alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65319-65320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30718]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-493-000]


The Montana Power Company; Notice of Filing

December 13, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 30, 1995, The Montana Power Company 
(Montana), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 35.13, a Form of Electric Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, a revised Index of Purchasers under said Tariff, 
and a Certificate of Concurrence from Cenergy.
    A copy of the filing was served upon Cenergy.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before December 26, 1995. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies 

[[Page 65320]]
of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30718 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 62293-62294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29684]








ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

DATES: December 12-13, 1995
PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: December 12-13, 9:00 a.m.

    1. Review and Accept Minutes of Closed Meetings.
    2. Review of Assassination Records.
    3. Other Business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas Samoluk, Associate Director 
for Communications, 600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, DC 
20530. 

[[Page 62294]]
Telephone: (202) 724-0088; Fax: (202) 724-0457.
David G. Marwell,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95-29684 Filed 12-1-95; 12:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 6118-01-P
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Determination of Employment Coverage Thresholds
#### ELIJAH DANCY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.

(Filed 8 March, 1933.)

Railroads D 1) — Evidence held sufficient to overrule nonsuit in action for damages resulting from collision at crossing.

Evidence tending to show that defendant’s train approached a crossing within a city’s limits at an excessive rate of speed through a heavy fog without giving warning by bell or whistle, and struck plaintiff’s truck, that plaintiff stopped his truck before attempting to cross, but failed to see or hear the approach of the train, *is held*sufficient to overrule defendant’s motion as of nonsuit, there being no evidence that plaintiff could not have heard warning signals by bell or whistle had such been given.

Appeal by plaintiff from. *Daniels, J.,*at November Term, 1932, of Edgecombe.

Reversed.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff when the motor truck which he was driving was struck by defendant’s train at a railroad crossing within the corporate limits of the city of Rocky Mount.

The allegations in the complaint that plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant are denied in the answer. The defendant in its answer alleged that plaintiff by his own negligence contributed to his injuries, and for that reason is not entitled to recover in this action.

From judgment dismissing the action at the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Geo. M. Fountain and O. II. Leggett for plaintiff.*

*Thos. ~W. Davis, Gilliam, & Bond and Spruill & Spruill for defendant.*

ConNob, J.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff at the trial of this action tended to show that defendant’s train approached the crossing at a speed of forty to fifty miles per hour, through a heavy fog, without giving warning of its approach by ringing the bell or blowing the whistle on the engine, or otherwise; it also tended to show that plaintiff stopped the truck which he was driving at a distance of twelve or fifteen feet from the defendant’s tracks, and looked and listened for an approaching train. He neither heard nor saw a train, and thereupon drove his truck on the crossing. Defendant’s train appeared suddenly out of the fog and struck plaintiff’s truck, before he had driven off the crossing. There was evidence tending to show that because of the fog plaintiff could not see for more than one hundred to one hundred and fifty yards in the direction from which the train was approaching the crossing. There was no evidence tending to show that plaintiff could not have heard the *304ringing of a bell or tbe blowing of a whistle. Plaintiff did not drive on the crossing until he had assured himself by the exercise of his senses of sight and hearing that no train was approaching the crossing.

There was error in the judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit. *Butner v. R. R.,*199 N. C., 695, 155 S. E., 601. The judgment must be Reversed.
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Steven
      Goertz, principal accounting officer of Getpokerrakeback.com , certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
      Getpokerrakeback.com , for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2007 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of Getpokerrakeback.com.






Date:
                  October 25,
                  2007
              By:
              /s/ Steven
                GoertzPrincipal
                  Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64094-64095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30365]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration


Correction to Notice of Intent To Rule on Application to Use the 
Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Baton Rouge 
Metropolitan Airport, Baton Rouge, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Correction to Federal Register Notice of intent to rule on 
application.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposed to rule and invited public comment on the 
application to use the revenue from a PFC at Baton Rouge Metropolitan 
Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity 
Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 

[[Page 64095]]
CFR Part 158) in the Federal Register dated November 22, 1995. The PFC 
application number was misstated as 95-03-U-00-BTR. The correct PFC 
application number is 96-03-U-OO-BTR.

