alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ15-12-000]


Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 6, 2015, Oncor Electric Delivery Company 
LLC submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate 
Changes, Effective March 20, 2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8bebdaabbb7969491969dab8d8888978a8cb89e9d8a9bd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de989b8c9d91b0b2b7b0bb8dabaeaeb1acaa9eb8bbacbdf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2015.

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08710 Filed 4-15-15; 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>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


The following lists all Infinium Software, Inc. subsidiaries:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                                     State of Organization
------------------                                     ---------------------

<S>                                                    <C>
INFINIUM SOFTWARE EUROPE, INC.                         Massachusetts, United States

INFINIUM CORP.                                         Massachusetts, United States

INFINIUM SOFTWARE ASIA/PACIFIC, INC.                   Massachusetts, United States

CORT DIRECTIONS, INC. dba                              Oregon, United States
INFINIUM SOFTWARE, CORT PAYROLL UNIT

CORT DEVELOPMENT, LLC                                  Oregon, United States

INFINIUM SOFTWARE LIMITED                              Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

INFINIUM HOLDINGS LIMITED                              Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

INFINIUM OPEN SYSTEMS LIMITED                          Kent, United Kingdom

INFINIUM SOFTWARE PROPRIETARY LIMITED (1)              Johannesburg, South Africa

INFINIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC.                           United States Virgin Islands

DOMAIN SOFTWARE, B.V. (1)                              Amsterdam
                                                       (Corporate seat)

INFINIUM SOFTWARE ASIA/PACIFIC, INC.                   Malaysia
(Malaysian branch)

INFINIUM BV                                            Gouda, Netherlands

INFINIUM ASP                                           Massachusetts, United States
</TABLE>

(1)  Inactive and in the process of being dissolved.
|   | 1. | I      am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Chanticleer      Holdings, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, a      periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the      Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains      financial statements. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,      and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer      for the periods presented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      1, 2009 | /s/ Michael D. Pruitt            |   |
|------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|             | Michael      D. Pruitt           |   |
|             | Chief      Executive Officer and |   |
|             | Chief      Financial Officer     |   |

----
#### *The Treasurers vs. The Ex’ors. M’Pherson. The same vs. the same.*

After the lapse of twenty years, the conditions of a Sheriff’s bond willbe presumed to have been performed.

*Before*O’Neall, J. *at Gittisonvitte Beaufort district, Spring*Term, 1841.

These were actions of the debt on the official bonds of Deveaux, Ford and Ferguson, former Sheriffs. They were brought to recover sums received by them for the State, and with which they were respectively charged on the books of the Treasury, more than twenty years before action brought. The only question made in the cases was *70whether, after a lapse of twenty years, performance of the duties, conditioned to be performed in an official bond, would be presumed. The presiding Judge held, that it would. The plaintiffs submitted to verdicts for the defendants and appealed.

Because the Court erred in deciding that, after a lapse of twenty years, performance of the duties conditioned to be performed, in an official bond, would be presumed.

Edwards, Solicitor, for the motion. Singleton, contra.

Curia, *per*

O’Neall J.

. We are satisfied with the decision of the Judge below. It has been again and again ruled;,that the presumption of performance of the condition, upon an official bond, from the lapse of time, will arise, as well as the presumption of payment of a money bond. It is no objection that the State is the party against whom the presumption is set up. It is'true, that the maxim *“nullum tern-pus occurrit*regi,” applies to the State, but by that I understand that the King, in England, and the State, here, cannot be barred by the statute, of limitations. A legal presumption is *not*set up as a statutory bar. It is a legal conclusion after the lapse of twenty years (without some countervailing proof,) that a fact then existed,- (which cannot now be proved,) sufficient to defeat the right of the State. Such as that the State, twenty years ago, granted a tract of land, or received the money charged on the books of the Treasury against Sheriffs, Ford and Ferguson. The motion is dismissed.

JOHN BELTON O’NEALL. .

We concur: J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler, D. L. Warlaw.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Shrlbg X. Lang 

county Attcmay 

Jefferson County 

Beauwat, Taaur 

Eem! sir: opinion 30. o-n19 

Rs: County Txrasurar*s 

Ua*lnitte salary, 

Jaficarson Coun 

A* 

Your lottar of Junr 28 propound the 

gua8tiona1 

is mtitlad to reoefva 0 

him to retain 
Hmorablo Shelby !c. Long. Jrge 2 

"The laet prsoedlng *edera Culau~ 0r 

daifarson County show tha County to hnva 

191,942 lnhebl&nk. The Couity Roasure? 

ha8 boa re8aivl~g uid ratalnlng pttr8mallY 

$*.OO par swnthealary from oh4 ReMsmut 

Navigation DI&rlot uadar tha provlslcaa 

of Artlolo 822l, as mtaadod. Aote 194l - 

b7tE Legialatura, P. 752, oh. 471, and 

$600.00 par m fra Ro8d Dl8trlat Ro. 1 

a8 pxovlded antler Art1018 3943-b, Y.A.C.S.” 

