alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A92A1077.

#### CONNELL v. MURRAY.

(423 SE2d 304)

Johnson, Judge.

Lenny Connell died testate on September 18, 1990. Melvin Murray was appointed temporary administrator of Connell’s estate on March 1, 1991. On that same date, Murray filed a personal injury lawsuit against himself as temporary administrator of the estate. Thereafter, Mary Connell, the decedent’s mother, qualified as executor of *703the estate and the temporary letters of administration issued to Murray were revoked. Attorneys for the estate filed a motion to dismiss Murray’s complaint on the ground that Murray could not be both plaintiff and defendant in the same action. Murray then filed a motion to substitute Mary Connell as the defendant in his action. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and granting Murray’s motion to substitute. Mary Connell appeals from that order.

Decided October 5, 1992.

*Simpson & Gray, Ralph F. Simpson, Elizabeth B. Gibbs,*for appellant.

*Moore & Studstill, Mitchell 0. Moore, William S. Perry, O’Neal, Brown & Sizemore, Manley F. Brown,*for appellee.

A person cannot sue himself; the same person cannot be both plaintiff and defendant in the same action, even in different capacities. *Perdue v. McKenzie,*194 Ga. 356, 364 (2) (21 SE2d 705) (1942); *Langford v. Johnson,*46 Ga. App. 444 (3) (167 SE 779) (1933). Murray’s action against himself was therefore void from its inception and the trial court erred in not dismissing it. Because the action was void from its beginning, the trial court had no authority to substitute Mary Connell as the defendant. Accordingly, the trial court also erred in granting Murray’s motion to substitute.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems (1205).                    

*Date/Time:*                         June 1, 2001, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         NSF, 4021 Wilson Boulevard, Room 380, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Miriam Heller, Program Director, Information Technology and Infrastructure Systems, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 545, Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 292-8360.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                              ( print page 24165)    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY' 00 Mechanics and Structures of Materials and Surface Engineering and Material Design Review Panel as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries and personnel information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.                    

These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-11924  Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 2947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1096]



[[Page 2947]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and comment. The ICR 
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected 
cost and burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment 
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information 
was published on September 12, 2000 [FR 65, page 55072]. No comments 
were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 12, 2001, to: 
Attention DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delores King, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division, X-56, Office of Aviation Analysis; Office of the Secretary; 
US Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0002. Telephone (202) 366-2343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Office of the Secretary (OST).
    Title: Aircraft Accident Liability Insurance.
    OMB Control Number: 2106-0030.
    Affected Public: All US and foreign direct air carriers must have 
accident liability insurance coverage to obtain or exercise authority 
to operate aircraft in interstate or foreign service.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 2762.5 hours.
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 8, 2001.
Michael Robinson,
Information Resource Management, United States Department of 
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 01-1096 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
# C_2009268EN.01002201.xml

| 10.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/22

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2010 under certain quotas opened by the Community for poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin

2009/C 268/08

Commission Regulations (EC) No 536/2007 (1) and (EC) No 539/2007 (2) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2009 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2009 do not, for quotas 09.4169, 09.4015 and 09.4402, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (3), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 January to 31 March 2010; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

1

(2)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.

2

(3)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

3

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2010
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4169 | 8 257 500 |
| 09.4015 | 67 500 000 |
| 09.4402 | 3 382 568 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2010

(in kg)

09.4169

8 257 500

09.4015

67 500 000

09.4402

3 382 568

---
A92A0864.

#### PARRISH v. THE STATE.

(424 SE2d 68)

Andrews, Judge.

Parrish appeals his conviction by jury of kidnapping, theft by taking and escape, resulting from an escape while incarcerated at the Colquitt County jail. He appeals solely on the general grounds, raising only the legal sufficiency of the evidence. E.g., *Towns v. State,*185 Ga. App. 545 (365 SE2d 137) (1988).

The evidence showed that Parrish, Hawkins, and Thornton were all prisoners at the jail. Thornton requested medicine from Saunders, the jailer, who was grabbed and picked up by Parrish when he brought it to the cell. Parrish then placed the jailer in the cell, closed the door, and all three left the building. Parrish and Hawkins managed to climb the fence and escape.

There being evidence sufficient to convince any rational trier of *870fact of the existence of the essential elements of the crime, the judgment is affirmed. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307, 310 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); *Baldwin v. State,*153 Ga. App. 35, 37 (264 SE2d 528) (1980).

Decided October 20, 1992.

*William R. Folsom,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Birdsong, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

I, Alan D. Feldman, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alan D. Feldman                            
|Alan D. Feldman                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: November 9, 2010                         

I, William M. Guzik, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William M. Guzik                                
|William M. Guzik                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: November 9, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pearlie INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7969.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 12, 2013.

Decided: May 2, 2013.

Pearlie Lee Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pearlie Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion as unauthorized and successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 .U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*213We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Ingram’s notice of appeal requests permission from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In order to obtain such authorization, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h).

Ingram’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. In addition, we deny Ingram leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his motions to supplement the brief and to exceed page limitations.

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.*
EXHIBIT 31.2


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

     I, Kevin K. Nanke certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Amber Resources
Company of Colorado;

     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 report;

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

         (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 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; and

         (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 officer(s) 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 the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control 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:  October 13, 2005


/s/ Kevin K. Nanke
Kevin K. Nanke
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1768 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1768

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize subtitle G of title VII of the Energy Policy Act of 
 2005, relating to diesel emissions reduction, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16137(a)) is amended by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2024''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1768

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To reauthorize subtitle G of title VII of the Energy Policy Act of 
 2005, relating to diesel emissions reduction, and for other purposes.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of InSightHealth Services Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “report”), I, Bret W. Jorgenson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Bret W.  Jorgensen                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Bret W.  Jorgensen                     |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| September 22,  2005               |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the report pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being field for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----