DATES: The deadline for comments on this application is December 22, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate copies to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, 
Planning and Programming Staff, ASW-610D, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0610.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 29, 1995.
Naomi L. Saunders,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 95-30365 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### Proposed Provision: B5.6. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2024, reconfigure the special minimum benefit: (a) A year of coverage is defined to be either a year in which 4 quarters of coverage are earned or a child is in care. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 6, with a limit of 5 such years. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30 years of coverage equal to 100 percent of the monthly poverty level (about $1,215 in 2023). For those with under 30 years of coverage, the PIA per year of coverage over 10 years is $1,215/20 = $60.75. (c) From 2023 to the year of implementation, 2024, index the PIA per year of coverage using the 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
Exhibit 4.1


 


CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION

OF

Atlis Motor Vehicles Inc.


 


FIRST: The
name of the corporation is: Atlis Motor Vehicles Inc.


 


SECOND:
Its registered office in the State of Delaware is located at 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, Delaware 19958, County of Sussex.
The registered agent in charge thereof is Harvard Business Services, Inc.


 


THIRD: The
purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation
Law of Delaware.


 


FOURTH: The
total number of shares of stock which the corporation is authorized to issue is 10,000,000 shares having a par value of $0.000100 per
share.


 


FIFTH: The
business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of the board of directors, and the directors need
not be elected by ballot unless required by the bylaws of the corporation.


 


SIXTH: This
corporation shall be perpetual unless otherwise decided by a majority of the Board of Directors.


 


SEVENTH:
In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred by the laws of Delaware, the board of directors is authorized to
amend or repeal the bylaws.


 


EIGHTH: The
corporation reserves the right to amend or repeal any provision in this Certificate of Incorporation in the manner prescribed by the
laws of Delaware.


 


NINTH: The
incorporator is Harvard Business Services, Inc., whose mailing address is 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE 19958.


 


TENTH: To the
fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law a director of this corporation shall not be liable to the corporation
or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director.


 


I, the undersigned, for the purpose of forming a corporation under
the laws of the State of Delaware do make and file this certificate, and do certify that the facts herein stated are true; and have accordingly
signed below, this November 09, 2016.


 


 


	Signed
                         and Attested to by:
	 	/s/ Richard H. Bell, II
	 	 	Harvard Business Services,
      Inc., Incorporator

	 	 	By: Richard H. Bell,
      II, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          30,497
<SECURITIES>                                     7,465
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,132
<PP&E>                                          11,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,553
<BONDS>                                         35,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,927
<OTHER-SE>                                    (64,861)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,746
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,280
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,108)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          47,310
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,318)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,933
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,623
<PP&E>                                         117,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                (60,391)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,097
<BONDS>                                          4,209
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,783
<SALES>                                        221,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,732
<CGS>                                          147,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (3)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
Opinion filed March 10, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-09-00129-CV

__________

HELLAS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

V.

EAGLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, L.P.

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-06-40613

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

Appellant, Hellas Construction, Inc., and appellee, Eagle Construction and 

Environmental Services, L.P., have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). In the motion, the parties state that they “have reached an agreement to settle 

and compromise their differences” arising from the underlying litigation. The parties further 

request the court to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand 

the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement 

pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B).
2

Therefore, in accordance with the parties’ request, the trial court’s judgment is set aside,

and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ 

agreement.

The joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 10, 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
#### A. S. MIDYETTE v. FARMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 16 September, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from judgment rendered at April Term, 1925, of Superior Court of Cueeituok. *Cranmer, J.*No error.

Action to recover damages for the destruction of plaintiff’s nets, alleged to bave been burned by fire, negligently set out by defendant. From judgment upon verdict, in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed.

*Ehringhaus & Hall for plaintiff.*

*Aydlett & Simpson for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Assignment of error chiefly relied upon by defendant, upon its appeal to this Court, is the refusal of the court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence; C. S., 567. No evidence was offered by defendant. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of plaintiff. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.

Assignments of error based upon exceptions to evidence offered by plaintiff, and upon exceptions to the charge of the court are not sustained. The judgment must be affirmed. We find

No error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1624

JAMES THOMAS MARTIN, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE; NANCY SUMERSETT,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00774-RMG)

Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: March 30, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Thomas Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Charleston, South 

Carolina, Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1624 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/30/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Thomas Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment on Martin’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title II of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Martin v. Town of 

Summerville, No. 2:19-cv-00774-RMG (D.S.C. May 21, 2021). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1624 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/30/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6185** 

JOSEPH OKOH , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv - 00626

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joseph Okoh , Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER C URIAM: Joseph Okoh seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the mer its, 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Okoh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss th e appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

-  FIRST 
-   
-   
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70 (current)
-   
-   
-  LAST
#### James Park, Jr., and others, Respondents, v. Harvey R. Preston and others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, opinion by

Davis, P. J.