alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Cecil D. Rouse, II,

PIaintiff(s),

vs.

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant(s).

Case Number: I:I7cv7I6

Judge Susan J. DIott

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United StatesMagistrate

Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on December 6, 2018 (Doe. 14), to whom this case was

referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting thatno objections have been filed thereto and

that the time forfiling suchobjections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired December 20,2018,

hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, defendant's decision is AFFIRMED assupported by the substantial

evidence. This case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Susan J. Dl^t

United States Distriet Court
No. 1075.

#### Ostendorff *v.*Brown.

April Term, 1881.

The rule laid down in *Ivy*v. *Clawson,*14 *S. C.,*on page 272, approved; but where, in an action for foreclosure, the case, by consent, is put upon calendar 1, to be submitted generally to a jury, and the judge orders foreclosure and sale upon the force alone of the verdict, this court will not disturb the judgment on this ground.

2. The Circuit Court may order the sale to be made within six months from the date of the order. Chapter CXVI., Section 2, of General Statutes, page 536, has no application to this case.

3. Since the masters’ act of March 22d, 1878, (16 *8tat.*609), all sales in the counties therein named, ordered by the court in equity cases, must be made by the master.

4. This action was by an assignee, and the Circuit judge excluded testimony offered by defendant as to the *relationship*between plaintiff and his assignor. Fraud in the original contract was alleged in the answer, but no charge was made against *617tbe plaintiff, and there was nothing in the case to show what *relationship*was meant. *Held,*that this court could not say that the-Circuit judge was in error.

September 12th, 1881.

*W. M. Thomas,*for appellant. *W. E. Klein,*contra.

5. The judge’s charge having probably induced the jury to believe that the assignee was not affected by the equities existing between his assignor and the defendant, a new trial was ordered. Opinion by

McGowan, A. J.,
Exhibit 32.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES
           EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
               OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the
"Company")on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
J. Dyson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.

/s/ Patrick J. Dyson
--------------------
Patrick J. Dyson
Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4214 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4214

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ROY WILSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roy Wilson 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4214

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson 
                             Post Office''.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1

                             ZORAN CORPORATION
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                    ----------------------------------
                                                      1994         1995         1996
                                                    --------     --------     --------
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding             1,015        2,391        8,802
Convertible Preferred Stock (2)                        2,027        1,520          -
Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants
  based on the treasury stock method (2)                 -          1,724        1,859
Cheap stock (2)                                        4,094        2,762          -
                                                    --------     --------     --------
Weighted average common shares and
  equivalents                                          7,136        8,397       10,661
                                                    --------     --------     --------
                                                    --------     --------     --------

Net income (loss)                                   $ (4,895)    $    948     $  2,363
                                                    --------     --------     --------
                                                    --------     --------     --------

Net income (loss) per share                         $  (0.69)    $   0.11     $   0.22
                                                    --------     --------     --------
                                                    --------     --------     --------

</TABLE>

(1)  This exhibit should be read in conjunction with "Significant Accounting
     Policies - Net income (loss) per share" in Note 2 of the Notes to the
     Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2)  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
     Common Stock, Preferred Stock and common equivalent shares issued
     during the twelve months prior to the initial public offering are
     included in the computation for all periods presented.
FW: Questions on OG&E's cost estimates

Benham, Ford to: Joe Kordzi 02/11/2010 04:18 PM

Cc: "Warden, Lee", "Shoop, Kimber", "Charles T. Wehland", Kristin 

Parker

History: This message has been forwarded.

Mr. Kordzi,

Please find the attached email containing answers to the your questions posed to Cheryl Bradley. Please

let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ford Benham

Air Quality Supervisor

OG&E Power Supply Services

Phone: (405)553-3221

Email: benhamrf@oge.com

From: Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:48 PM

To: Bradley, Cheryl

Cc: Donaldson.Guy@epamail.epa.gov; Snyder.Erik@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Questions on OG&E's cost estimates

 

Hi Cheryl,

We have completed a preliminary review of the OG&E cost estimate. Would you please address the 

following questions as soon as you can?

The depreciable life of 20 years seems too short for dry FGD scrubbers along with SDA and FF. Why is 

this not higher?

What is the basis for assuming a 2.5% inflation rate? Also, why is there an inflation rate included in the 

capital cost estimates, but the levelized capital charges are defined as real? 

Why are the debt and equity return included as part of the total capital charge estimate? The capital 

recovery is only half of the total capital charge (Table B-5 in report). Are the debt and equity returns 

based on real rates? What is the basis for these return estimates? What is the formula for estimating 

these returns and the total capital charge as used in Table B-5?

