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

4-2789

Opinion delivered December 19, 1932.

*701*Tom F. Digby,*for appellant.

*Robinson, House & Moses,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant first contends that the court erred in holding the State Bank Bank & Trust Company, insolvent, of which the note sued on constituted a part, but this question has been determined against him in a former suit wherein he was a party against the Bank Commissioner, *ante*p. 618.

Pie insists also that the court erred in not holding the note was executed without consideration and void upon the assurance of the officers of the bank that he would never have to pay it. He admits, however, that he executed the note, and the money was loaned him by the bank with which to purchase stock of an ancillary or auxiliary corporation, of which the bank officials were officers, and who assured him that he would never have to pay the note, and that the dividends from the stock of the new company would take care of the loan. The stock was issued to him upon his purchase thereof, and he continued to renew the old note and pay the interest thereon until the execution of the note sued on herein, the last renewal of the note given. He borrowed the money, however, and admitted that he had never repaid it, and there could be no failure of consideration, so far as the loan of the money upon the note discounted was concerned, since he got the value of the money for which the note was executed. The fact that the stock purchased with the money he received on the note finally proved to be without value did not constitute failure of consideration for the note executed for the loan; and, even if it *702were true, which is not shown, that the bank officials made fraudulent representations to him to induce him to take stock in the ancillary company and loaned him the bank’s money for that purpose, he would still be bound to the payment of the money loaned upon this note, since the bank officers had no authority, and could have none, to lend the bank’s money to enable persons, who desired to do so, to buy stock in the ancilliary corporation, of which they were also officials. This could not be done even though they had attempted to guarantee, which was not done, sufficient returns upon the stock purchased to take care of the repayment of the money loaned. *Clements*v. *Citizens’ Bank of Booneville,*177 Ark. 1085, 9 S. W. (2d) 569.

No error therefore was committed in directing the verdict, the evidence being virtually undisputed.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report  dated  March 21, 2003  (except for Note B as to which
the  date  is  August  20,  2003)  accompanying  the  financial   statements  of
BrandPartners  Group,  Inc.  which are included in Amendment No. 2 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to
the  incorporation  by reference of said report in BrandPartners  Group,  Inc.'s
Registration  Statement  on Form S-3 (Reg.  No.  333-86510,  effective  July 11,
2002).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
August 20, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      66,287,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  342,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,661,206
<PP&E>                                         522,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,851,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,841,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,715
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,256,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,851,060
<SALES>                                     21,492,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,492,151
<CGS>                                       14,823,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,823,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,722,227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,369,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                   262,106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,107,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,107,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
From: Llenza, Charles 

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:27 PM

Subject: DOE Re-Opens the Public Comment Period for the Framework Document for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment (CRE) (RIN 1904-AC19) [Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003]

Dear Interested Parties:

 

On May 6, 2010, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a Notice of Public Meeting (NOPM) in 

the Federal Register to announce the availability of the framework document for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and provide notice of a public meeting. The NOPM provided for the submission of comments 

by June 7, 2010, and comments were also accepted at a public meeting held on May 18, 2010. This 

email notification announces that the period for submitting comments on the framework document for 

commercial refrigeration equipment is to be reopened from July 15, 2010 to July 30, 2010.

The Federal Register published on Thursday, July 15, 2010, a public notice reopening the comment 

period to allow interested parties additional time to file their comments and data. In addition, if you have 

already submitted comments but would like to provide supplementary comments, all supplemental 

comments are welcomed. Note that the email mailbox address for submitting comments is: CRE-2010-

STD-0003@ee.doe.gov. Please feel free however, to submit comments using any of the 

alternate methods specified in the Federal Register notice which can be found at the following link:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17213.pdf

The close of the comment period is July 30, 2010, and no further extensions are foreseen. 

Regards,

Charles Llenza

Project Manager/Engineer

US Department of Energy

(202)586-2192(work)

(202)287-1590(fax) 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

*******************************************************************************************

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMES 

ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR AN 

EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TO THE 

INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF 

THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-PUBLIC 

PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER OF THE SENDER OR 

INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING 

OR DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL 

GRAMM-LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC 

MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN OR 

DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, OR DISTRIBUTED 

BY OTH

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.007
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 82 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 

Received; referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version 

of the House document entitled ‘‘Black Americans in 

Congress, 1870–1989’’. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ‘‘BLACK 

4 AMERICANS IN CONGRESS, 1870–1989’’. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—An updated version of House 

6 Document 101–117, entitled ‘‘Black Americans in Con7 gress, 1870–1989’’ (as revised by the Library of Con8 gress), shall be printed as a House document by the 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 82 RFS 

