alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. S. EDWARDS *v.*THOMAS JARVIS.

In an action to recover the possession of land, and involving the title-thereto, and to which the Statute of Limitations is pleaded, the time. from the 20th day of May, 1861, to - the last day of January. *1870,*is. not to be counted.

This was a Civil AotioN, for the recovery of the possession of land, tried before *Fur ches, J.,*at Fall Term, 1875, of Ar.~ leghANY Superior Court.

The case was heard upon facts agreed, which are fully set-out in the opinion of Justice Settle.

The defendant relied upon the statute of limitations. The-court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant appealed.

*MoGorMe,*for the appellant.

No counsel in this court, *cmitra.*

Settle, J.

The record presents the following facts :

1. The plaintiff has the older chain of title, and it covere-the land in dispute.

2. The defendant took a deed for the land on the 23d day of September, 1865, and went into possession on that day, and has held possession thereof ever since, under his said deed*

3. This suit was commenced on the 11th day of Api’il, 1873*

Is the action barred by the lapse of time ?

The general proposition, that the time elapsed from the 20th day of May, 1861, until 1st day of January, 1870, shall not be counted so as to bar actions or suits, or to presume satisfaction or abandonment of rights, wo may assume to be true.

This general proposition, however, is subject to the exception that actions of debt, covenant, assumpsit or account, upon any contract, demand or penalty incurred since the first day of May, 1865, and the remedies thereon, shall be in all respects the same as they were in the year 1860. This excop*316tion opened tbe door for suits and causes of action founded on *contract*or obligation entered into since the first day of May, 1865, but did not affect the general rule already stated in re-spect to *torts.*or other causes of action, save those, in contract, embraced in the exception just mentioned. The ordinances and acts establishing these propositions have been so frequently the subject of review, we are inclined to think, that perhaps every other question that can arise out of the suspension ■of the statute of limitations from 1861 to 1870, has been decided by this court.

We are therefore not disposed to further discuss the subject.

The judgment of the Superior Com! is affirmed.

Let this be certified, &c.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
#### Banner *v.*M‘Murray.

From Stokes.

Per Curiam.

— -A new trial must be granted to ascertain the facts; no proper case having been sent up to this Court.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

I, George R. Chapdelaine, certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial informationincluded in this report,  fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations,  and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         [omitted]

 

(c)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport;  based on such evaluation and

 

(d)         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: March 7, 2005 | /s/ George R. Chapdelaine                                      |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | George R. Chapdelaine,  President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32(b)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADDED BY
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard H. Flake, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by 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 operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





/s/ Richard H. FlakeRichard H. FlakeExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 Date: November 10, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001065633
<NAME> NETWORK PLUS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                       513
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,050
<PP&E>                                          19,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,882
<BONDS>                                          5,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           35,146
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,823)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,868
<SALES>                                        105,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,545
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,931
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (906)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7899

SAMUEL WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RICKY FOXWELL, Warden of ECI; ROBERT TROXELL, CDM , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L . Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 02267

- ELH ; 1:18

- cv - 01507

- ELH )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Samuel Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Williams seeks to appeal the distri ct court’s order granting D efendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Williams’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, p arties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its order on May 14, 2019

. Williams filed t he notice of appeal on December 23, 2020 , * beyond both the expiration of the appeal period and the expiration of the 180

- day period following entry of the order in which the district court could have reopened the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appea l, i s the earliest date Williams could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87398-87399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25447]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management


Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

ACTION: List of restricted joint bidders.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and 
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) regulatory restrictions 
on joint bidding, BOEM is publishing this list of restricted joint 
bidders. Each entity within one of the following groups is restricted 
from bidding with any entity in any of the other groups listed below at 
Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales held during the bidding 
period of November 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025.

DATES: This list of restricted joint bidders covers the bidding period 
of November 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025, and succeeds all prior 
published lists.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Group I

    BP America Production Company
    BP Exploration & Production Inc.

Group II

    Chevron Corporation
    Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
    Chevron Midcontinent, L.P.
    Unocal Corporation
    Union Oil Company of California
    Pure Partners, L.P.

Group III

    Eni Petroleum Co. Inc.
    Eni Petroleum US LLC
    Eni Oil US LLC
    Eni Marketing Inc.
    Eni BB Petroleum Inc.
    Eni US Operating Co. Inc.
    Eni BB Pipeline LLC

Group IV

    Equinor ASA
    Equinor Gulf of Mexico LLC
    Equinor USA E&P Inc.

Group V

    Exxon Mobil Corporation
    ExxonMobil Exploration Company

[[Page 87399]]

Group VI

    Shell Oil Company
    Shell Offshore Inc.
    SWEPI LP
    Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc.
    SOI Finance Inc.
    Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc.

Group VII

    Total E&P USA, Inc.

    Even if an entity does not appear on the above list, BOEM may 
disqualify and reject certain joint or single bids submitted by an 
entity if that entity is chargeable for the prior production period 
with an average daily production in excess of 1.6 million barrels of 
crude oil, its equivalent in natural gas, and natural gas liquids. See 
30 CFR 556.512.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6213; and 30 CFR 556.511-556.515.

