alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Washington *v.*Jolliff.

5-928

288 S. W. 2d 600

Opinion delivered April 2, 1956.

*Frank G. Douglas,*for appellant.

*Percy A. Wright,*for appellee.

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.

Appellee, C. A. Jolliff, has a judgment against appellant, Joseph Washington, in the sum of $2,090.00. Jolliff procured a writ of garnishment against the Caldwell & Still Gin Company and George Thompson, alleging that the garnishees were indebted to Washington. The garnishment was sustained by the Chancery Court, and Washington has appealed.

Appellant, Joseph Washington, is one of eight sons and daughters of Tom Washington, who died in 1944, leaving a 40 acre farm. The status of Joseph’s interest in the farm is the issue here. The garnishee, George Thompson, leases the place, and pays $1,000.00 per year rent. In accordance with an agreement between the parties, he pays the rent to the other garnishee, Caldwell & Still Gin Company. The money is then used to pay the taxes, and the balance is used for the benefit of Mat *191T. Washington, a minor son of Tom, and a brother of Joseph.

On appeal, Joseph Washington contends: First, that the property is the homestead left by his father, Tom Washington, and that the minor, Mat T., is entitled to the nse of the property as a homestead, or the income therefrom until he becomes of age. See Arikansas Constitution, Article 9, Section 6. Appellant’s contention in this respect cannot be sustained, because there has been a judicial determination that the property is not the homestead of the minor children of Tom Washington. The decree was entered by the Mississippi Chancery Court, Osceola District, July 24, 1950. Mat T., represented by a guardian, was a party to that case, and there was no appeal from the decree.

Next, Joseph says that his part of the income is exempt from garnishment because his part of the property constitutes a homestead. Also, he has filed a schedule claiming as exempt his part of the rent because he is a married man, and does not own property of the value of $500.00. See Arkansas Constitution, Article 9, Section 2. On July 17, 1952, the Mississippi Chancery Court made a finding that the property did constitute the homestead of Joseph. But, the question is, has he since that time abandoned the property as his homestead? In our opinion, the evidence sustains the finding of the Chancellor that there has been such an abandonment. Joseph moved to Detroit in 1952; has lived and worked in that city since that time, and the circumstances indicate that he does not intend to return to Arkansas. And, as to his claim of exemption under Article 9, Section 2 of the Constitution of Arkansas, he cannot claim benefit of the exemption laws of this State, since he is a non-resident. *Person*v. *Williams-Echols Dry Goods Company,*113 Ark. 467, 169 S. W. 223.

The decree is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; AD Models.                    

*Date:*                         January 11, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622,                         *bissonettegb@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 7, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-00478 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Government code section 28.053 was amended, effective September 1, 2009, to permit 1

appeals from county court to the courts of appeals for cases originating in small claims court. See

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 28.053 (West Supp. 2009). However, the amendment applies only to “an

action filed on or after the effective date of this Act.” Act of June 1, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1351,

§ 14, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4273, 4282. Ibezim filed both his initial suit in small claims court and

his direct appeal to county court prior to the September 1, 2009 effective date of the amendment. 

 TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00571-CV

Francis Ibezim, Appellant

v.

Ky Allen Strunc, Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-08-009258, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Francis Ibezim, appearing pro se, appeals from a trial de novo in county

court on his direct appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee Ky Allen Strunc in small claims

court. At the time Ibezim filed suit, the courts of appeals lacked jurisdiction over cases originally

filed in small claims court. See Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 480, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen.

Laws 1720, 1816 (amended 2009) (current version at Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 28.053 (West Supp.

2009)); Sultan v. Mathew, 178 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Tex. 2005). As a result, we dismiss this appeal

1

for want of jurisdiction.
2

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 19, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

S&S HOLDCO, INC., Case No. 1: 17-cv-00783 

Plaintiff, Judge William 0. Bertelsman 

v. 

ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION 

THREE RIVERS PROVIDER 

NETWORK, INC., 

Defendant. 

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties (doc. 32) the Court hereby orders as follows: 

1. S&S Holdco, Inc. ("Holdco"), is substituted in place of S&S Healthcare Strategies, Ltd. 

("Healthcare) as the party plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and the case caption on 

all future filings shall be amended accordingly. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(l). 

