alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROSCOE STATE BANK v. J. M. RADFORD GROCERY CO.

No. 957.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Feb. 26, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1932.

Beall & Beall, of 'Sweetwater, for appellant.

W. E. Lessing, of Abilene, for appellee.

HICKMAN,' C. J.

This case'is a sequel to case No. 963, Bob Dodgion, Garnishee, v. J. M. Radnford Grocery Company, 50 S.W.(2d) 837, this day decided by this court. In the former case ap-pellee obtained a judgment against Dodgion as garnishee. It then caused a writ of garnishment to be served upon appellant for the purpose' of collecting its judgment against Dodgion. The answer admitted that Dodgion, as assignee of Joe McCarty, had money on deposit with it, but disclosed that the amount on deposit was not sufficient to pay the creditors of McCarty more than 25 per cent, on their claims. It further alleged that the judgment against Dodgion in the former case was void, because the assets in his hands did not belong to Joe McCarty, but were held by him as an assignee for the benefit of McCarty’s accepting creditors. Dodgion also answered in this ease, adopting the answer of appellant. Judgment was rendered against appellant on its answer, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

It is obvious that this case is controlled by our decision in the companion case above referred to, and, for the reason therein assigned, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and here rendered for appellant.

On Rehearing.

The record in this case is different from that in the companion ease of Dodgion v. Radford Grocery Company, No. 963. We have jurisdiction of this cause, and our original opinion has been confirmed by the action of our Supreme Court in refusing a writ of error in the case of Starr v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 429. In a memorandum opinion the Supreme Court has expressly approved the holding of the Dallas Court in that case. 47 S.W.(2d) 608.

The original opinion failed to mention the question of attorneys’ fees for the garnishee. Since our judgment discharges it on its answer, it is entitled to a reasonable fee, which we set at $50. We have the authority to set this fee without a retrial below. Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Norton (Tex. Com. App.) 5 S.W.(2d) 767.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby                           ( print page 80282)                        gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 18, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 354 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-702, CP2024-711.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22625 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08870**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08870\08870_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08870\08870_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08870\08870_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08870\08870_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08870\08870_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08870\08870_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08870\Certification Statement Plant ID 08870.pdf Plant certification statement 08870\Supplemental Documents\08870_2010-09-15 Effluent Guidelines Certification.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08870\Supplemental Documents\08870_PartA_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08870\Supplemental Documents\08870_PartA_MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08870\Supplemental Documents\08870_PartA_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Cite as State v. Van Kell , 2021-Ohio-109.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2020-L-126 - vs - : JAMES M. VAN KELL, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 000672.

Jud g ment: Appeal dismissed.

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. James M. Van Kell, pro se, PID# A770-631, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsbur g , OH 44430 ( Defendant-Appellant )

.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. {¶1} On December 21, 2020, appellant, James M. Van Kell, pro se, fil ed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s November 14, 2019 sente ncing entry, which he attached to his notice. A timely notice was due no later than December 16, 2019, which was not a holiday or weekend. The appeal is untimely by over a year. {¶2} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is fi nal upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 with in 30 days of that entry.” App.R. 4(A)(1).2 {¶3} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the followin g classes of cases: {¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * * {¶5} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellan t to perfect an appeal as of right. * * *.” App.R. 5(A). {¶6} Appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set for th in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, th is court is without jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal appeal under App.R. 5(A). {¶7} Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.
**Plain Language EHRI Course Data**

**Training Title:** Principles of Plain Language Training

**Training Type Code:** 03

**Training Sub Type Code:** 32

**Training Accreditation Indicator:** N

**Training Credit:** 0

**Training Credit Designation Type Code:** 05 

**Training Credit Type Code:** NA

**Training Duty Hours:** 2.0

**Training Non Duty Hours:** 0

**Training Delivery Type Code:** 03 

**Training Purpose Type Code:** 01

**Training Source Type Code:** 02

**Training Materials Cost:** 0

**Training Per Diem Cost:** 0

**Training Travel Cost:** 0

**Training Tuition and Fees Cost:** 0

**Training Nongovernment Contribution Cost:** 0

**Training Travel Indicator:** NA
BAL 05- 102 ATTACHMENT 2 - FERS PRESENT VALUE FACTORS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2004 

