alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Klinger v. McClaflin

*Joseph F.*Torsella, for plaintiff.

*Robert E. Bull,*for defendants.

March 9, 1978

MYERS, P.J.,

Plaintiff commenced the instant action before a district justice, who rendered a decision in plaintiffs favor on November 18, 1977. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on December 2, 1977. On that same date, the notice of appeal was mailed to plaintiff.

The notice was received by plaintiff on December 3, 1977. On December 23, 1977, plaintiff filed a complaint.

According to Pa.R.C.P. J.P. 1004B, if an appeal is filed by a defendant in an action before a district justice, the defendant “. . . shall file with his notice of appeal a praecipe requesting the prothonotary to enter a rule as of course upon the appellee to file a complaint within twenty (20) days after service of the rule or suffer entry of a judgment of non pros.”

Plaintiff asserts that “service” occurred when he received the notice of appeal on December 3, and that his complaint was therefore timely filed.

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that service took place on December 2, the date that the notice was mailed.

Defendants therefore maintain that plaintiffs complaint was filed on the 21st day after service, *626and that the complaint accordingly should be dismissed. Under the law, defendants’ position is clearly correct.

According to Pa.R.C.P. J.P. 1001(8), “[sjervice by ‘certified or registered mail’ means the *mailing*of properly addressed certified or registered mail.” (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 1001(8) thus necessarily implies that the date of mailing is the date on which service occurs. This conclusion is further supported by a statement which appears on the official Notice of Appeal form: “The date of service of this rule, if service was by mail, is the date of mailing.”

Furthermore, under Pa.R.C.P. J.P. 1001(9), proof of service made by mail does not require a return receipt. If service occurred on the date that the notice was received in the mail, a return receipt would obviously be necessary to establish proof of service.

Accordingly, we conclude that service of a notice of appeal from a judgment by a district justice takes place on the date of mailing. Plaintiffs complaint was therefore not timely filed, and it must be dismissed. Courts have repeatedly held that rules of limitation are mandatory and must be strictly enforced in order to promulgate effective and efficient administration of justice.

ORDER

And now, March 9, 1978, plaintiffs complaint shall be stricken due to untimely filing. The prothonotary is directed to enter a judgment of non pros.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Staff Attendance at South Carolina Regional 
Transmission Planning Meeting

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting of the South 
Carolina Regional Planning (SCRTP) Stakeholder Group, as noted below. 
Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    SCRTP March 30, 2015 (10 a.m.-1 p.m.), Old Santee Canal Park, 
Interpretive Center--Canal Room, 900 Stony Landing Drive, Moncks 
Corner, SC 29461. The facility's phone number is (843) 899-5200.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following 
proceedings:

Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & Light
Docket No. ER13-1930, Louisville Gas & Electric Company/Kentucky 
Utilities
Docket No. ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket No. ER13-1941, Southern Companies

The meeting is open to the public.
    For more information, contact Mike Lee, Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8658 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662b0f050e07030a482a0303260003140548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93defaf0fbf2f6ffbddff6f6d3f5f6e1f0bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07141 Filed 3-27-15; 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>
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) adopted pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Ashish Sharma, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on
Form 10-K of Inseego Corp.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.



Date: May 2, 2022



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ashish Sharma                                        
|Ashish Sharma                                            
|Chief Executive Officer
    (principal executive officer)
Exhibit 10.8

 

RITE AID CORPORATION 
 2010 OMNIBUS EQUITY PLAN

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2

 

WHEREAS, Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) has established the Rite Aid Corporation 2010 Omnibus Equity Plan (the “2010 Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the 2010 Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the amendment authority provided in Section 21 thereof, the 2010 Plan is hereby amended as set forth below.

 

1.             Paragraph (z) of Section 2 of the 2010 Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Qualifying Termination” shall mean a termination of employment by the Company other than for Cause or by the Participant with Good Reason.

 

2.             Effect on 2010 Plan.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the 2010 Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

 

3.             Effective Date.  The effective date of this Amendment No. 2 shall be January 16, 2013.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3000 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3000

 To prohibit proof of COVID-19 vaccination status as a requirement for 
   receiving assistance under a program funded by the Department of 
         Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2021

  Mr. Scott of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit proof of COVID-19 vaccination status as a requirement for 
   receiving assistance under a program funded by the Department of 
         Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINATION REQUIREMENT FOR 
              HUD FUNDING.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Federal agency, or a 
State or local government, as a condition of receiving funding from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, may not require an 
individual to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to receive 
assistance under any program funded by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development.
                                 <all>
```
#### Swavely v. Dick

*David Tulowitzki,*for plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Messina,*for defendant.

November 26, 1979

ABOOD, *J.,*

Rebecca Swavely gave birth to her daugher, Alicia, on August 16, 1974. On May 17, 1979, a complaint seeking support for the child was filed by Rebecca Swavely against Earl Dick, Jr. He denies paternity and has raised the statute of limitations by preliminary objection.

A letter written by defendant to plaintiff’s mother, wherein defendant stated that “Becky’s having my baby, ” has been introduced as an exhibit to the complaint to prove an acknowledgment of paternity. However the letter was dated July 22, 1974, several weeks before the birth of the child.

Therefore, has the statute of limitations run, thus barring the action and has it been properly raised by preliminary objections?

*498Ordinarily, a statute of limitations is considered an affirmative defense and should be pleaded under new matter. However there is a line of Pennsylvania cases that conclude that judicial economy advises considering the defense even if raised by way of preliminary objection. See, McDevitt v. Golin, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 409, 386 A. 2d 627 (1978); City of Phila. v. Shapp, _ Pa. Commonwealth Ct. _, 403 A. 2d 1043 (1979).

At the time Alicia Swavely was born (August 16, 1974) the controlling statute of limitations was two years and appeared in the Crimes Code, 18 C.P.S.A. §4323. This statute required all prosecutions for support to be brought within two years of the birth of the child, or within two years of (a) any voluntary contribution by the reputed father toward the support of the child; or, (b) an acknowledgment, in writing, of paternity.

This action for support has been brought by the plaintiff by the filing of a complaint on May 17, 1979. This date is not within two years of defendant’s acknowledging in writing that he is the father. The action is therefore barred by the statute of limitations.

The Judicial Repealer Act and/or the Judicial Code of 1978 does not save the action.

Accordingly, the following order is hereby entered.

ORDER

And now, November 26, 1979, the preliminary objections of defendant are hereby sustained and plaintiffs complaint is dismissed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Accesspoint, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended September, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene
Valentine, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                     ACCESSPOINT CORPORATION

                                     By /S/ Gene Valentine
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Gene Valentine,
                                        Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
                                        Officer and President
November 22, 2004

                                      19
**EXHIBIT 24**POWERS OF ATTORNEY
13

 
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**     **KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS**, that the undersigned director of **Home City FinancialCorporation**, an Ohio corporation, which is about to file with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, **an amendment to an Annual Report on****Form 10-KSB** for the fiscal year ended December 31,2005, hereby constitutes and appoints J. William Stapleton and Charles A. Mihal and each of them,as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of substitution andresubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign suchamendment to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB and any and all further amendments thereto, and to filethe same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and The Nasdaq Stock Market, granting unto each of saidattorneys-in-fact and agents, and substitute or substitutes, full power and authority to do andperform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises,as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying andconfirming all things that each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his or their substitute orsubstitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand this /s/21 day of April,2006.              /s/Glenn W. Collier   Glenn W. Collier               /s/Don E. Lynam   Don E. Lynam, Notary Public   In And for The State of Ohio
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-16115,  No. 333-16117,  No. 333-16121,  No.  333-44000,  No. 333-76631,  No.
333-93227,  and No. 333-68054 of InteliData Technologies Corporation on Form S-8
and in Registration Statements No. 333-85313,  No. 333-58202,  and No. 333-75146
of InteliData Technologies  Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated February
20,  2002,   appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  InteliData
Technologies Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------

McLean, Virginia
March 26, 2002
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2988 

To require any COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by Congress or an Executive agency to include informed parental consent for the administration 

of a COVID–19 vaccine to a minor, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require any COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by Congress or an Executive agency to include informed parental consent for the administration of a COVID–19 vaccine to a minor, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parental Consent for 

5 Vaccination Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2988 IS

1 SEC. 2. INFORMED PARENTAL CONSENT FOR COVID–19 

2 VACCINATION. 

3 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Execu4 tive agency’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

5 105 of title 5, United States Code. 

6 (b) REQUIREMENT.—Any COVID–19 vaccine man7 date issued by an Act of Congress or by an Executive 

8 agency shall require the written and informed consent of 

9 a legal guardian for the administration of a COVID–19 

10 vaccine to an individual under the age of 18 years old. 

11 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec12 tion shall be construed to allow for or otherwise authorize 

13 a COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by an Act of Con14 gress or by an Executive agency. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .

Agreement s Adopte d byth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n 

### OST-2012-.;003 5

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

BY TH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR T ASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D DOCKETOST-2012 . 003 5 ACTiO N DAT E ^/l^^*<£A t

^ / ^/^ ~ Thi s approval andgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , wher e applicable , to condition s previousl y imposed . Thir, actio n\-

i directiv e after

7 day s unle^- ; apetitio n i s file dunde r 14 CF R385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertakei i onth e Department' s ow nmotion . I nvie w o f th e agreement' s noncontrovei>:;a l natur e an dth e availability o f th e abov5,pnice4ure , th e 2*-d^u^srMjii.'' ^ ^F R303.4 2 i s waived . 

# ^—y ^ ,/4^. , )irector . Offic e o f

Intemzraona

l Aviatio n 

### 7 Marc h 201 2 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s E . Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n 177 6 K.St.N.W . #12 * Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 7, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00295

- CV

Gerald Kostecka, Appellant

v.

Smokey Mo ’ s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND S HANNON *

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on Febr uary 13, 2015 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the district court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s judgment and

remands the ca u se to the district cour t

. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal,

both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals , sitting by assignment.

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6365

JOHN PORTEE, JR., a/k/a John H. Portee, Jr.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (8:15-cv-00487-PMD)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Portee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Portee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Portee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1709

GENORA FLEMMINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VERIZON WIRELESS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (6:09-cv-02220-RBH)

Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Genora Flemmings, Appellant Pro Se. William H. Floyd, III, 

NEXSEN PRUET, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Genora Flemmings appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting Defendant’s motion for sanctions and dismissing the 

complaint for failure to comply with discovery orders. We 

affirm.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 

(4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins

; 

, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985) see also Thomas v. Arn . 

Flemmings has waived appellate review by failing to file

objections after receiving proper notice.

, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

t0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

143404 & (48)(49)

ESTATE OF ANTHONY B. LAGOS, through its Personal Representativ e, BASILE J. LAGOS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143404 COA: 296837 Washtenaw CC: 08-000669-NO WILLIAM DAVIS, III, and MAPLE VILLAGE SELF STORAGE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED and the motion to file a supplemental brief is DE NIED. The application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questi ons presented should be reviewed by this

Court.

H ATHAWAY , J., would grant leave to appeal.