1 Director of the Government Publishing Office, with illus2 trations and suitable binding, under the direction of the 

3 Committee on House Administration of the House of Rep4 resentatives. 

5 (b) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual 

6 number, there shall be printed such number of copies of 

7 the document referred to in subsection (a) as does not ex8 ceed a total production and printing cost of $500,000, of 

9 which— 

10 (1) 80 percent shall be for the use of the Com11 mittee on House Administration of the House of 

12 Representatives; and 

13 (2) 20 percent shall be for the use of the Com14 mittee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 

By KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Deputy Clerk. 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Sean Zeigler, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv580 

Warden, Lebanon Correctional, Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Respondent. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on August 5, 2019 (Doc. 16). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R 

(Doc. 16) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, 

Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance (Doc. 8) is GRANTED and the Petition (Doc. 

1) is administratively STAYED and TERMINATED on the Court’s active docket pending 

Petitioner’s exhaustion of his Ohio remedies. The stay is conditioned on petitioner's 

filing a motion to reinstate the case on this Courts active docket within 30 days after 

fully exhausting his state court remedies through the requisite levels of state appellate 

review. Petitioner is granted leave to reinstate the case on the Court's active docket 
2

when he has exhausted his Ohio remedies based on a showing that he has complied 

with the conditions of the stay. 

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would 

not be taken in good faith and would be denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cr-109-12

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

SETH NEZAT,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL MINUTES: SENTENCING ON SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION

AUSA Megan Gaffney Painter appeared for the Government

Defendant appeared with counsel Kevin Tierney

Defendant sentenced as follows:

5 months imprisonment with credit for time served

Defendant remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal. 

Judge: Douglas R. Cole

Courtroom Deputy: Scott Lang

Court Reporter: Sue Lopreato-Official

Date: August 29, 2022

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 263 Filed: 08/29/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1787
2

Exhibit 10.2

Summary of Director Compensation

Attached  is Schedule B that  details  Board of Director  and  Committee  Member
compensation. Directors that are salaried officers of the corporation receive no
director or committee compensation. Schedule B is approved annually by the Board
of Directors.



                                       1
<PAGE>



Exhibit 10.2 Continued

SCHEDULE B
JANUARY 8, 2009

DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION:               Non-salaried   Directors  $16,000  annual
------------------------               retainer   plus   $1,500   per    meeting
                                       attended  of Tri City  National  Bank and
                                       $300  per  meeting  attended  of Tri City
                                       Bankshares Corporation, payable quarterly

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:                   Annual compensation, payable quarterly:
--------------------
     Ronald K. Puetz                   Ronald K. Puetz - no compensation
     William Gravitter                 William Gravitter                $17,900
     Sanford Fedderly                  Sanford Fedderly                 $12,150
     Christ Krantz                     Christ Krantz                    $ 5,600
     Brian T. McGarry                  Brian T. McGarry                 $ 5,600

LOAN COMMITTEE:
     William Werry, Chairman           Non-salaried Directors:
     Robert W. Orth                    Chairman $750 per meeting attended
     Sanford Fedderly                  Other members $500 per meeting attended
     William Gravitter                 Payable quarterly
     Christ Krantz
     Ronald K. Puetz
     Scott A. Wilson
     Brian T. McGarry

AUDIT COMMITTEE:
     William N. Beres, Chairman         Chairman  $10,000  per  annum,   payable
     Sanford Fedderly                   quarterly Non-salaried  members $250 per
     Christ Krantz                      meeting attended Payable quarterly

CRA/COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE
     Scott A. Wilson, Chairman          Non-salaried Directors:
     David A. Urlich, Jr.               $250   per  meeting  attended,   payable
     Scott D. Gerardin                  quarterly
     Georgia Franecki
     Joseph Porter
     Michael Koenen
     William Zick
     Mark Dandrea
     Kristen Gagliano
2:17-cv-998

Travis and Julie Abbott

v.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

and

2:18-cv-136

Angela and Teddy Swartz

v. 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Jury Trial Day 25

Monday, March 2, 2020

before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiffs: F. Jerome Tapley, Jon Conlin, Mitchell Theodore and Nina Herring

For Defendant: D. Patrick Long, Damond Mace, Aneca Lasley, Robert Fehrenbacher 

and John Burlingame

Court Reporter: Darla Coulter, Allison Kimmel, Lahana DuFour and Shawna Evans

Courtroom Deputy: Christin Werner

9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Jury deliberations continue. A series of questions were asked and 

answered by the Court. 