FERS PRESENT VALUE FACTORS EFFECTIVE 10/01/2004 

REGULAR EMPLOYEE GROUPS 

(WHOSE ANNUITIES WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO COLAS BEFORE AGE 62)

USE THESE FACTORS WHEN THE ANNUITY BEGINS ON OR AFTER 10/01/2004 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

40 185.6 66 149.4 

41 185.3 67 145.1 

42 185.2 68 140.5 

43 184.9 69 135.9 

44 184.1 70 131.5 

45 182.8 71 127.0 

46 181.6 72 122.4 

47 180.7 73 118.0 

48 179.5 74 113.6 

49 177.9 75 109.0 

50 176.4 76 104.1 

51 175.4 77 99.5 

52 174.7 78 94.9 

53 174.1 79 90.1 

54 173.3 80 85.7 

55 172.5 81 81.1 

56 171.8 82 76.2 

57 171.2 83 71.8 

58 170.7 84 67.8 

59 170.5 85 64.2 

60 170.5 86 60.6 

61 170.1 87 56.7 

62 167.5 88 52.9 

63 163.0 89 49.7 

64 158.5 90 46.4 

65 154.0 
BAL 05- 102 ATTACHMENT 2 (CONT.)

FERS PRESENT VALUE FACTORS EFFECTIVE 10/01/2004 

SPECIAL EMPLOYEE GROUPS 

(WHOSE ANNUITIES ARE SUBJECT TO COLAS BEFORE AGE 62)

USE THESE FACTORS WHEN THE ANNUITY BEGINS ON OR AFTER 10/01/2004 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

Age At 

Retirement 

Present 

Value 

Factor 

40 249.1 66 149.4 

41 245.8 67 145.1 

42 242.5 68 140.5 

43 239.0 69 135.9 

44 235.4 70 131.5 

45 231.8 71 127.0 

46 227.9 72 122.4 

47 223.9 73 118.0 

48 219.8 74 113.6 

49 215.5 75 109.0 

50 211.7 76 104.1 

51 208.3 77 99.5 

52 204.7 78 94.9 

53 201.1 79 90.1 

54 197.3 80 85.7 

55 193.5 81 81.1 

56 189.5 82 76.2 

57 185.4 83 71.8 

58 181.2 84 67.8 

59 176.9 85 64.2 

60 172.6 86 60.6 

61 168.2 87 56.7 

62 167.5 88 52.9 

63 163.0 89 49.7 

64 158.5 90 46.4 

65 154.0
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 85 V

Filed: June 3, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SCOTT CURTIS

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury ( “ SIRVA ” ) ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA

, for petitioner.

Lisa Ann Watts , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On January 15, 2016

, p etitioner filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”)

. Peti tioner alleges that h e suffered a right shoulder injury related to

vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) caused in fact by an influenza vaccination

administered on November 5, 2014

. Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 2, 2016

, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) R eport and P roffer on

C ompensation A ward in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion

in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1

. Specifically, respondent “ opines that

petitioner experienced SIRVA of the right upper extremity within 48 hours of flu vaccine

ad ministration ” and further stated that [n] o other causes for petition er’s SIRVA have

been identified

. ” Further, r espondent “ agrees that petitioner’s SIRVA was more likely

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 than not caused by the November 5, 2014, flu vaccination. ” Id. at 4

. Respondent

further agrees that p etitioner met the statutory six month sequela requirement and that

all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act have been met

. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
Exhibit
      32.2 - President and Chief Operating Officer Certification (Section
      906)




**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 Adrenalina (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q
      for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the U. S. Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Jeffrey Geller,
      President and Chief Operating 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:




(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.




