alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In Re Harting

*Parker and Sheidy,*for exceptants.

*Joel C. Meredith,*contra.

October 26, 1976

BUCHER, *J.,*

This is a child custody case in which exceptions have been filed by petitioner to a bill of costs filed by respondent. The order granting custody to respondent imposed costs on petitioner.

The only issue raised in petitioner’s brief is whether witness fees are taxable when the witness has not been subpoenaed but nevertheless is in attendance and testifies.

*174Petitioner relies on the Act of July 21, 1941, P. L. 425, 28 P. S. §416.1, which provides in section 8 that “[a]ll compensation properly paid in accordance with the provisions of this act to witnesses in any proceeding shall be taxable as costs therein”, and section 1 which defines “witness” as a “witness subpoenaed to testify . . .”

The question before the court has not been precisely ruled on by any of our appellate courts.

In Segmiller’s Estate, 49 D. & C. 105 (1943), the court allowed witness fees for a witness not subpoenaed but who attended and testified.

In Capozzola & Kent v. D'Isidoro, 29 Northamp. 211 (1944), it was said that “the general rule as to costs is that a witness is entitled to fees allowed by law if he attends and is examined without having been subpoenaed, or if he is subpoenaed and attends without being examined.” Capozzola was cited in a footnote in Fife v. The Great A. & P. Tea Company, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 110, 82 A.2d 271 (1951).

In Walker v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 80, 29 A.2d 358 (1942), the court declined to pass on the question of whether a witness who voluntarily appears, without subpoena, and testifies is entitled to witness fees. Walker simply disallows witness fees where the witness is voluntarily in court, not subpoenaed and not called.

In 5 Standard Pa. Pract. §83, 248, it is said that: “A witness who attends court and testifies, although not in response to a subpoena, may nevertheless be entitled to a witness fee.”

In Barton v. Johnson, 85 D. & C. 363 (1953), witness fees were allowed material witnesses who testified without having been subpoenaed. The *175court said: “We believe the instant question is simple of solution. The trial court has supervision of the taxation of costs. This affords the party liable for costs an opportunity to show that witnesses taxed did not attend or did not testify or were not material. We have no hesitation in holding that witnesses who attend, without subpoena, and testify are presumably material witnesses.”

The witnesses who appear on the amended bill of costs were present, testified and their testimony was material.

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, October 26, 1976, for the foregoing reasons the exceptions to respondent’s bill of costs are overruled and dismissed and costs on the amended bill of costs are allowed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07088]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board

    The National Science Board's Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF 
regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference 
for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

DATE and TIME:  Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 10:30-11:30 a.m. EDT.

SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman's remarks and discussion of legislative 
issues.

STATUS: Closed.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference. Please refer to the 
National Science Board Web site www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional 
information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status 
of meeting) which may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. 
Point of contact for this meeting is James Hamos at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87edefe6eae8f4c7e9f4e1a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d17151c10120e3d130e1b531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

Suzanne Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015-07088 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16728-16729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07179]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2., that the Advisory 
Committee on Women Veterans will meet on May 19-21, 2015, in Room 930, 
at VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 
until 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday and end at 3:00 p.m. on 
Wednesday. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs regarding the needs of women Veterans with respect to health 
care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach, and other programs and 
activities administered by VA designed to meet such needs. The 
Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such 
programs and activities.
    The agenda will include updates from the Veterans Health 
Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and Staff 
Offices, as well as updates on recommendations from the 2012 and 2014 
Reports of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.
    No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral 
presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide 
written comments for review by the Committee to Ms. Shannon L. 
Middleton, VA, Center for Women Veterans (00W), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20420, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16262641567b777f7a38607738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="655555322508040c094b13044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax to (202) 273-
7092. Any member of the public who wishes to attend the meeting or 
wants additional information should contact Ms. Middleton at (202) 461-

[[Page 16729]]