2:00 p.m. Jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs’ in the case of Travis and Julie Abbott vs. 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and indicated dead locked in the case of Angela and 

Teddy Swartz vs. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 190 Filed: 03/03/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 7018
Exhibit 21

Carmike Cinemas, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



|                                |  |                        |  |        
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -------
|Subsidiary                      |  | State of Incorporation |  | % Owned
|Eastwynn Theatres, Inc.         |  | Alabama                |  | 100%   
|George G. Kerasotes Corporation |  | Delaware               |  | 100%   
|GKC Indiana Theatres, Inc.      |  | Indiana                |  | 100%   
|GKC Michigan Theatres, Inc.     |  | Delaware               |  | 100%   
|GKC Theatres, Inc.              |  | Delaware               |  | 100%   
|Military Services, Inc.         |  | Delaware               |  | 100%   
|Conway Theatres, LLC            |  | South Carolina         |  | 100%
#### Garcia v City of Jackson,

No. 92057.

Reported below: *(On Second Remand)*190 Mich App 197.

*Leave to Appeal Granted September 13, 1991:*

To be argued and submitted with *Li v Feldt,*No. 91079.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KENNETH N. WOLINER, M.D.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and LOUISE R. 

WILHITE-ST. LAURENT,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-629

[April 7, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Janis Brustares Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CA013398-XXXX-MB.

Kenneth N. Woliner, M.D., Boca Raton, pro se.

Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate Counsel, Florida Department of 

Health, Tallahassee, for appellees.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Kenneth N. Woliner, M.D., the prevailing party below, appeals the final 

judgment and several interlocutory orders entered in his violation of public 

records action against the State of Florida Department of Health and

Louise R. Wilhite-St. Laurent. Finding merit in the argument that the trial 

court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for costs based on his failure to 

comply with the notice requirement of section 284.30, Florida Statutes, 

we reverse and remand for the court to award Appellant his costs. See 

§ 284.30, Fla. Stat. (2017) (“A party to a suit in any court, to be entitled to 

have his or her attorney’s fees paid by the state or any of its agencies, 

must serve a copy of the pleading claiming the fees on the Department of 

Financial Services . . . .” (emphasis added)); Johnson v. Jarvis, 107 So. 3d 

428, 429–30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding, albeit in the context of appellate 

costs, that the prevailing party’s failure to comply with the notice 

requirement of section 284.30 did not preclude the prevailing party from 

recovering costs, reasoning that “[c]osts and attorney’s fees are not one 

and the same”). We affirm on all other issues raised on appeal without 

further comment.
2

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6552

CHARLIE LEE ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; J. R. HUNT,

JR., Superintendent,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-312-1)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Lee Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Lee Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny Robinson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. North Carolina Attorney Gen., No. CA-99-312-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar.

24, 2000); see also Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523

(2000) (interpreting 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)). We deny Robinson’s

motion for appointment of counsel and 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
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT****

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Retail Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Raphael Benaroya, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and George R. Remeta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that based on our 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.

 

| /s/ RAPHAEL BENAROYA

Raphael Benaroya

Chief Executive Officer

December 7, 2006         |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                      |   |
| /s/ GEORGE R. REMETA

George R. Remeta

Chief Financial Officer

December 7, 2006

  |   |
Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Methane and 

VOC Emissions in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Attached please find the exhibits to comments on all five of EPA’s white papers regarding methane and VOC emissions in the oil 

and natural gas sector, released April 15, 2014. 

We submit these comments on behalf of the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Task Force, and 

Earthworks. (together, “Commenters ).”

Any questions or concerns should be directed to both Nathan Matthews and Andres Restrepo:

Nathan Matthews

Staff Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

85 2nd St., Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 977-5695

Nathan.Matthews@sierraclub.org

Andres Restrepo

Associate Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 650-6073

andres.restrepo@sierraclub.org

Best regards,

Natalie Spiegel

--

Natalie Spiegel

Legal Assistant

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

Natalie Spiegel <natalie.spiegel@sierraclub.org>

Mon 6/16/2014 11:55 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Andres Restrepo <andres.restrepo@sierraclub.org>; Nathan Matthews <nathan.matthews@sierraclub.org>; 

 3 attachments

Ex. 1- Marten Newbold 2012.pdf; Ex. 2- ICF memo re centrifugal compresor seal emissions.pdf; Ex. 3- Email DBon to DMcCabe 

1Nov2013.pdf; 

Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Metha... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 2

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
85 Second Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

natalie.spiegel@sierraclub.org

415-977-5638

Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Metha... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 2 of 2

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014