/s/
                Jeffrey GellerJeffrey
                GellerPresidentChief
              Operating Officer  **Date
      August 14, 2008**
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report of Power Medical Interventions, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “***Report***”),I, Michael P. Whitman, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to my knowledge:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date: August 11,2009

 
|     | /s/ MICHAEL P. WHITMAN                   |
|----------|------------------------------------------|
|     |                                     |
|     | Michael P. Whitman.                      |
| * * | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmREIT,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, H. Kerr Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of the Company
that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
 section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

|                        |                                       | 
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|Date:   August 12, 2010 | /s/ H. Kerr Taylor                    | 
|                        | H. Kerr Taylor                       
|                        | President and Chief Executive Officer

40

---
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3438 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the 

effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3438 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Require Evaluation 

3 before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2016’’ or 

4 as the ‘‘REVIEW Act of 2016’’. 

5 SEC. 2. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW. 

6 Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—When’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(b) HIGH-IMPACT RULES.— 

13 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

14 ‘‘(A) the term ‘Administrator’ means the 

15 Administrator of the Office of Information and 

16 Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management 

17 and Budget; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the term ‘high-impact rule’ means 

19 any rule that the Administrator determines may 

20 impose an annual cost on the economy of not 

21 less than $1,000,000,000. 

22 ‘‘(2) IDENTIFICATION.—A final rule may not be 

23 published or take effect until the agency making the 

24 rule submits the rule to the Administrator and the 

25 Administrator makes a determination as to whether 
3 

•HR 3438 EH

1 the rule is a high-impact rule, which shall be pub2 lished by the agency with the final rule. 

3 ‘‘(3) RELIEF.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

5 subparagraph (B), an agency shall postpone the 

6 effective date of a high-impact rule of the agen7 cy until the final disposition of all actions seek8 ing judicial review of the rule. 

9 ‘‘(B) FAILURE TO TIMELY SEEK JUDICIAL

10 REVIEW.—Notwithstanding section 553(d), if 

11 no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact 

12 rule— 

13 ‘‘(i) during any period explicitly pro14 vided for judicial review under the statute 

15 authorizing the making of the rule; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) if no such period is explicitly pro17 vided for, during the 60-day period begin18 ning on the date on which the high-impact 

19 rule is published in the Federal Register, 

20 the high-impact rule may take effect as early as 

21 the date on which the applicable period ends. 

22 ‘‘(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

23 this subsection may be construed to impose any limi24 tation under law on any court against the issuance 
4 

•HR 3438 EH

1 of any order enjoining the implementation of any 

2 rule.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3438 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone 

judicial review. the effective date of high-impact rules pending
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ray Catroppa, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horiyoshi Worldwide
      Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2011 (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 Horiyoshi Worldwide Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 14, 2011

| | /s/Ray Catroppa                                                     
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Ray Catroppa                                                        
| | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary                               
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Horiyoshi Worldwide Inc.                                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horiyoshi
Worldwide Inc. and will be retained by Horiyoshi Worldwide Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
**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 SFH I Acquisition Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Armen
      Karapetyan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      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.





Date: November
                14, 2007
            /s/ Armen
                KarapetyanArmen
                KarapetyanPrincipal
                Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 ENCORE ENERGY PARTNERS LP
 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three months ended March 31,2008
    
    
    2007Income (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    4,175
    
    
    $
    (457
    )Adjustments:Add fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    1,640
    
    
    
    1,102Rental expense attributable to interest
    
    
    43
    
    
    
    43Total fixed charges
    
    
    1,683
    
    
    
    1,145Adjusted earnings
    
    $
    5,858
    
    
    $
    688Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a)
    
    
    3.5
    
    
    
    0.6
 
 (a)
    
    For the three months ended March 31, 2007, earnings as defined were
inadequate to cover fixed charges as defined by $0.5 million.