is 

without prejudice to his filing another petition in the event that the District Court does not 

take action within a reasonable time from the date of this judgment.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3093 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to make certain changes in the 

implementation of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program of 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2015 

Mr. GIBBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to make certain 

changes in the implementation of the Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability program of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Correct the Safety 

5 Analysis Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3093 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) USE OF CRASH INFORMATION IN DETERMINING

4 MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY RISK.—In determining the safe5 ty risk of a motor carrier under the Compliance, Safety, 

6 Accountability program, the Secretary of Transportation 

7 may attribute a crash to a motor carrier only if the Sec8 retary determines that the carrier could have prevented 

9 the crash. 

10 (b) USE OF SAFETY DATA.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the CSA 

12 program, and to prevent the misuse and misinter13 pretation of data by public entities, the Secretary— 

14 (A) shall use the safety data of a motor 

15 carrier developed under the program solely for 

16 internal purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier 

17 Safety Administration, including allocating re18 sources to conduct audits and inspections of 

19 motor carriers; and 

20 (B) may not make the scores available to 

21 the public. 

22 (2) SAFETY FITNESS INFORMATION.—Para23 graph (1) may not be construed to affect the respon24 sibility of the Secretary under section 31144(a)(3) of 

25 title 49, United States Code, to make final safety 

26 fitness determinations readily available to the public. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3093 IH

1 (c) COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY PRO2 GRAM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Compliance, 

3 Safety, Accountability program’’ or ‘‘CSA program’’ 

4 means the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program 

5 carried out by the Secretary, acting through the Federal 

6 Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.9 

 

Allegheny Energy Service Corporation 

800 CabinHill Drive 

Greensburg, PA 15601 

 

February 18, 2004 

 

Jeffrey Serkes 

c/o Allegheny Energy, Inc. 

800 Cabin Hill Drive 

Greensburg, PA 15601 

 

Dear Jeff: 

 

You and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (“AESC”) for itself and as agent for its parent, Allegheny Energy, Inc. (“AEI”), theaffiliates and subsidiaries of AESC and AEI, and any successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of July 3, 2003. Pursuant to Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement, you wereentitled to receive a grant of stock options for 550,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the AEI Long-Term Incentive Plan on January 2, 2004, or an alternative adjustment to your compensation of equivalent value and opportunity if authorization ofsuch stock options was not obtained under the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (“PUHCA”) by such date. As you are aware, authorization of your stock option award under PUHCA was not obtained until February 10, 2004. 

 

Accordingly, you, AESC and AEI hereby agree that the Agreement is herebyamended as follows: 

 

1. Amendment to Section 5(a)(i) of theAgreement. Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

“(i) **Option Grant**. On the fifth business day following the date that AESC obtains authorization under the PublicUtilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (the “**Authorization Date**”), AESC shall grant the Executive stock options (the “**Options**”) for 550,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-TermIncentive Plan (the “**LTIP**”) at a per share exercise price equal to the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock on the date of grant, as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction Listing in The Wall Street Journal. Suchgrant shall be evidenced by an award agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit A.” 

 

2. Amendments to Section 5 (c)(i) of the Agreement. The references to January 2, 2004 in clauses (1) and (2) of Section 5(c)(i) of the Agreement are hereby amended to refer to the Authorization Date and the2004 Closing Price is defined to mean the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock on the Authorization Date as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction listing in The Wall Street Journal. 

 

Mr. Jeffrey Serkes 

January 18, 2004 

Page 2 

 

Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remainunchanged and are hereby ratified and confirmed. Please signify your agreement with the foregoing by signing the attached copy of this letter in the place indicated. 

 
Very truly yours,Allegheny Energy Service CorporationBy: 
/s/ Paul J. Evanson
    
Paul J. Evanson
  
Chairman, President, and

Chief Executive Officer
Allegheny Energy, Inc.By: 
/s/ Paul J. Evanson
    
Paul J. Evanson
  
Chairman, President, and

Chief Executive Officer

 
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
/s/ Jeffrey Serkes

Jeffrey Serkes
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Channell Commercial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), I, William H. Channell, Sr., 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 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 Company.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:

/s/    WILLIAM H. CHANNELL,
SR.William H. Channell, Sr., Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 13, 2002
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED

STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR

WESTECH CAPITAL CORP.




     Westech Capital Corp., having heretofore adopted the First Amended and
Restated Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), and having reserved the right under
Section 12(a) thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby amend the Plan, effective
as of September 15, 2004, as follows:



     Section 6(a) of the Plan shall be amended by replacing “400,000” with
“1,000,000.”



     Adopted by the Board of Directors of Westech Capital Corp. on September
15, 2004.




1
# Official Journal C 103/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 103 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5124 April 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 103

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5124 April 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2008/C 103/01 | Special report No 2/2008 concerning Binding Tariff Information (BTI) together with the Commission's replies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Auditors

2008/C 103/01

Special report No 2/2008 concerning Binding Tariff Information (BTI) together with the Commission's replies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
[No. 24720-8-II.

Division Two.

December 21, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. George McLam, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 98-1-04708-1, Marywave Van Deren, J., entered April 26, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.