It appears the discount rate is high. What are the bases for the nominal and real discount rates? 

What is the basis for the escalation costs?

Please provide the details on how the annual emissions reductions were calculated in Tables 5, 5a, and 

5b. 
Please explain why a contingency cost of 13.970% is necessary for a project with an established 

technology and a record of other similar and successful installations?

Why is allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) included in the capital cost estimate, since 

it is not consistent with the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual’s methodology? 

Is there a property tax exemption for pollution control investments under Oklahoma law? If so, this 

should be mentioned as part of the cost analysis and the property taxes included in the cost estimates 

should be adjusted accordingly. 

Why is the lime reagent cost for the Sooner units 12% higher than those at Muskogee ($118.80/ton v. 

$105.53/ton)? 

Thanks.

Joe

" ... and miles to go before I sleep."

-- Robert Frost
#### O’Neal v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90707;

Court of Appeals No. 131131.
#### G. P. Guilford & Company, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*F. A. Stager, defendant in error.

.1. The inference that an agent is authorized to collect a written security for a debt because it is in his custody, ceases when the security is withdrawn by the creditor; and tliis, even though the debt may have been contracted through the agent.

*:2.*If the debtor pay such a claim to one who is not in possession of the security, it is incumbent on him to show that the person receiving payment had authority to collect the debt.

Principal and agent. Debtor and creditor. Promissory .notes. Payment.' Before Judge Pottle. Hancock Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1873.

*619Guilford *&*Company, through their agent, William Stanford, sold to Stacer a piano, stool and cover, taking his note therefor. This instrument was sent to plaintiffs. After its maturity they instituted suit thereon. The defendant pleaded payment in full to Stanford, the agent. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the .court refused to charge the jury ‘‘that if they believed that after the piano had been sold and the note ■given by Stacer to plaintiffs and turned over to them, that Stanford’s agency had ceased as to that transaction, and that defendant had such evidence before him as to induce him to believe it, you should find for the plaintiffs.”

And also because, the court charged the jury, in substance, that the defendant was not liable if Stanford was a general agent, with power'to sell and to take money in payment for sales, which fact they must determine from the testimony. That if Stanford sold any other pianos and took pay in part, and afterwards, the principals in Macon, through their bookkeeper, received the balance of the debt without objection, they might consider that as a ratification of that act of Stanford, and they might look to that circumstance in determining whether he was such general agent.

The motion was overruled, and plaintiffs excepted.

E. F. Best, for plaintiffs in error.

O. W. DuBose ; George F. Pierce, Jr., for defendant.

Teippe, Judge.

1. This case comes fully within the decision rendered this term in *Howard & Soule vs. G. L. Rice.*The authorities therein cited establish the following positions : The inference that an agent is authorized to collect a written security for a debt because it is in his possession, ceases when the security is withdrawn by the creditor; and this even though the debt has been contracted through the agent.

2. If the debtor pay such a claim to one who has not the *620custody of the security, it is incumbent on him to show that the person receiving payment had authority to collect the debt. Under these principles, which largely control the case, the court should have granted the new trial.

Judgment reversed.
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 Quarterly Report of Click Commerce, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: May 17, 2004 | /s/MICHAEL W. NELSONMichael W. Nelson Chief Financial
Officer
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Click Commerce, Inc. and will be retained by Click
Commerce, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Amendment No.2 to 2008 Stock Incentive Plan




 Exhibit 10.34 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CHILL HOLDINGS, INC. 

2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

(EFFECTIVE AS OF MARCH 3, 2010) 

This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CHILL HOLDINGS, INC. 2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Amendment”) is hereby adopted and
approved by the Board of Directors of Goodman Global Group, Inc. (f/k/a Chill Holdings, Inc.) (the “Company”) as of the date set forth above. 

Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 15 of the Chill Holdings, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended from time to
time, the “Plan”), the Board of Directors of the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
 1. Amendment
of Section 4(a) of the Plan. Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“Shares Reserved for Issuance Under the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 11 relating to
adjustments upon changes in the shares of Common Stock, the Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards shall not exceed in the aggregate six million, eight hundred and thirty-four thousand, nine hundred and twenty-three
(6,834,923) shares of Common Stock (the “Share Reserve”). The Share Reserve shall be reduced by the number of shares of Common Stock: (i) issued pursuant to a Stock Award, including a Stock Award issued pursuant to
Section 3(b), or (ii) to the extent that a distribution pursuant to a Stock Award is made in cash, by the number of shares of Common Stock bearing a value equal to the amount of the cash distribution as of the time that such amount was
determined. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to Incentive Stock Options shall be 6,834,923 shares of Common Stock (the “ISO Limit”).” 

