alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Columbia County Highway Commission and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and another, Respondents.

*March 3*

April *1, 1930.*

*302For the appellants there was a brief by *Brown, Pradt & Genrich*of Wausau, and oral argument by *L. A. Pradt.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan*and *F. C. Seibold,*assistant attorneys general, and oral argument by *Mr. Seibold.*

Stevens, J.

The only question presented is whether the deceased was performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment at the time that he was killed.

Had the car belonged to the highway commission there *303would doubtless have been no question that the deceased was performing services within the scope of his employment while he was repairing and testing the car. He made the repairs on the premises of his employer, during the usual working hours. The car was as much a part of the equipment used by the highway commission in the transaction of its business as if the highway commission had owned the car or had secured its use by a formal contract of hiring.

The testing and repairing of machinery used in promoting the business of an employer is a service that is within the scope of the employment, regardless of the question whether the machine belongs to the employer or is merely used by it to transact its business. *Kingsley v. Donovan,*169 App. Div. 828, 155 N. Y. Supp. 801, 802; *Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Baking Co.*173 Minn. 414, 217 N. W. 491, 493.

The cases upon which the appellants rely are distinguished by the fact that the injuries there in question were sustained after the employee had left his employment and while he was upon his own premises after the close of work.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01142]



[[Page 3584]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP15-101-000, RP15-101-001]


Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Technical 
Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Thursday, 
February 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in a room to 
be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties 
to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for 
technical conference as established in the November 28, 2014 Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 149 FERC ] 61,188 
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6c7c5c5c3d5d5cfc4cfcacfd2dfe6c0c3d4c588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcdddfdfd9cfcfd5ded5d0d5c8c5fcdad9cedf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further 
information please contact Robert McLean at (202) 502-8156 or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1f222f283f3963002e01282c230d2b283f2e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcae939e998e88d2b19fb0999d92bc9a998e9fd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01142 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15375

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00373-HLA-JRK-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENJAMIN CAINE, 

a.k.a. Foolish,

a.k.a. Benji, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 27, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy N. DaCruz, appointed counsel for Benjamin Caine in this appeal of 

his revocation of supervised release and his resulting sentence, has moved to 

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to 

Case: 13-15375 Date Filed: 05/27/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Caine’s revocation and his resulting sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15375 Date Filed: 05/27/2014 Page: 2 of 2
No. 90-6154.

#### Cooper *v.*Stallman et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Shyue-Ching Lu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 17, 2004



By:

/s/ SHYUE-CHING LUName: Shyue-Ching LuTitle: Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1

. Kathy Pritchard

v. Jill Ruderman

Record No. 0024

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker

on December 20, 2022

Refused ( 230045 )

2. Aleksey Gennadiyev Yemel’Yanov

v

. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0450

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales

on January 10, 2023

Refused ( 230103)

3. Daniel Rock

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0343

- 22

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge Huff

on January 24, 2023

Refused ( 230142 )
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

:orJh!ll!li!Ji^ 

From: djzook@aol.com 

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:48 PM 

To: EAS(OST) -, .,. 

Subject: Altoona Blair County Airport 

Just wanted to give my two cents worth on the subject of carriers for the local airport. I fly infrequently 

but must say that being able to only go to Dulles for flight connections is problematic at best.The 

connecting flights are not nearly as good as the connections in Pittsburgh. 

I also think that rates that are charged as exorbitant. If the airline carrier is government subsidized 

why not reduce the fares to Dulles or Pittsburgh to encourage flyers to use the local airport instead of 

driving to State College or Pittsburgh or Baltimore to catch flights. There was a time when you could 

fly from here to Pittsburgh for $80 on USAir if you were using another USAir flight from that point. I 

think that may have even been the round trip fare. 

We really need to do something to keep our airport open and utilized. Cutting the number of flights, 

which are one point was about 7 per day and is now 3, doesn't exactly help matters either. Make the 

commuter fares basically cheap and encourage local people to use this airport and fly Colgan or 

whatever carrier serves us and to connect to United flights at other airports. It's a win-win! We should 

be having to add flights not canceling any more. 

I'm just not sure who is at fault. It is the carrier who doesn't provide more or the government for 

cutting funds or the airport for not encouraging people to fly out of here instead of driving greater 

distances to catch their commuters to hub cities. 

I was also curious about the reason for not considering the Gulfstream (I think) carrier which wants to 

provide flights to both DC and Pitts but we're no considering them because of baggage issues. Don't 

get that at all? Cheap flights both directions could bring in more riders which means more people 

going on to catch more flights at other airports, more business for the airport restaurant, etc. 

As I said, don't have the answers but kind of wondering if the authorities are asking the right 

questions? What is the goal? More riders. Better service. More flights. More income generated. Just 

wondering. 

Debbie Zook 

Martinsburg PA
32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, John L.  Castiglione,  Chief Executive  Officer of Viper Networks,  Inc. (the
"Small  Business  Issuer") do hereby  certify  pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code that:

     (1)  The Small Business  Issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
          ended  December  31, 2002 (the  "Report")  to which this  statement is
          filed as an exhibit,  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 Small Business Issuer.


By: /s/ John L. Castiglione                           Date: March 8, 2005
    ------------------------
    John L. Castiglione
    Chief Executive Officer
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

HIGH DESERT POWER PROJECT (HDPP) PSD PERMIT (SE 98-01)
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129

DOCKET INDEX

Docket Section or Item Date of Item FDMS

I. Documents Submitted by Applicant

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Gerardo Rios 4/6/04 √

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Gerardo Rios 9/20/06 √

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Deborah Jordan 12/5/07 √

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01, regarding Startup/Shutdown Provisions to Anita Lee 12/5/07 √

 Information to Support Request to Revise PSD Permit SE 98-01, including copy of Toshiba Turbine Operation
Instruction Manual and CEMS Monitoring Plan to Anita
Lee 4/7/08 √

 Email Response from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 4/22/08 √

 Email Response from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 4/25/08 √

 Information to Support Request to Revise PSD Permit SE
98-01 to Anita Lee 7/28/08 √

 Administrative Order of Consent to HDPP 10/31/08 √

 Email from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 9/25/09 √

II. California Energy Commiss ion (CEC) Documents

 Request for US EPA Concu rrence Regarding Two Air Quality Amendment Requests from Terrence O’Brien to
Deborah Jordan 10/26/07 √

 Staff Analysis of Proposed M odifications of Air Quality Conditions Relating to Source Test Intervals and Other Administrative Changes 4/8/08 √

III. Initial Permit Documents

High Desert Power Project
EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129High Desert Power Project
EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129  Initial PSD Permit (SE 98-01) 2/01 √

 Ambient Air Quality Impact Re port (NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01) 2/01 √

IV. Correspondence from EPA

 Response to CEC Request for US EPA Concurrence Regarding Two Air Quality Amendment Requests from
Gerardo Rios to Terrence O’Brien 1/10/08 √

V. Notice of the Proposed Draft Permit

 Cover Letter to HDPP re: proposed PSD permit 2/5/10 √

 Proposed PSD Permit Revision (SE 98-01) 2/10 √

 Statement of Basis and Appendix 1 and 2 2/10 √

 Public Notice 2/10 √

 Aviso al Publico 2/10 √
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Airmen, International Partners Attend 2018 Team Hickam First Sergeant Symposium

By Staff Sgt. Hailey R. HauxPacific Air Forces Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
COURT OF APPEAL S OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Benton, Cole man and Willis

DOMINIC MUSOLINO MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 21 85-98-1 PER CURIAM MAY 4, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT CO URT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A. Bonwill Sh ockley, Judge (Robert L. Samuel, Jr.; Michelle A. Hughes; Clark & Stant, P.C., on brief), for appellant. (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Siran S. Faulders, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Daniel J. Poynor, Assistant Attorney General; Cheryl A. Wilkerson, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Dominic Musolino appeals the decision of the circuit court affirming the determination by the Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) that allegations of sexual abuse, level one, by Musolino were founded. On appeal, Musolino contends that the trial court erred by determining that there was substantial evidence in the agency’s record to support the finding by clear and convincing evidence. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.

