alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PETROLEUM PRODUCERS CO. et al. v. REED et al.

No. 10356.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 14, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1939.

*1117Perkins & Floyd, of Alice, and Kilgore & Rogers, of Wichita Falls, for appellants:

Daniel B. Purvis, of San Diego, for ap-pellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

Appellants, Petroleum Producers Company and United Producers Company, instituted this suit in the District Court of Duval County against, M. H. Reed, Daniel B. Purvis and Ralph R. Ogden, in trespass to try title to approximately six acres of land in Duval County.

Appellees, Reed, Purvis and Ogden, filed a plea in abatement setting up, among other things, that the State of Texas was a necessary party to this suit, in that the State was claiming title to the six acres of land and had executed an oil and gas lease thereon to appellees. The trial court, after hearing evidence on the same, sustained the plea in abatement and dismissed the cause. Petroleum Producers Company and United Producers Company have prosecuted this appeal.

The appeal presents but one question, which is: Was the State an indispensable party to appellants’ suit for title to the six acres of land? Appellants were unable to make the State a party to this suit, as they did not have legislative consent to do so, and the Attorney General of the State did not see fit to intervene. It is therefore apparent that if the State is an indispensable party to this suit there was nothing appellants could do to prevent their suit from being abated.

This Court has, in effect, committed itself to the proposition that in suit's of this nature the State is a proper and necessary party. See the recent case of McKamey v. Aiken, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 482. The real purpose of the suit at bar was to secure a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to declare that there was no vacancy lying between Survey 62, on the one hand, and Surveys 114 and 78, on the other hand; or, in other words, to have a court find that the east boundary line of Survey 62 coincides with the west boundary line of Surveys 114 and 78. Such a judgment would in effect cancel the lease given by the State, and, under the rule of “stare decisis,” the State would not in a later suit be heard to contend that these surveys were not adjoining surveys with a common boundary line.

In any event the trial court has found, after hearing evidence, that the State is a proper and necessary party and that failure to make the State a party should abate the suit, and such matters being largely addressed to the discretion of the trial court, its action thereon will not be reversed on appeal, unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

It is apparent that if any relief should be granted to appellants, it would have to be in effect a cancellation of the oil and gas lease executed by the State. If such relief is to be granted the State should be a party to the suit. DeGrazier v. Panell Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1109.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24086]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee For Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the 
Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before: November 17, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or to submit 
comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b3bda4b5b69594a29597b0b192999c998489bf9e95de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23606e77666546477146446362414a4f4a575a6c4d460d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Product(s)

NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
    2540-01-314-7834--Cushion, Seat, Vehicular, 14.5'' x 18''
    Authorized Source of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC
    Contracting Activity: DLA LAND AND MARITIME, COLUMBUS, OH
NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
7110-00-823-7675--Conference Table, 72'' x 34'' x 29\1/2\'', Seats 
8, Walnut Laminate
7110-00-958-0780--Conference Table, 60'' x 30'' x 29\1/2\'', Seats 
6, Walnut Laminate
7110-00-902-3052--Conference Table--120'' x 48'' x 29\1/2\'', Seats 
12, Walnut Laminate
7110-00-903-3061--Conference Table--96'' x 38'' x 29\1/2\'', Seats 
10, Walnut Laminate
Authorized Source of Supply: Knox County Association for Remarkable 
Citizens, Inc., Vincennes, IN
Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS FURNITURE SYSTEMS MGT DIV, 
PHILADELPHIA, PA

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2024-24086 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-K Report of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2008 filed on the
date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 /s/ PAUL M. PARRISHPaul  M. ParrishChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### REASONOVER v. REASONOVER.

No. 8644.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 14, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1931.

Jas. P. Cogdell, of Fort Worth, and Greenwood & Dewis and A. N. Beem, all of Harlingen, for appellant.

Crane & Hartwell, of Raymondville, for ap-. pellee.

■SMITH, J.

Appellee has filed a motion to strike appellant’s briefs from the record and dismiss the appeal, for the stated reasons that ap-pellee has never been served with notice of the filing of said briefs, or furnished with copies thereof. We overrule the motion. Appellant’s briefs have been on file in this court since June 25, 1931, and could have been had by appellee at any time for the simple asking therefor.