2. General. References to the “Plan” contained in the Plan shall mean the Plan as amended by this Amendment. Except as
expressly provided herein, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 
 Adopted by the Board of Directors of
Goodman Global Group, Inc. on March 3, 2010.
{491O-13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

Federal Aviation Administration

"C\)"RE"~F.&

ROUTING~'·"OOI.

M-~

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0225; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-203-AD; Amendme

105"-5 (j.,4-OfQ

39-**; AD 2010-**-**1

RlN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers PLC Model SD3 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Department of Transportation

(DOn.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new aiIWorthiness directive (AD) for the products list d

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) Nl" ~,r;[

issued by an airworthiness authority of another country to identify and correct an unsa~ D (00

RO<JTINI;i ,nHlOI

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as

Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight

* * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88

(SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System

* * *

"ATF.

kOLiJ'lN(i $'·'11"'"

*

,

* * * * *

Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety

analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an

'unsafe condition' * * *. These are identified in Failure Conditions for

which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific

tasks and/or practices ar~ not perfonned in accordance with the

manufacturers' requirements.

"ATE

ROlJT'NG SYMBOL

DATE

* * * * * * *

,JTlNG$Y"""L

"
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4251 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4251

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for payments in lieu 
       of taxes for certain Department of Homeland Security land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2009

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for payments in lieu 
       of taxes for certain Department of Homeland Security land.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROJECTS.

    Section 6901(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(I) that is administered by the Secretary of 
                Homeland Security and at which individuals or goods are 
                examined for entry into the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jones *v.*Maddox.

5-1339

305 S. W. 2d 548

Opinion delivered October 7, 1957.

*George Edward Thiel,*for appellant.

*Howard A. Mayes,*for appellee.

*39George Bose Smith, J.

This is a contest of the will of Margaret Maddox, who died in 1956 at the age of eighty. By the will in question, which was signed on April 1, 1954, Mrs. Maddox bequeathed one dollar to her only son, the appellee 0. B. Maddox, Jr., and divided the rest of her estate, valued at about $5,500, equally among her three daughters. The appellee successfully resisted the probate of the will, the trial court finding that the testatrix lacked mental capacity and that the facts pointed to undue influence on the part of the oldest daughter, the appellant Charline Jones. In the view we take it is necessary to consider only the issue of testamentary capacity.

About a dozen witnesses testified for each side and expressed the divergence of opinion that is usually found in cases of this kind. On the whole the better opportunity for observation of the testatrix lay with the contestant’s witnesses, who included C. B. Maddox, Jr., and his wife, several neighbors of the decedent, two police officers, and the only physician to testify. Their testimony tends to show that Mrs. Maddox was mentally confused and unable to look after business affairs during the last five or six years of her life. She could not remember people she had known all her life and was unable to find her way about in the city of Paragould, where she had lived for years. Several witnesses, including the police, describe Mrs. Maddox’s delusion that her son was stealing from her and had taken locks, hinges, boards, furniture, etc., from her house. Dr. Alfred Maddox, a nephew of the decedent, had treated her for high blood pressure and hardening of the arteries. He thought that in 1954 his aunt was not completely competent and needed a guardian most of the time in the handling of her affairs. Twelve months after the execution of the will Mrs. Maddox was judicially found to be incompetent and was placed under the care of a guardian.

The appellant’s proof in support of the will consists largely of the testimony of four business acquaintances of the decedent. These witnesses include' the Memphis attorney who prepared the will and one of three local *40bank employees who witnessed its execution. It was the belief of these witnesses that Mrs. Maddox was mentally competent to make a will. Objections were sustained to the opinions of the other two witnesses to the will, as well as to other testimony offered by the appellant, and the record does not show what the excluded testimony would have been. The trial judge commented on the fact that the appellant herself did not testify and objected to the testimony of one of her sisters, who had been called as a witness by the appellee.

The basic question presented by this appeal is whether the probate court’s finding of testamentary incapacity is against the weight of the evidence. We have studied the testimony with care and cannot say that the trial court was wrong in refusing to admit the will to probate.

Affirmed.
H. R. 4238 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 930 39th 

Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, as the ‘‘W.D. Farr Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. W.D. FARR POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘W.D. Farr Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘W.D. Farr Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.