As stated in your lottar, the latest pr404dlng 

l%drml cansue applloabls to Jatf4rnon CoaBty shora th4 

Ch&Btl t0 hOV0 8 pO@atiOll Oi 192,942. (AttCWM) @4B4?41*4 

0plalon Ho. O-6499). 

Ia the 0888 of tMttw8t v. Iimrl8 County. 129 

5. % (2) S43 (ia whiah a-~~. 

rolt af error), the Qalvrlrtan Co&Fof ~Ci<~-Ap~ppt& 

b&or8 it the mxirpars crompensati3n allovmblr to the County 

hueaarer in Couutle8 of am8 t&n 190 000 pepalatlo& 

unQerthekm8exlstlngLgl936. Seotfon 19, Mtlole 

J9120, Vernan'B Aonotmted Civil Miatata8, &olamd that: 

~ovlslons o? this 3eatlon shell apply to 

ai?b 00m-d 113 680h 000nty in the st8te or h1a8 

bavlog a poptilation la 0x0888 of 0a4 huadred and 

nlaety (190,OW) thouti lnhabltsnti, 8eeardlrrg - 

to the lA8b preeedlag ~4d4r4lC4MU8." 

mlbwotlon (a) or !a8t1un,19. maprcr* pwldrd that 

thoCwaloolone?oCW~?tof aeh 8whCuantfaohall 44t4mlno 

annually the oalary to ba paid to thr County Treaoarar at’ 

8 reaomabla M sot tn arooad Thrao Thousand, Sir Hun4red 

(4~,600.00) Ddlaro per annamm. 

0thor provl8loa8 of tha offloers wluy 18~ 

(in 8oocdanoa with tha nquixument at the menbent 

to Sqtloa 61 of &rtlolo XVI of the ~onstltutlan) roqulrod 

thatall offlea* omgmuated oaananaual~l.uy beisla~, 

88oount for 8nd my into the Offloors* Saluy fund of 

the eouaty, all Ilass, ommiaslo~ and onqmaetiom of 

offloe othar than the 8818ry allowed thaa by law. 
. 

. .
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT


      THIS  ASSIGNMENT AND  ASSUMPTION  AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of
the 22nd day of June,  1999,  by and  between  AJAY  SPORTS,  INC.,  a  Delaware
corporation ("Ajay"),  and PRO GOLF INTERNATIONAL,  INC., a Delaware corporation
("PGI").

                                R E C I T A L S:

      A.  Ajay and PGI are parties to that certain Contribution Agreement
dated June 22, 1999 (the "Agreement").

      B. Pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Agreement,  Ajay has agreed to assign to
PGI, and PGI has agreed to assume,  all of Ajay's  right,  title and interest in
and to the Stock Purchase Agreement (as defined in the Agreement).

      C.  Ajay also has agreed to assign and PGI has agreed to assume the
rights and obligations of Ajay under that certain Sale of Assets Agreement
between State of the Art Golf, Inc. ("SOTA") and Ajay.

                                   AGREEMENTS

      In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties and
other good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

      1.    Assignment and Assumption . Ajay hereby assigns,  transfers and sets
            over to PGI, all of Ajay's  right,  title and interest in and to the
            Stock Purchase Agreement and SOTA Sale Agreement. PGI hereby assumes
            and agrees to pay,  perform and charge when due or when  required to
            be  performed  all of Ajay's  obligations  under the Stock  Purchase
            Agreement and the SOTA Sale Agreement.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Assignment and Assumption
Agreement to be executed by their respective  officers thereunto duly authorized
on the date first above set forth.

                                          PRO GOLF INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                          By: /s/ Robert R. Hebard
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Robert R. Hebard, Secretary

                                          AJAY SPORTS, INC.

                                          By: /s/ Thomas W. Itin
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Thomas W. Itin, President
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1388 CA 15-00498**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

SHELLEY CHMIEL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
ROCKWELL CONSTRUCTION, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS BROWNSTONE HOMES, ROBERT BRICELAND, INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ZELASKO CONSTRUCTION, INC., JRZ ARCHITECTURE, PLLC, JOHN ZYWICZYNSKI, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

--------------------------------------------------- ROCKWELL CONSTRUCTION, INC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V
EARTH DIMENSIONS, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROWN & KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (KENNETH A. KRAJEWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ZELASKO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (JENNA W. KLUCSIK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JRZ ARCHITECTURE, PLLC AND JOHN ZYWICZYNSKI.
PILLINGER MILLER TARALLO, LLP, SYRACUSE (JEFFREY D. SCHULMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JUSTIN S. WHITE, WILLIAMSVILLE, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (JUSTIN HENDRICKS OFCOUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFRESPONDENT.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered June 17, 2014. The order, among other things, denied in part the motions of defendants JRZ Architecture, PLLC, John Zywiczynski and Zelasko Construction, Inc., for summary judgment, and denied the motion of third-party defendant Earth Dimensions, Inc., for summary judgment. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is**-2- 1388 CA 15-00498**  unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42805

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

SANDY KEVIN NANNEY ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 678

Filed: October 28, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years with five years determinate for arson, and concurrent unified sentence of seven years with two years determinate for malicious injury to property

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defende r; Eric D. Fredericksen , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Sandy Kevin Nanney was found guilty of one count of arson in the third degree; two

counts of malicious injury to property (one a felony and one a misd emeanor); and a persistent

violator enhancement . Idaho Code §§ 18

- 804. 18

- 7001(2), 18

- 7001, and 19

- 2514 . The district

court sentenced Nanney to a unified sentence of thirty years with five years determinate for the

arson charge, and a concurrent unified sentence of seven years with two years determinate for the

malicious injury to property charges

. Nanney appeals asserting that the district court abused its

discretion by imposing excessive sentences.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. Ap p. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Nanney ’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affir med.
*Present*— Chancellors Hutson, Mathews and Rutledge.

JUNE, 1793.

#### John Murrell administrator of George Simmons, Jun. deceased *vs.*G. Greenland and John and George Parker.

Read for complainant — "Ward for defendants.

case ixxxv.

DECREE BOOK. p. 109.

Bond given hísa father’s debt, volun-without any fraud prac-teed on^TM> Court cor-error in the “co;.mt, but open the ac-8’ene‘

The *bill*was filed to obtain a perpetual injunction on a ^011^ alleged to have been obtained by the fraud and importunity of Greenland from a young man, on Ms com*nS °f agc, for a debt said to be due by his father’s estate on account, hut which was not justly due to Greenland. The defendant Greenland swore that the bond was obtained from G. Simmons the younger, fairly and without importunity, for a debt due by his father (whose estate he inherited) on an account which he knew and admitted to be justly due to him.

The defendant G. Parker swore that the bond was assigned to him for a valuable consideration: and that on applying to Mr. G. Simmons the obligor, for payment, he promised payment, and made no objection to the justice of the debt, though he complained of the indelicacy of Mr. Greenland in assigning the bond without his knowledge.

The court said that the only question was whether the bond should he set aside as obtained by fraud or imposition, and the account of Greenland opened and unra-velled. The court said that this ought not to be done in the present case, because it appeared from the testimony that the bond had been given voluntarily, and without imposition. That (though tho son had given his own bond for his father’s debt) there was no law which declares that a bond given voluntarily, and under no restraint, should be void. To he sure, if it were merely voluntary, it would be postponed to real debts, even simple contract debts. As, however, there was an ascertained error of 45Í. in the account on which the bond had been given, the court ordered that sum to he deducted from the principal of the bond, but refused to open the account generally, there being no proof of fraud or surprise in obtaining it. The balance of the bond and interest was or-' dered to be paid.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-907V 

 Filed: March 29, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

BETH NEMECHEK, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) 

   

Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner. 

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On July 5, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”) as a result 

of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 11, 2015. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On March 29, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth 

in the Vaccine Injury Table for compensation. Id. at 5. 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
 In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50267

Conference Calendar

 

DANNY LEON LUCAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-383

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Danny Leon Lucas (Texas prisoner #390541) appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without

prejudice for failure to comply with court orders; nevertheless,

he has failed to brief any issue for appeal. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Lucas has not briefed an
No. 96-50267

- 2 -

appealable issue. His appeal is deemed abandoned and is

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

We caution Lucas that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. 

To avoid sanctions, Lucas is further cautioned to review all

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.