2. Notwithstanding the substitution, Healthcare shall remain subject to and obligated by all 

federal and local rules of civil procedure regarding discovery as if Healthcare had 

remained a party to this litigation, including but not limited to Civil Rules 26 through 37. 

Healthcare shall also remain subject to the jurisdiction and rulings of the Court regarding 

discovery directed to Healthcare, as if Healthcare had remained a party to this litigation. 

3. Notwithstanding the substitution, both Healthcare and Holdco will be named on any jury 

verdict forms as counterclaim defendants and/or responsible parties with respect to Three 

Rivers Provider Network, Inc.' s, counterclaims. 

4. Following waiver or exhaustion of any appeal rights and any rights of setoff, Holdco and 

Healthcare shall be jointly and severally liable for any final judgment obtained by Three 

Rivers Provider Network, Inc., arising out of claims asserted in this case. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00783-WOB-KLL Doc #: 34 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 231
SO ORDERED. 

2 

Case: 1:17-cv-00783-WOB-KLL Doc #: 34 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 232
*'Present*— Chancellors Mathews and Ruteedge.

#### John Reid *vs.*James Smith, attorney for J. Nutt.

case evil.

decree book, vol. n. p. 13.

A creditor priority of payment out nndcr an*1act of the leg-is-lectslnd receives in payment a bond growing out of die sales of and after-sbíiíit to^á third person, fiinL of^tiie estate arc loathe? ere-doubt’ S°m-e sing whether ^obo-emer^ tioned would assigneeSied a bill to get the benefit oí fuuds of the *461egtate T,]e court was of °P11U<® ü.iaí the election having been mp^jc°í.,.,a fund, and the remainder transferred to other creditors, they could not now be disturbed.

*460Chancellor Mathews

delivered the decree of the court.

C-. Dupont’s estate was confiscated, and the lands sold by the commissioners of confiscated estates, and bonds were taken from the purchasers. A special act of the legislature appropriated to Jane Yilleponteux, the sum of *472l. 17s. 7d.*out of the said estate, in preference to other creditors, under peculiar circumstances of claim; „ . , , , i or'payment ot which the commissioners assigned to her Wainwright’s bond. Nutt and other creditors got the bonds of other purchasers. Glover one of the purclia-sers iands of the estate, got relieved from his'purchase, by decree of this court; and Wainwright also applied to ^be court to be relieved. Jane Yilleponteux meanwhile assigned the bond of Wainwright to J. Reid the complainant, who applied to the court to enjoin defendant ^1’0® se^hig the land purchased by Glover (and which was about to be resolil to pay Nutt) under an idea that ^10 ^an^ bought by Wainwright (out of which grew the bond, which was assigned to J. Yilleponteux and by her to would bcinsufficienttopay thehond, at the present reduced prices of land, if Wainwright should be released pTOIn ys pU1.c]iase, as Glover had been. That complainant had a lion on all the lands of the estate of G. Du-*461pont, for payment of Ids bond, under tbe act of the legislature giving Jane Villeponteux a priority of payment out of G-. Dupont’s estate. The court was of opinion, that J. Reid bad no lien. Tbe lands had been sold to different persons, and J. Villeponteux bad made her election out of the bonds: and the bond she chose being assigned to her, the act ot the legislature was fulfilled, and the other ere-ditors of J. Dupont were entitled to the remainder. The court therefore dismissed so much of the bill as related to this point, but retained so much of the bill as related to Wainwright’s purchase, until the final decision of the cause depending before the court, between Wainwright and the commissioners of forfeited estates.

OCTOBER, 1795.
TS-11KK6F, Part 1, Section C, Question 3, Material Safety Data Sheet

Date Printed: 9/16/2011 Page 1 of 1

Redacted
### Reg ulato ry Evalu atio n

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifie r: - AD



### A dd the work hours. parts cos t , ond numb er**(~l** 

### U S. reg ister e d products to th e tah/1.! helow. 1Vhen you ore

. fini s h e d. click nn the "Upd ate Fields., hullon to altfomali c al/y.fill in the totals. 