The appeal is from a judgment refusing, upon proper plea in bar, to reopen cause No. 107, between the parties hereto in the court below, and to set' aside and reform the judgment rendered in said, cause on January 31, 11930. The record discloses that appellant . had notice of the pendency of the former suit, made no effort to contest the same, filed no motion for new trial therein, did not appeal therefrom, and offered no excuse for these omissions. Appellant does not contend that the judgment against him was fraudulently obtained, or that he was prevented by fraud or otherwise from setting up or urging any defenses thereto, or that he had any defenses, or that he exercised any care whatever to protect his interests in that litigation, or to procure a new trial, or perfect and prosecute an appeal or writ of error against the judgment he now complains of, or to pursue any of the remedies amply afforded him by law in such cases. The trial court therefore did not err in abating this suit, and the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant asserts that the judgment sought to be set aside in this action was void because appellant, as defendant in the original suit, was not served with citation therein full ten days before the return day of the term of court to which that,process was returnable. It is sufficient to say in view of this contention that it appears from appellant’s own pleading in this case that the judgment here attacked shows by affirmative recitations that *175■appellant “duly accepted service of citation and waived service and return on the same herein for the January term of said court, A. D. 1930, entered his appearance for said term of court” — which was the term at which the judgment here complained of was rendered.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20203 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus FIDEL GUEVARA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-94-225-1
- - - - - - - - - - May 3, 1996 Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fidel Guevara-Torres appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to import, and aiding and abetting the importation of, more than five kilograms of cocaine. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. He also contends that theNo. 95-20203 -2- Government relied on the testimony of one of his coconspirators and that the testimony was unreliable. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Guevara-Torres guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Velgar-Vivero , 8 F.3d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1865, 2715 (1994). Even uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator who entered a plea agreement with the Government is sufficient to support a conviction provided that the "testimony is not incredible or insubstantial on its face." United States v. Singer , 970 F.2d 1414, 1419 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Osum , 943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th Cir. 1991). The jury determines the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Layne , 43 F.3d 127, 130 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1722 (1995). AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3642 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3642

  To provide for increased flexibility in the extension of the Social 
                       Security program to Guam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2015

 Ms. Bordallo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for increased flexibility in the extension of the Social 
                       Security program to Guam.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN THE EXTENSION OF THE SOCIAL 
              SECURITY PROGRAM TO GUAM.

    Section 103(v)(1) of the Social Security Amendments of 1960 (Public 
Law 86-778) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The amendments made by subsection (a)'' 
        and inserting ``(A) The amendments made by subsection (a)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) If the legislation enacted by the Government of Guam 
described in the fifth sentence of subparagraph (A) includes a 
provision expressing the desire of the Government of Guam that the 
insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act 
would extend only to such officers and employees of such Government and 
such political subdivisions and instrumentalities initially employed 
(as determined by the Government of Guam at the time of, and included 
as a provision in, the certification described in such sentence) by 
such Government and such political subdivisions and instrumentalities 
after the calendar quarter in which the Secretary of the Treasury 
receives such certification, the amendments made by subsections (c), 
(n), (q), and (r) shall apply to only such individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3027

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase and transfer certain

land.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. HOLLINGS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase and

transfer certain land.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR SECRETARY OF AGRI4 CULTURE TO PURCHASE AND TRANSFER

5 LAND.

6 Subject to the availability of funds appropriated to

7 the Agricultural Research Service, the Secretary of Agri8 culture may—

9 (1) purchase a tract of land in the State of

10 South Carolina that is contiguous to land owned on
2

•S 3027 IS

1 the date of enactment of this Act by the Department

2 of Agriculture, acting through the Coastal Plains

3 Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center of the Agri4 cultural Research Service; and

