alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Proposed Provision: B6.2. Provide the same dollar amount increase to the monthly benefit amount (MBA) of any beneficiary who is 85 or older at the beginning of 2024 or who reaches their 85th birthday after the beginning of 2024. The dollar amount of increase equals 5 percent of the average retired-worker MBA in the prior year.

back
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2023

NO. 03-23-00254-CV

Ronnie R. Price, Sr., Appellant

v.

Expert Rentals and Property Management, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 13, 2023. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Ronnie R. Price, Sr. has not prosecuted his appeal and 

did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal for want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/13/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER D. CARDOSI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-9013

(D.C. No. T.C. No. 26111-93)

(U.S.T.C.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Cardosi appeals from a Tax Court decision upholding the denial of various

Schedule C deductions claimed with respect to his roofing and consulting businesses. 

Cardosi v. Commissioner, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2311 (1995). Our jurisdiction arises under

26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the tax court’s judgment “in the same manner and to

the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury,” id.;
- 2 -

thus, we review legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error. We cannot say

that the tax court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous though we might have found

otherwise; given those findings the correct law was applied. We affirm the denial of a

deduction for CCH tax products on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to prove that

such expenditures were ordinary and necessary to his business ventures. See Love Box

Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820

(1988). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40274

Summary Calendar

BRIAN N. NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RORY L. GRIFFIN, Deputy Director for Health and Correctional Service; J. 

SHAH, Doctor, Bowie County Correction Center; BOB PAGE, Warden, Bowie 

Country Correction Center; REGINA LYNCH, Head RN, Bowie County 

Correctional Center,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CV-49

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brian N. Nelson, Arkansas prisoner # 148443, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit after it granted the defendants’ 

summary judgment motions. In his complaint, Nelson alleged that the

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40274 Document: 00515032254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2019
No. 18-40274

2

they ignored many of his sick call requests and failed to provide adequate 

diagnostic tools or treatment for a back injury he received while being 

transported to his temporary housing in the Bowie County Correctional 

Center. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. 

Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011).

Regarding his deliberate indifference claims, Nelson cannot establish 

that prison officials “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally 

treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly 

evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas 

Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Nelson’s mere disagreement with the course of 

his medical treatment and his insistence that he should have received further 

treatment are not sufficient to support a claim of deliberate indifference. See 

Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Domino, 239 F.3d at 756. 

Furthermore, Nelson does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he 

failed to rebut the applicability of qualified immunity. He has, thus, 

abandoned any challenge to the district court’s alternate basis for the grant of 

summary judgment. See Turner v. Quarterman, 481 F.3d 292, 295 & n.1 (5th 

Cir. 2007); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 

(5th Cir. 1987).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Nelson’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 

209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 

 Case: 18-40274 Document: 00515032254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2019
#### JAMES HERBERT BROWN v. JOBIE WILLIAMS and HESTER JOHNSON.

(Filed 28 September, 1955.)

Injunctions § 8—

Where there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that there was probable cause that plaintiff would be able to establish title to the *locus in quo*and that the continuance of the cutting of timber by defendants during the litigation would produce injury, judgment continuing the restraining order to the hearing will be affirmed.

AVinbobne and I-Iigsins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

*649Appeal by defendants from *Carr, J.,*May Term 1955, of BeRtie. In Chambers.

*John R. Jenkins, Jr., and Pritchett & Cooke for Plaintiff Appellee.*

*E. R. Tyler and Gillam & Gillam for Defendant Appellants.*

PER Curiam.

This was an action to recover damages for trespass and timber cutting, and to restrain the defendants.

Based on the complaint, temporary restraining order was issued and made returnable before Judge Carr. On the return day the plaintiff offered deeds and affidavits tending to fit description in the deeds to cover the *locus,*and to show possession by those under whom he claims for more than 60 years.

The defendants admitted cutting the timber but alleged title thereto in the defendant Johnson. Defendants offered no evidence but contended that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to identify the land or to fit the description in the deeds to the land as described in the complaint.

From the evidence offered Judge Carr made findings of fact and concluded that there was probable cause that plaintiff would be able to establish the right asserted by him in his complaint and that continuance of cutting timber by defendants during the litigation would produce injury. G.S. 1-485. *Lance v. Cogdill, 238*N.C. 500, 78 S.E. 2d 319. Accordingly the restraining order was continued to the final determination of the action.

There was evidence to support the findings of the judge and his conclusion after considering the evidence that the restraining order should be continued will be upheld. As the final termination of the litigation must await the trial in term, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the evidence or the questions of law debated on the argument and by brief.

Judgment affirmed.

WiNBORNE and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Washington Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Richard A. Shields, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of,
          and for, the periods presented in the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being furnished
solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part
of the Report or under such Acts.

/s/ Richard A. Shields

Richard A. ShieldsChief Financial
Officer

May 13, 2005
#### T. D. BRYSON et al. v. J. W. McCOY et al.

(Filed 21 December, 1927.)

Appeal by defendants from *Harding, J.,*at August Term, 1927, of Cherokee.

Civil action to remove cloud from title, tried upon tbe following-issues :

“1. Are tbe plaintiffs, T. D. Bryson, D. R. Bryson and Mary Gr. Tip-ton, beirs at law of Col. T. D. Bryson, tbe owners of tbe land described in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.

*“2.*Is tbe tax deed from T. N. Bates, sheriff, to J. E. McCoy, set out in tbe complaint, dated 9 May, 1907, and registered 1 June, 1907, in Deed Book 19 (48) p. 95, a cloud upon plaintiffs’ title to tbeir said lands? Answer: Yes.”