### Update

# Fields**~**
Est im ated Cos t s: Action Costs per P r od u c t (e.g., a ircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appl iance) Work-ho urs Labor Parts Cost T ota l Costs Number of Total Cost rep lacement) (include cost (labor+ 

# u.s . for U.S. Flee t Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) R egi s te r ed and close-up) our) P ro d u c t s Inspection**~** 

### ' I 

### 1 92.2 0 I (\ '**~** . li 

### 165 ! I I ll I I 1 It )fl l ( I ')II ' 0 I} I I)()

I (I ('II O.llll (l :I {) ( lj I 

## ' I) ( 11

I ' ' ()I I '1•1 i) 

### ' 1}.1 I fl 'I I' (1 t!fl 

# . .._ 0 ( ljl ' l \) l)lj I f1f) lti• 

### (, nn I ).I 

### :! I ', \1 d I II I ),1 

### ' ( II 

### ' ': 

### n '. 'Ill I ·) 

### ' 0 1)(1 ' (; Ot I (j I) tl I '< II ()ij
I I IJ(; I()(· 0 II'' I) !IU ' I (,[1 (} ; I !l flO fl (Ill 

### ' (! ''" \ ' "I'll 0 t •II 

## ' ii I 

### ' ) (Ill I {!I}
The kn own n umber of produ c t s i n compli ance: 

### Number Tot a l Costs of complian ce for U.S. fleet: $2,695 , 605 Costs covered u nd er warranty 

### (if known) $ Warranty

O n -Co n diti on Cos ts:

# ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cos t pe r Product (e.g., Inspection , (include access, (@$ 8 5/hour) testing, and close- replacement) up) Inspection \ II Hl 

### .., tl )I 

### ·, 0 II '• ') \l!
' 'I I' I) (ll)

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this .field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory

# action"?**~** YES* 0**NO~** 

### *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant?

# · YES* 0 NO 

### IZI *Expl anation: 

### Regulatory F lexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. - 

### YES 

## 0 NO 

### IZI Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation migh t be the only mode of transportation?

# ' YES* 0**NO~** 

### *Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                          44,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,600
<INVENTORY>                                     41,100 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,100
<PP&E>                                         731,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 417,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 567,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,100
<BONDS>                                        407,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (72,600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   567,000
<SALES>                                      1,377,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,377,600
<CGS>                                          409,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,318,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
        


</TABLE>
INDEX OF ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT

1. Association of Flight At tendants-CWA, Hawaiian Master Executive Council 2. Hawaii County Council 3. Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce 4. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce 5. Hawaii Business Roundtable, Executive Committee Member Dee Jay Mailer 6. Bank of Hawaii 7. Hawaii National Bank 8. The Gas Company LLC 9. Outrigger Enterprises Group Docket OST-2010-0018
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 22, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00253

- CV

JUAN VELA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A STAR MOULDING CO

. , Appellant

v.

HOLLAND SOUTHWEST INT. INC

.,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 17

- 214 The Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On May 20, 2019, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this ap peal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
|Ex-23


EXHIBIT 23


Independent
Auditors Consent


The Board of DirectorsIMPATH Inc.:


We
consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (no.'s
33--98916, 333-08553, 333-45921 and 333-62563) and on Form S-8 (no.'s 333-09469 and
333-47689) of IMPATH Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of IMPATH Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and
1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which
report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of IMPATH Inc.


KPMG LLP


Short Hills, New JerseyMarch 30, 2001
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### SERVED: MAY 31,2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC INTHEMATTEROF JESUS VALDEZ-PINA FAADOCKETNO. [TOBEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0471 '}{il '] 

### I P I "" . ., Li.IIL '"' : j j

NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OFPROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designatedas CaseNo. 2012WP090001) has been assigned to AdministrativeLawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communicationsregarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, theFAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached ServiceList.

Attachment - ServiceList ·Ronnie 

### A Yoder rr ·.,_ ChiefAdministrativeLSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 Jesus Valdez-Pina, Respondent

413 5 Broadway San Diego, CA 92102 ONE COPY Theodore F. Byrne, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7112 FAJ(: 310-725-6816

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 " TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant F AJ(: 202-366-7536

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0471 (Civil Penalty Action) 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4508 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, 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, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4508 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 111–89 (123 Stat. 

10 2975), is amended by striking ‘‘January 31, 2010’’ each 

11 place it appears and inserting ‘‘April 30, 2010’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 30, 2010. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS