alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gilman vs. Thiess and another.

In causes tried by the court upon issues of fact, the party filing exceptions must make them so specific and certain as to show whether upon appeal he desires to review the judge’s finding of facts, or his conclusions of law thereon, or both.

When there are several facts found, or conclusions of law stated, the exception should also show to which one of them objection is made. Per Dixon, C. J.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Sheboygan*County.

Ejectment. The judge, in his finding, stated separately the facts found and his conclusions of law thereon, and directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a general exception “ to the decision of the judge.” Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed.

*J. A.*Bentley, for appellants.

*Jason*Downer, for respondent.

*By the*Court,

DixoN, C. J.

In causes tried by the court upon issues of fact, the statute provides for two classes of exceptions; the one to the facts found by the judge, where a review of the facts is desired ; the other to his conclusions of law thereon, where such conclusions are thought to be erroneous. The party desiring to appeal may file his exceptions within one or the other of these classes, or both. Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 13. We have no hesitation in laying it down as a sound rule of practice under this statute, that the party filing exceptions must make them so specific and certain as to show to which class they belong — whether upon appeal he desires to review the facts, or the judge’s conclusions of law thereon, or both. No doubt correct practice would in general require the party excepting to be more specific than this even, and when there are several facts found, or several conclusions of law, to specify to which finding of fact or conclusion of law objection is taken. This is necessary in order to apprise the opposite party of the objection to be urged in the appellate tribunal, which is one Very important office of *529an exception, especially one taken after the trial and decision. Otherwise the counsel might discuss one point in the court below, and come here to reverse the judgment upon another and quite a different point, not made there, and perhaps not then discovered, and not indicated at all by the exceptions. But whether this last proposition be true or not, we feel no doubt about the former. *Taft v. Kessel,*16 Wis., 273. It must appear from the exceptions whether the appellant comes here to review the facts or the law. This was an issue of fact tried by the court, and the exceptions are bad within the latter rule, and raise no question for our decision, except upon the form of the exceptions themselves. They are in these words : “The defendants except to the decision of ihe judge upon the trial of the above entitled action.” It would be impossible to express exceptions in language more indefinite and uncertain. The judgment must be affirmed, since we cannot examine the merits to determine whether any error has intervened or not.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7570

KENNETH LEE HUCKABEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN CHIP STEVENSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-03503-MGL)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Huckabee, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Huckabee seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Huckabee that failure 

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

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. Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985). Huckabee has waived appellate review by failing 

to timely file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss 

the appeal. 

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
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00280

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 00280\00280_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00280\00280_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00280\00280_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00280\00280_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00280\00280_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00280\00280_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00280\280_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

00280\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\280_ A5-2 MAP-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00280\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\280_ A5-2 MAP-2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00280\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\280_ A5-2 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00280\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\280_ D3-1 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00280\00280Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00280\00280_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
# C_2015123EN.01000601.xml

| 17.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7480 — Actavis/Allergan)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 123/02)

On 16 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7480. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7480. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131469 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131469 COA: 258821 Oakland CC: 2004-196385-FC ONDRE QUINTRELL HULING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**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 Annual Report of Cardima, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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 24, 2007*
              
              */s/
                Gabriel B. Vegh*
              
              *Gabriel
                B. Vegh*
              *Chairman,
                Chief Executive Officer, and Acting Chief Financial Officer*
12/13/2011 12:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS @1001/001 

November 22, 2011 

Federal Aviauon Adminisirauon 

Attcniion: Hearing Docket Cleric, AGO-430 

Wilbur Wrichl Building - Suite 2 Wl 000 

800 Independaice Avenue SW 

Wflshingion, DC 20591 

To Whom ll May Concern: .^^//-/ » 

V zc :i=-. 

•>-,- ! 

-- ;=soQ 

;y:i 

Please accept this compiaint as Joseph Moesser's request tor a hearing. This 

request is in response to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penally dated November 15, 

2011. The FAA case number a-ssocialed with this request is 201ONM720001. Please 

nrail any notices lo Ihc below: 

Joseph Moesser 

3944 S. 2200 W. 

West ValIevCit\'. Ur84II9 1--

•::::VFn 

Gregory- G. Skordas 

SKORDAS, CASTON & H>T)F, LLC 

341 So. Main Street, Suite 303 

Salt Lake City, LTK^ni 

Telephone: (801)531-7444 

Facsimile. (801K531-8885 

Sincerely, '^^rV^ ' L- /jn^ 

Joseph Moesser 

With Copy To: 

Jeffre>' M. Harper 

Federal Aviation Administration 

OlTice of Regional Counsel - ANM-7 

Northwest Mountain Region 

1601 Lind Avenue, Southwest 

Renion, WA 98057
NUMBER 13-16-00367-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

KELLY Y. GARNER, Appellant,

v.

TERRY J. WEEKS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant’s brief in the above cause was due on September 16, 2016.

1

 On

September 26, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been 

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 
2

timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of 

receipt of the Court’s letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee 

was not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. To date, no 

response has been received from appellant. 

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain the failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b)(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

8th day of December, 2016.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

21-1558

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME (USA) IN ENGLAND,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

TJAC WATERLOO, LLC; ZVI CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC,

Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on September 13, 2022, is 

amended as follows:

On the cover page, replace "John A. Tarantino, with whom 

Nicole J. Benjamin and Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C. were on brief, 

for appellee." with "Nicole J. Benjamin, with whom John A. 

Tarantino and Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C. were on brief, for 

appellee."
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 21.1

                   Corporate Organization of NCO Group, Inc.

NCO Group, Inc.
Pennsylvania corporation

                           Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

NCO Financial Systems, Inc.
Pennsylvania corporation
also doing business as "The Sentry Group" and "American Financial
Enterprises - Collection Division"

NCO Funding, Inc.
Delaware corporation

Management Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
New York corporation

NCO Teleservices, Inc.
Pennsylvania corporation also doing business as "The Response
Center"

NCO Financial Systems of MI, Inc.
Michigan corporation

CRWF Acquisition, Inc.
Pennsylvania corporation doing business as "CRW Financial"

K&K Acquisition, Inc.
Pennsylvania corporation doing business as "Kaplan & Kaplan"

NCO Financial Systems of NC, Inc.
North Carolina corporation

Goodyear & Associates, Inc.
North Carolina corporation

Advantage Financial Services, Inc.
an Ohio corporation

Advantage Southeast, Inc.
a Tennessee corporation

American Transportation Services Bureau, Inc.
an Ohio corporation


<PAGE>



Credit Acceptance Corporation
a Pennsylvania corporation

CRW California, Inc.
a Delaware corporation

CRW Texas, Inc.
a Delaware corporation

CC Services, Inc.
a Delaware corporation
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Name                        State of Organization     Percentage Owned
          ----                        ---------------------     ----------------
<S>                                  <C>                        <C>
Odd-Job Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware                  100%

Odd-Job Acquisition Corp.                 Delaware                  100% (1)

ZS Peddlers Mart, Inc.                    Delaware                  100% (2)

Odd Job Trading Corp.                     New York                  100% (2)

HIA Trading Associates                    New York                  100% (3)

VCM, Ltd.                                 Ohio                       50%
</TABLE>


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

(1)    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Odd-Job Holdings, Inc.
(2)    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Odd-Job Acquisition Corp.
(3)    General Partnership with Odd-Job Acquisition Corp.
                and Odd Job Trading Corp. as partners.



                                       47
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6407

LEONARD H. ARLINE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

L. KELLY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00261-HEH)

Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard H. Arline, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leonard H. Arline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arline 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWERS OF ATTORNEY
                               MAZEL STORES, INC.

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that MAZEL STORES, INC., an Ohio
corporation, and each person whose name is signed below hereby constitutes and
appoints Reuven Dessler, Brady Churches and Sue Atkinson, and each of them,
their attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for and on behalf of Mazel Stores, Inc. and the undersigned
directors and/or officers of Mazel Stores, Inc., and each of such directors and
officers, to sign the Mazel Stores, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2000, and any and all amendments thereto, and
related documents, and to file the same, with Exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting such attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary in connection with
such matters and hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact
and agents or their substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

         This Power of Attorney of Mazel Stores, Inc., and the directors and
officers of Mazel Stores, Inc. may be executed in multiple and counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing
it.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed this 10th day
of April 2000.

                MAZEL STORES, INC.  By: /s/ Reuven Dessler
                                       -------------------
                                       Reuven Dessler,
                                       Chairman of the Board and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS:

 /s/ Reuven Dessler                    /s/ Brady Churches
----------------------                ------------------------------------
Reuven Dessler,                        Brady Churches
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer

 /s/ Jacob Koval                       /s/ Jerry Sommers
----------------------                ------------------------------------
Jacob Koval                            Jerry Sommers

 /s/ Ned L. Sherwood                   /s/ Charles Bilezikian
----------------------                ------------------------------------
Ned L. Sherwood                        Charles Bilezikian

 /s/ Robert Horne                      /s/ Phillip Cohen
----------------------                ------------------------------------
Robert Horne                           Phillip Cohen

 /s/ Mark Miller                       /s/ Sue Atkinson
----------------------                ------------------------------------
Mark Miller                            Sue Atkinson
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                       (Principal Accounting Officer)

                                       46
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00036-CR 

 

LUCIO DELOSSANTOS-NARVAEZ, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. DC-2021-CR-0752 (Counts I & II), 

Honorable John J. “Trey” McClendon III, Presiding 

July 19, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant Lucio Delossantos-Narvaez appeals his convictions for continuous 

sexual abuse of a child1 and indecency with a child.2 The appellate record has been filed 

and Appellant’s brief is presently due July 21, 2022. Now pending before this Court is the 

motion to withdraw of Appellant’s appointed counsel, Mike Brown. Brown requests that 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b).

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1).
2

we permit him to withdraw due to health issues and to direct the trial court to appoint new 

counsel. We abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine (1) whether Appellant still desires to 

prosecute the appeal; (2) whether to grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw; and

(3) whether Appellant is indigent and entitled to appointment of new counsel. See TEX.

CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(d)(1), 26.04; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(g). If the trial court 

grants the motion to withdraw and appoints Appellant new counsel, the name, address, 

email address, phone number, and state bar number of any newly appointed counsel 

shall be included in the Court’s findings. The trial court may also enter such orders 

necessary to address the aforementioned questions. The trial court’s findings and any 

orders issued shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record filed with this Court by 

August 18, 2022. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.