6193. Because the meeting will be in a Government building, anyone 
attending must be prepared to show a valid photo I.D. Please allow 15 
minutes before the meeting begins for this process.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Jelessa Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-07179 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered October 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01347
- CR
SANTOS ADRIAN ARMIJO , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1354294
- J 

### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s September 26, 2013 motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed on September 25, 2013 is considered timely for jurisdictional purposes. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 26.3.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Ocean West
Holding Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report) that to his knowledge:  1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: February 18, 2005/s/ Marshall L. StewartMarshall L. StewartPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 18, 2005/s/ Wayne K. BaileyWayne K. BaileyChief Financial Officer 16
STATE OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154862, 154886

v COA: 335947

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JILL STEIN,

Intervening Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154868, 154887

v COA: 335958

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JILL STEIN,

Intervening Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

Statement of Justice Larsen Granting Intervening Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to 

Disqualify

December 8, 2016
LARSEN, J. I grant the motions to disqualify myself from participation in Attorney 

General v Bd of State Canvassers (Docket Nos. 154862 and 154886) and Trump v Bd of State 

Canvassers (Docket Nos. 154868 and 154887). I do not do so lightly. Justices of this Court are 

obligated “to remain on any case absent good grounds for recusal.” Adair v Michigan, 474 Mich 

1027, 1040-1041 (2006) (statement by TAYLOR, C.J., and MARKMAN, J.). The citizens of 

Michigan elect the Justices to resolve the complex disputes that reach the Supreme Court, and we 

must not shrink from that duty. In the lower courts, a recused judge is replaced by a substitute. 

In our Court, a recusal leaves the Court shorthanded and, therefore, “deprives the public and 

litigants of the full collegial body that they have selected as the state’s court of last resort.” Id. at 

1040. Nonetheless, I conclude that the unique circumstances of this case demand my recusal.

Before the November 8, 2016 election, now President-elect Donald J. Trump, or his 

campaign, included me on a list of 21 possible nominees to fill the vacancy on the United States 

Supreme Court created by the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. I did not seek 

inclusion on the list, had no notice of my inclusion before its publication, and have had no 

contact with the president-elect, or his campaign, regarding the vacancy. Yet the president-elect 

and his surrogates have repeatedly affirmed his intention to select someone from the list to fill 

the vacancy. 

My appearance on the president-elect’s list and his presence as a party in these cases 

creates a conflict requiring my disqualification. Accordingly, I grant the motions for 

disqualification.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2016

No. 04-16-00002-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.W.,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM504960

Honorable Nick Catoe, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant's motion for reconsideration of denial of oral 

argument, and the motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on November 30, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                               Jurisdiction of     Percentage
Name of Subsidiary                             Incorporation       Ownership
------------------                             -------------       ---------

International Wireless Communications, Inc.    Delaware, USA            100%
IWC Delaware Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware, USA            100%
International Wireless Communications          Bermuda                  100%
Latin America Holdings, Ltd.
International Wireless Communications          Netherlands              100%
Asia Holdings, B.V.
International Wireless Communications          Netherland Antilles      100%
Asia Holdings, N.V.
IWC Pakistan Ltd.                              Mauritius                100%
IWC China Ltd.                                 Mauritius                100%
IWC Mauritius Holdings Ltd.                    Mauritius                100%
New Zealand Wireless Limited                   Cook Islands             100%
Corporacion Mobilcom, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico                   2.2%
PeruTel S.A.                                   Peru                    98.7%
Promociones Telefonicas S.A.                   Peru                    66.0%
Servicos de Radio Comunicacoes Ltda.           Brasil                   100%
Pelot Telecomunicacoes  Do Sul Ltda.           Brasil                   100%
M/S Mobilcom (Pte) Ltd.                        Pakistan                 100%
Star Telecom Overseas(Cayman Islands) Limited  Cayman Islands          70.0%
RPG Paging Service Limited                     India                   13.3%
Star Digitel Limited                           Hong Kong               40.0%
TeamTalk Limited                               New Zealand              100%
Wireless Data Services Limited                 New Zealand             50.0%
PT Rajasa Hazanah Perkasa                      Indonesia               28.3%
PT Mobile Selular Indonesia                    Indonesia               19.8%
PT Mobilkom Telekomindo                        Indonesia               15.0%
Syarikat Telefon Wireless (M) Sdn Bhd          Malaysia                30.0%
Universal Telecommunications Service, Inc.     Philippines             19.0%
Singapore Wireless Communications (Pte) Ltd.   Singapore                100%
Taiwan Mobile Communications Corporation       Taiwan                  20.0%