*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial

court. See Rule 5A:27. The standard of review of an agency's factual findings on appeal to a circuit court is limited to determining whether substantial evidence in the agency record supports its decision.

See Code § 9-6.14:17; Turner v. Jackson , 14 Va. App. 423, 429-30, 417 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1992). On appeal, we do not disturb factual findings if credible evidence supports them.

See James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co. , 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). "The reviewing court may reject the agency's findings of fact only if, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a different conclusion." Johnston-Willis, Ltd. v. Kenley , 6 Va. App. 231, 242, 369 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1988). DSS found, among other things, that, beginning the morning after the alleged sexual abuse incident, the child’s mother observed a red mark on the child’s cheek; the child displayed regressive behavior; the child told her mother that Musolino forced his penis into her mouth and told her to suck it, then struck her when she refused; and the child “consistently related the sexual abuse.” The record supports the agency’s finding that the four-year-old child described the incident consistently to her mother, the DSS worker, and a detective. The limited physical evidence and the mother’s testimony were also- 3 - consistent with the child’s description of events. At no time did the child suggest that someone other than Musolino was the perpetrator. Therefore, because the record does not necessarily lead to a conclusion different than that found by the agency, we affirm the decision of the circuit court denying Musolino’s petition for review. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7930

JAMES WESLEY CONYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; THOMAS C.

RUFFINO, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CA-95-51-2)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Katherine Nicholson, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Conyers v. North

Carolina Attorney General, No. CA-95-51-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 25,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 May 30, 2018 a0523

Order 

Clerk

May 30, 2018

156409

In re Estate of EDWARD SADORSKI, SR.,

Deceased.

____________________________________

ANN SADORSKI,

Appellant,

v SC: 156409

COA: 332416

Macomb Probate Court: 

KAREN MAHER, EDWARD SADORSKI, JR., 2014-214780-DE

KENNETH SADORSKI, and 

ESTELLE SADORSKI,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Donna M. Klampfer, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 540 C.D. 2017

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2018, it is ordered that the abovecaptioned opinion filed on February 1, 2018, shall be designated OPINION, rather 

than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.
ex10two.htm


 


 










EXHIBIT 10.2




 


Contract Agreement: Specialty Contractors, Inc., and Charles Bartlett







Specialty Contractors, Inc., referred to as CONTRACTING PARTY, and Charles Bartlett, referred to as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, agree:







INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR shall perform the following services for CONTRACTING PARTY: General management and advice at the following rate of pay: $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 per year month.







This agreement shall begin on February 20, 2010 and shall terminate on December 31, 2011, unless earlier terminated.







Contracting Party may terminate this contract on 5 days notice to Independent Contractor for unsatisfactory performance.







THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING SERVICES. THE CONTRACTING PARTY PROVIDES NO BENEFITS SUCH AS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HEALTH INSURANCE OR WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.







CONTRACTING PARTY IS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL TOOLS AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE TASKS AGREED TO.







INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL INCOME TAXES.







Dated: February 20, 2010












/s/  Charles Bartlett




______________________________


Specialty Contractors, Inc.












/s/  Charles Bartlett




______________________________


Charles Bartlett
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130171 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JOHN DOE, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 130171 COA: 262274 Wayne CC: 04-413937-NZ DIOCESE OF LANSING, BISHOP CARL F. MENGELING, BISHOP JAMES MURRAY, ARCHDIOCESE OF SANT A FE, ARCHBISHOP MICHAEL JAROBE SHEE HAN, ROBERT F. SANCHEZ, f/k/a ARCHBISHOP ROBERT F. SANCHEZ, THE SERVANTS OF THE PARACLETE, ARCHBISH OP OF DETROIT, CARDINAL ADAM JOSEPH MAIDA, BISHOP THOMAS GUMBLETON, and JASON B. SIGLER, f/k/a FATHER JASON B. SIGLER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , W EAVER

, and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

t0427 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 4, 2006

Clerk
No. 91-5450.

#### Hitchcock *v.*Florida,

*ante,*p. 912. Respondent is requested to file a response to the petition for. rehearing within 30 days.