Elizabeth Klein,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2024-25447 Filed 10-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4340-98-P
EXHIBIT 32.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Annual Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities
Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |    |  |                                       |  | 
|------------------------ |  | -- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: November 18, 2009 |  | By |  | /S/    JOHN F.
ADAIR                 
|                         |  |    |  | John F. Adair Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
U.S. Gieparlment of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Item We Energy

EEFE Home

Appliances Horne

About Standards

Laws & Regulations

Information Resources

Notices & Rules

Priority Setting

2006 Schedule Setting

Public W orkshops &

Hearings

State Petitions

Useful Links

Commercial Products

Residential Products

Battery Chargers &

External Power Supplies

Central Air Conditioners

& Heat Pumps

Clothes Dryers

Clothes Washers

Cooking Products

Dehumidifiers

Dishwashers

Furnaces & Boilers

General Service

Fluorescent

Incandescent Reflectors

Plumbing Products

Pool Heaters

Refrigerators ,5 Freezers

Room Air Conditioners

Small Duct, High Velocity

Air Conditioners

Water Heaters

Search Help t Mo re S^-arrii Options A

EERE Information Center

Dehumidifier Rulemaking

The Department held an informal public meeting on April 27, 2006, to discuss

and receive comments on issues to be addressed in the Framework Document

for establishing energy conservation standards for residential electric and gas

ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and

commercial clothes washers. The Department is also initiating the data

collection. Written comments on these subjects are encouraged and should be

received by May 11, 2006.

For information related to the April 27, 2006, meeting, visit the Horne

Appliances Public Meeting webpage.

Some of the [oliowing documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs.

Framework Document

Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and Residential

Dishwashers, 1 Dphit-nidifiers, and Cooking Products, March 15, 2006

(PDF 402 KB)

Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking

Notice of public workshop and availability of Fr ork Document,

Federal Register, March 27, 2006 (PDF 70 KB ,I = 2

Contact Information

Bryan_Berringer

Program Manager

(202) 586-0371

t5i Printable Version

Webmaster I Security & Privacy I Building Technologies Program Home I EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated : 04/28/2006

 EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 03.3
Summary of Comments on http://www.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance-standards/reside

Page: 1

Number: 1 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/4/2007 4:49:04 PM

See comment number 01.1

Number: 2 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/4/2007 4:42:02 PM

See comment number 01.2

 EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 03.3
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                     LOGIX COMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISES, INC.
                            EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                        (In thousands, except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997               1998               1999
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                <C>                <C>
Income (loss) before extraordinary items and cumulative effect of
  change in accounting principle ........................................  $         549      $     (38,801)     $    (100,956)
Extraordinary item ......................................................           (217)                --                 --
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle .....................             --               (699)                --
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
Net income (loss) .......................................................  $         332      $     (39,500)     $    (100,956)
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------

Basic net income (loss) per common share:

Weighted average common shares outstanding ..............................     71,250,000         71,250,000         71,250,000

Income before extraordinary items and cumulative effect of change
  in accounting principle ...............................................  $       0.008      $      (0.545)     $       (1.42)

Extraordinary item ......................................................  $      (0.003)     $      (0.545)                --
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle .....................             --             (0.009)                --
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
Basic net income (loss) per common share ................................  $       0.005      $      (0.554)     $       (1.42)
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
                                                                           -------------      -------------      -------------
</TABLE>
No. 80—2194.

#### The Pennsylvania Co. v. Henry Marshall.

This was an action on the case brought by appellee against appellant to recover damages for the death of his son, caused by being run over by a train of appellant’s railroad cars in the vicinity of Grove and 18th streets, in Chicago, through the alleged careless and negligent management of the train by defendant’s servants. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for §2,999. The evidence tended to show that the train consisted of twenty freight cars and an engine, and was something over 690 feet long - that the engine, instead of being at the head of the train, was in the rear pushing the train, and there was no flag or other signal at the approaching end of the train to warn passers-by of danger. The court is of opinion that the company was guilty of culpable negligence in backing a long train of cars through a busy part of the city, where people andtéams were constantly passing and repassing, without using special precautions, either by having a person stationed on the train or on *640the ground or in some other practicable way, to give warning of the approach of the train. Ho material error is perceived in the instructions as modified and given by the court, and the court is of opinion that the evidence supports the finding of the jury.

Judge below, Elliott Anthony.

Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Willard & Dbiggs;

for appellee, Mr. Moeton Culveb and Mr. Simon P. Douthabt.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.
Record of s~ ion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Mr. Douglas M. Lane 6/30/2015 

A4A Mr. Robert Ireland 7/28/2015 

Other/ Additional Information:
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Boyd Bros., *et al,*Appellants.

Transcript of Evidence: time op piling: liquor nuisance: prosecution BY COUNTY ATTORNEY: ATTORNEY PEES.

*Appeal from Story District Court.*— Hon. D. K. Hindman, Judge.

Wednesday, May 25, 1892.

Action in equity to restrain the defendants from maintaining a nuisance by keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. After a hearing on the merits, a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, as prayed. The defendants *appeal.*

Affirmed.

*J. F. Martin*and *Funson Sr Gifford,*for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

*741Robinson, C. J.

The decree of the district court was rendered on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1890. The plaintiff shows, hy an additional abstract, that the translation of the shorthand reporter’s notes was not filed in the office of the clerk of the district court until the sixth day of January, 1891. That was not in time to secure a trial *de novo*in this court. *Arts v. Culbertson,*78 Iowa, 13; *Kavalier v. Machula,*77 Iowa, 121.

Errors hare been assigned by the appellants, of which some have not .been noticed ;n argument, and others relate to the effect of the evidence, and cannot be considered. The only assignment which, by the .most liberal rule of practice, can be regarded as requiring attention is one which charges error in the court in taxing, as a part of the cost in favor of the attorney for the plaintiff, a fee of thirty-five dollars. The theory of the assignment is that such a fee cannot be taxed in eases prosecuted by the county attorney; but it was held in *State v. Douglas,*75 Iowa, 432, 434, that an attorney’s fee is taxable in such eases, as well as in those prosecuted by private citizens. „

No ground is shown for reversing the decree of the district court. It is therefore affirmed.