alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Disinfecting Company, Inc. *v.*Franklin County.

Opinion delivered April 28, 1930.

*660*J. G. Benson,*for appellant.

*R. 8. Wilson,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Section 1976 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest reads as follows:

> “No county court or agent of any county shall hereafter make any contract on behalf of the county unless an appropriation has been previously made therefor, and is wholly or in part unexpended, and in no event shall any county court or agent of any county make any contract in excess of any such appropriation made, and the amount of such contract or contracts shall be limited to the amount of the appropriation made by the quorum court. ’ ’

This section of the Digest applies to Franklin County, and the sheriff had no authority to purchase the disinfectant from appellant. There was no showing *661made that an appropriation had been made which would warrant the purchase of the disinfectant; and, in the absence thereof, the purchase could not be made. *Madison County*v. *Simpson,*173 Ark. 755, 293 S. W. 34.

In the absence of an appropriation for the purchase, the county judge could neither have made such a contract on his own motion, nor have ratified the contract made by the sheriff. In *Leatham & Co.*v. *Jackson County,*122 Ark. 114, 182 S. W. 570, it was held that the county court might ratify an unauthorized contract made in behalf of the county, if the contract was one the county could have made i.n the first instance. The object of providing in advance for the appropriation was to prevent an expenditure for county purposes of an amount greater than the current income. Amendment No. 10, Constitution of Arkansas; *State use of Prairie County*v. *Leathem,*170 Ark. 1004, 282 S. W. 367; *Dixie Culvert Co.*v. *Perry County,*174 Ark. 107, 294 S. W. 381; and *Polk County*v. *Mena Star,*175 Ark. 76, 298 S. W. 1002.

' It follows that the judgment of the circuit court was correct, and it will be affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 4, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00358

- CR

Cristian YEPEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CRN001641

- D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Court reporter Ana Alcantar has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting

an extension to August 30, 2017. We GRANT her request and ORDER her to file the reporter’s record on or before August 30, 2017.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 4th da y of August, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000883420
<NAME>                        ENDOSONICS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         35,333
<SECURITIES>                                    4,054
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     3,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,679
<PP&E>                                          1,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 73,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,236
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     66,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   73,217
<SALES>                                        18,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,266
<CGS>                                          12,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6036 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6036

To require GAO to conduct annual assessments to determine the extent to 
which TSA's passenger security screening practices comply with TSA non-
   discrimination policies to identify any needed actions to improve 
                  compliance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2023

               Mr. Thanedar introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

             Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require GAO to conduct annual assessments to determine the extent to 
which TSA's passenger security screening practices comply with TSA non-
   discrimination policies to identify any needed actions to improve 
                  compliance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. GAO ASSESSMENTS OF TSA COMPLIANCE WITH NON-DISCRIMINATION 
              POLICIES DURING PASSENGER SECURITY SCREENINGS.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act 
and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation an assessment of the extent to which passenger security 
screening practices of the Transportation Security Administration 
comply with non-discrimination policies of the Administration in order 
to identify any needed actions to improve such compliance.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alice Monserrath WILLY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51287 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alice Monserrath Willy, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alice Monserrath Willy has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willy has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of .the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appel*141late review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
ex_134984.htm


Exhibit 10-F-19


 


SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION (April 2019)


 


Compensation: Non-employee directors shall receive the following remuneration:


 


	
			Director’s Retainer (except Chairman)

				 	$	65,000	 
	
			Chairman of the Board Retainer

				 	$	130,000	 
	
			Compensation and Corporate Governance Committee Chair Retainer

				 	$	14,000	 
	
			Audit Committee Chair Retainer

				 	$	20,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Restricted Stock Award Value (except Chairman)

				 	$	80,000	 
	
			Restricted Stock Award Value (Chairman of the Board)

				 	$	105,000	 
	
			Restricted Stock Award Value (additional per Committee)

				 	$	10,000	 



 




 


Directors may elect to receive their retainer (other than expense reimbursements) in the form of cash, stock or a combination. Directors may elect to defer the receipt of all or part of their cash compensation pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors. The deferral may be in the form of cash or stock units. Cash deferrals receive interest at a rate equal to 1% over the prime commercial rate of U.S. Bank National Association. Deferrals in the form of stock units are credited quarterly with dividend equivalents equal to the dividend rate on Otter Tail Corporation’s common shares and the deferred amount is paid out in common shares.
#### REGIONS BANK Plaintiff v. ArbertDella LAMB Defendant-Appellee v. Nancy Hampton, Administratrix for the Estate of Willie Townsel Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1467

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

*170Eric Spencer Buchanan, Buchanan Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Ronald Carl Wilson, Wilson & Associates, West Memphis, AR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Willie Townsel died intestate on April 4, 2014, leaving a checking accqunt at Regions Bank (Regions), with a balance of about $81,000. The account was allegedly held in both his name and that of his sister, ArbertDella Lamb. Regions’ policy is to treat persons named on a multi-party personal account as owning the account funds as joint .tenants with right of surviv-orship, and accordingly Regions placed the account in Lamb’s name alone shortly after her brother’s death. Nancy Hampton, Townsel’s daughter and the administratrix of his estate, claimed ownership of the proceeds. Regions brought this Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22(a) interpleader action, seeking to have the district court1 resolve Lamb’s and Hampton’s competing claims to the account funds, and the two cross-claimed for declaratory judgment. The district court granted Lamb’s motion for summary judgment and directed the funds be distributed to her. Hampton appeals.

Hampton makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court improperly re-hed on pleadings in Regions’ complaint, treating them as evidence; (2) there was insufficient evidence that Lamb’s name was on the account; and (3) the existence of a remaining fact issue rendered improper summary judgment on Hampton’s constructive-trust theory. As to the first argument, Hampton is correct that the district court cited to pleadings in Regions’ *verified*complaint as support for its finding that Lamb’s name was on the account. However, “[a] verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit for summary-judgment purposes.” Williams v. Adams, 935 F.2d 960, 961 (8th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the pleadings in question were made by Regions, the stakeholder who has no claim to the funds in question other than the costs and fees of litigation. We therefore reject the argument that the district court’s reliance on Regions’ complaint constitutes reversible error. As to Hampton’s remaining two arguments, our review of the district court’s order reveals no clearly erroneous factual findings or errors of law. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN AMBROSE VANLOAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

NATION OF ISLAM; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 55317

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

- 00127

- GW

- MRW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Ambrose VanLoan appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter

, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012)

. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 55317

The district court properly dismissed VanLoan’s action because VanLoan’s

claims are too frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.

See Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Ov er the years this Court has

repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims

otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to

be absolutely devoid of merit . . . .”); Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6

(9th Cir. 1984 ), abrogated on other grounds by Nietzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319

(1989) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal

subject matter jurisdiction[.]”).

AFFIRMED.
#### Robert Antwain STANBACK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Faye DANIELS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6597

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Robert Antwain Stanback, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Antwain Stanback seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that the district court dismiss Stanback’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Stanback seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
IN the INTEREST OF M.G., a child.

T.G., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John C. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Garb-Oil & Power Corporation, and subsidiaries (the "registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, and
subsidiaries;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the Registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;

c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter ( the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function);

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: 10/11/2008

/s/ John C. Brewer
----------------------
John C. Brewer
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of 10-K of Maydao Corporation, (the “Company”) on 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul Roszel President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.








November 1 , 2010
/s/ Richard R. IvanovickRichard R. IvanovickChief Financial Officer
July 30, 2015

Mr. Stephen Denty

8810 Leeshire Lane

Raleigh, NC 27615

Dear Mr. Denty:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 12, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1507), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21693]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the High Energy Physics 
Advisory Panel (HEPAP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be 
announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Monday, September 29, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, 
September 30, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 
Washingtonian Blvd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kogut, Executive Secretary, High 
Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC-25/
Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-1290. Telephone: (301) 903-1298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a 
continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science 
Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of the High Energy 
Physics research.
    Tentative Agenda Items:

 Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Program
 Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle 
Physics Program
 Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in 
High Energy Physics
 Public Comment.(10-minute rule)

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. A webcast 
of this meeting will be available. Please check the Web site below for 
updates and information on how to view the meeting. If you would like 
to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact John 
Kogut, (301) 903-1298 or by email at: John.Kogut@science.doe.gov. You 
must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days 
before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the 
scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel 
will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the 
Department of Energy's Office of High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Web 
site: (http://science.energy.gov/hep/hepap/meetings/).

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 5, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-21693 Filed 9-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```