From a judgment on tbe verdict declaring defendants’ tax deed void and removing same as cloud on plaintiffs’ title, tbe defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*M. W. Bell for plaintiffs.*

*F. 0. Christopher and Edmund B. Norvell for defendants.*

Pee CueiaM.

We beld at tbe last term in tbis case, *ante,*91, tbat tbe defendants’ tax deed was void for want of sufficient description, and tbat tbe statute upon wbicb tbe defendants stressfully rely, O. S., 8034, applies only to valid tax deeds and bas no reference to deeds tbat are void. *Ex rdhilo mhil fit*is one maxim tbat permits of no exception; it is as constant as it is self-evident. *Chemical Co. v. Turner,*190 N. C., 471, 130 S. E., 154.

Tbe ease bas been tried in accordance with our former opinion, bence tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
### Proposed Provision: B5.4. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2030, reconfigure the special minimum benefit: (a) A year of coverage is defined as a year in which 4 quarters of coverage are earned. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30 years of coverage equal to 125 percent of the monthly poverty level (about $1,416 in 2022). For those with under 30 years of coverage, the PIA per year of coverage over 10 years is $1,416/20 = $70.80. (c) From 2022 to the year of implementation, 2030, index the PIA per year of coverage using the chain-CPI index. Then, for later years, index the PIA per year of coverage by wage growth for successive cohorts. (d) Scale work requirements for disabled workers, based on the number of years of non-disabled potential work.

back
**Exhibit10.22**

**New HireAuthorization—Updated Appendix**

On January 25, 2007, stock options covering anaggregate of 47,000 shares of the Company’s common stock were granted to twonon-executive officer employees and 4,000 units representing restricted sharesof the Company’s common stock were also granted to one such employee.  The grants were made under the Company’s NewHire Authorization as an inducement to entering into employment with theCompany. All options granted include a ten-year duration and an exercise priceequal to the closing price of Dendrite’s stock on the business day immediatelypreceding the date of grant. The vesting schedule for the options is asfollows: (i) twenty-five percent (25%) of the options shall first becomeexercisable on the first anniversary of date of grant and (ii) the remainingseventy-five percent (75%) shall become exercisable pro rata over the followingthree (3) year period, on a monthly basis, commencing on the first anniversaryof the date of grant and ending on the fourth anniversary of the date ofgrant.  The restricted stock units willvest in four equal installments on each of the first four anniversaries of thedate of grant.

----
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       (IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT RATIO AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                                           -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
                                                            2004         2003        2002        2001       2000
                                                           -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                                        <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Pre-tax income from continuing operations
     before adjustment for loss from equity investees
                                                           $ 191.9     $  96.8     $ 142.6     $  36.3     $  38.8
                                                           -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
Fixed Charges:

Interest expense and amortization of debt discount and
     premium on all indebtedness                           $ 104.8     $  84.8     $  91.3     $  99.5     $  99.1

20% of rental expense                                          7.5         4.7         4.6         4.1         3.5
                                                           -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
     Total fixed charges                                   $ 112.3     $  89.5     $  95.9     $ 103.6     $ 102.6
                                                           =======     =======     =======     =======     =======

Pre-tax income from continuing operations
     before adjustment for loss from equity investees
     plus fixed charges                                    $ 304.2     $ 186.3     $ 238.5     $ 139.9     $ 141.4

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (A)                        2.71        2.08        2.49        1.35        1.38
</TABLE>

(A)  For the purpose of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
      earnings consist of income before provision for income taxes and before
      adjustment for loss from equity investees plus fixed charges. Fixed
      charges consist of interest charges, amortization of debt discount or
      premium related to indebtedness, whether expensed or capitalized, and that
      portion of rental expense we believe to be representative of interest.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Washington  Banking  Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michal D. Cann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

This  certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of
18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, and shall not be  incorporated by reference into any of
the  Company's  filings  under  the  Securities  Act of 1933  or the  Securities
Exchange Act of  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  or otherwise be deemed to be
filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.


/s/ Michal D. Cann
---------------------------
Michal D. Cann
Chief Executive Officer


November 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31301]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-412]


Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co., The Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co., Beaver Valley Power Station, 
Unit 2; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility 
Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request by Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) to withdraw its 
April 14, 1993, application for a proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-73 for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 
(BVPS-2), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment involved revision of Table Notation (10) of 
Table 4.3-1 of Technical Specification 4.3.1.1.1. The proposed revision 
would have added a footnote to Table Notation (10) that would have 
stated: ``Complete verification of OPERABILITY of the manual reactor 
trip switch circuitry shall be performed prior to startup from the 
first shutdown to Mode 3 occurring after April 6, 1993.''
    The Commission has previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment in the Federal Register on April 27, 1993 (58 FR 
25676). However, on December 23, 1993, the licensee submitted a letter 
to the NRC requesting withdrawal of the proposed change because the 
change was no longer required. BVPS-2 had entered Mode 3 on September 
18, 1993, in preparation for its fourth refueling outage and had 
performed the required surveillance test on November 18, 1993.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 14, 1993, and the licensee's 
letter of December 23, 1993, which withdrew the application for license 
amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20555 and at the B. F. Jones Memorial 
Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 19th day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Donald S. Brinkman,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-31301 Filed 12-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Mark P. O’Neill, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       /s/ Mark P. O’Neill         Mark P. O’NeillManager of Finance and Accounting (principalfinancial officer)  Date: November 14, 2007    
20