                              Page 124 of 124 pages.
# C_2016233EN.01000701.xml

| 28.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 June 2016

(2016/C 233/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0998 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,80 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4370 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83400 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4050 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0736 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4045 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,151 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 318,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4619 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5160 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2386 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4857 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4350 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5325 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5569 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4955 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 302,91 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8551 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3108 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5195 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 733,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5147 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,984 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,7922 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,839 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7430 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9644 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,7365 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0998

JPY

Japanese yen

111,80

DKK

Danish krone

7,4370

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83400

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4050

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0736

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4045

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,151

HUF

Hungarian forint

318,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4619

RON

Romanian leu

4,5160

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2386

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4857

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4350

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5325

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5569

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4955

KRW

South Korean won

1 302,91

ZAR

South African rand

16,8551

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3108

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5195

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 733,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5147

PHP

Philippine peso

51,984

RUB

Russian rouble

71,7922

THB

Thai baht

38,839

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7430

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9644

INR

Indian rupee

74,7365

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the Report) of Moventis Capital, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006, Walter Kloeble, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                         |                        
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         |                        
|Dated: February 20, 2007 | /s/ WALTER KLOEBLE     
|                         | Walter Kloeble,        
|                         |                        
|                         | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GARY COSTNER,

vs. WABA8992 TRUST, Appellant, Respondent. No. 84202



# FILED MAR 1 5 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying motions in a matter arising in justice court. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tara D. Clark Newberry, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. The district courts have final appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the justice courts. Nev, Const. art. 6, § 6; see also Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969). Accordingly, this court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and therefore

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Silver
Cadish Pickering 

# PiekA

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (I )) I 947A 0 7 - 

### ago20q

### cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Gary Costner WABA8992 Trust Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

oç NEVADA 10) 1V47A
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

March 23, 2016 

# Order

Clerk March 23, 2016

150695 (126)

In re APPLICATION OF MICHI GAN ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

TRANSMISSION LINE

_________________________________________

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO,

Appellant,

SC: 150695

v COA: 317893

MPSC No.: 00

- 017041

MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

COMPANY

, LLC,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of appellee Michigan Public Service

Commission to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before March 25, 2016.
EXHIBIT
      32.2









In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oasys Mobile, Inc.  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Tracy T. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
      (d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:      
May
              15, 2006
            /s/ Tracy
              T.
              JacksonTracy T. JacksonChief Financial
              Officer
# C_2014203EN.01000401.xml

| 1.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/4

---

Special Report No 11/2014

‘The establishment of the European External Action Service’

2014/C 203/04

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2014 ‘The establishment of the European External Action Service’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30401

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM WOODFOLK, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ORMET PRIMARY ALUMINUM

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC Docket No. 99-CV-77-B

August 22, 2001

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Woodfolk, Jr., appeals an adverse summary judgment in his action

against hisformer employer, Ormet PrimaryAluminumCorporation. Our review of the
2

record, briefs, and controlling jurisprudence persuades that the trial court committed

no error in its ruling. Accordingly, on the facts as found, authorities cited, and reasons

assigned by the district court in its careful and comprehensive Ruling on Motion for

Summary Judgment signed on February 22, 2001 and docketed and entered February

23, 2001, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference to our reserve
reports for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, each of which is
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ultra Petroleum Corp. for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

                                      NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                      By: /s/ Frederic D. Sewell
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Frederic D. Sewell
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dallas, Texas
March 5, 2004