5 (2) transfer land owned by the Department of

6 Agriculture to the Florence Darlington Technical

7 College, South Carolina, in exchange for land owned

8 by the College.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 28, 2015

d0720 

# Order

Clerk July 28, 2015

149728(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149728

COA: 320350

Wayne CC: 84

- 473556

- FC

KIM MOSS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 1, 2015

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that t he order was

entered erroneously.
Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

  I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

  1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
  required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
  10-K of the COMM 2012-CCRE4 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic
  reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
  whole, do 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;

  3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
  information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
  this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
  this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
  Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
  under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

  5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
  for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
  assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
  required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
  Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
  an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any
  material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
  disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

  In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
  provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Commercial
  Real Estate Services, Inc. as Servicing Function Participant, Deutsche Bank
  Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator for the Emerald Square
  Mall Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Custodian for
  the Emerald Square Mall Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, Inc., a
  Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer for the
  Emerald Square Mall Mortgage Loan, National Tax Search, LLC as Servicing
  Function Participant, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor,
  Situs Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisor for the Emerald Square Mall Mortgage
  Loan, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,
  National Association as Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National
  Association as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National
  Association as Custodian and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master
  Servicer for the Emerald Square Mall Mortgage Loan.

Date:  January 24, 2014

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan
Helaine M. Kaplan
President
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
6/17/15 Page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Summary Page

 

Chemical ID: P-14-0501 Reviewer: Wong/BC 

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed in 

NCEM2?

Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB 

Testing 

Required

No 

Hazard 

Concern

No 

Releases

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other

Ingestion

Surface water No NA X X NA NA

Ground water (landfill) No NA X X NA

Consumer Use: DtD2 No NA X NA NA NA No consumer use

Inhalation

Air: incineration (stack) No NA X X

Air: fugitive No NA X

Consumer Use: CEM3 No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Dermal

Consumer Use: CEM No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Eco

Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

No NA X NA NA

Consumer Use: DtD No NA NA NA NA No consumer use 1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 2

Down-the-Drain 3

Consumer Exposure Model

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure 

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch=s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
Message Information 

Date 07/18/2011 02:28 PM 

From °Ben Gilman" <BGiImanmainechamber.org > 

To LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc 

Subject Communication from Maine State Chamber of Commerce 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

Attached please find a letter from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. 

Best regards, 

Ben Gilman 

Ben Gilman 

Senior Government Affairs Specialist 

Maine State Chamber of Commerce 

125 Community Drive, Suite 101 

Tel: (207) 623-4568, ext. 18 

Fax: (207) 622-7723 

Email: bgilman@mainechamber.org

Ben Gilman LaHood Jackson 1 (2)pdf 

OEX Processing Information 

Processed Date: 

Processed By 

P0 Office 

Message Count
The voice oflVlaine business 

The Honorable Ray LaHood The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Secretary Administrator 

Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20590 Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Secretary LaHood and Administrator Jackson: 

As you know, the cost of doing business in our country continues to increase even as we work to stabilize 

our economy. As we at the Maine State Chamber of Commerce know, this is especially true in our state 

where we experience high energy and transportation costs. 

Earlier this year, a committee of legislators traveled across the state listening to Maine people's 

experiences with state government and gathering suggestions on how government can work better for 

them. Lawmakers took many of the ideas back to Augusta and drafted legislation that relieves some of 

our states regulatory burdens. This important bill received strong bi-partisan support and was signed into 

law by our Governor. 

At these meetings, Maine people loudly and clearly expressed their concerns with the impact that 

government regulations have on the ability of Maine businesses to grow and create jobs. As the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review 

the need for regulations that again would raise the national fuel economy standards in 2017, please take 

into consideration the concerns of Maine people. 

Should these agencies choose to require regulations more stringent than those to be implemented next 

year, they will only add to the financial burdens already placed on businesses and stifle opportunities to 

grow our economy here in Maine. Instead, we ask that NHTSA and EPA adopt a single, national fuel 

economy standard that is sensible and affordable. 

Ben Gilman 

Senior Governmental Affairs Specialist 

c: Honorable Olympia J. Snowe 

Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Honorable Michael H. Michaud 

Honorable Chellie Pingree 

ommumv i)vc, w' ft	Augusr.	3ft8O1t)

	

ix 2O; (2- 772.	wehs:	vw niIIch1r1hx[	mui
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-184-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)