alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3213]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[CA 96-1-6799; FRL-5151-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Mojave Desert Air Quality 
Management District; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correction to direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulation 
which was published Tuesday, January 3, 1995. The regulation concerned 
the inclusion of additional information to the California State 
Implementation Plan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective on February 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, Rulemaking Section (A-
5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: 
(415) 744-1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 3, 1995, at 60 FR 38, EPA published a final rulemaking 
action to approve two negative declarations submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board for the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 
Distict. The two negative declaration were included as additional 
information to the California State Implementation Plan in the form of 
Negative Declarations submitted by the California Air Resources Board 
for the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.

Need for Correction

    As published, subparagraph (c) (200) used in the amendatory 
language section for 40 CFR Subpart F, California, Sec. 52.220 
Identification of plan at 60 FR 40 was incorrect and needs to be 
changed.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on January 3, 1995 of the direct final 
rule FR Doc. 94-32232 is corrected as follows:


Sec. 52.220  [Corrected]

    On page 40, in the first column, amendatory instruction 2. is 
corrected to read:
    ``Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(198)(ii) to 
read as follows:''

    Dated: January 31, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-3213 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
#### CHLOE TINSLEY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.

(Filed 23 November, 1927.)

Civil actiou before *Finley, J.,*at February Term) 1927, of Forsyth.

This was a1 civil action for damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff by reason of slipping into an uncovered or unguarded hole or excavation on North Elm Street. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed, assigning errors.

*Wallace & Wells for plaintiff.*

*Fred M. Parrish for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

This case was considered by the Court upon a former appeal, which is reported in 192 N. 0., p. 597. This decision becomes *809tbe law of tbe case so far as tbe subsequent trial is concerned. *Nobles v. Davenport,*185 N. C., 162; *Mfg. Co. v. Hodgins,*192 N. C., 577.

After a careful examination of tbe record and briefs of counsel for tbe parties, tbe court is of tbe opinion that no error of law was committed upon tbe trial, and tbe judgment of tbe trial court is upheld.

No error.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 3, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D18-418 & 3D20-1382

Lower Tribunal No. 15-25520

________________

Castle Key Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Andre De Kosko and Marietta De Kosko,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith 

and Mavel Ruiz, Judges.

Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A. (Plantation); Russo Appellate Firm, 

P.A., and Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellant.

The Monfiston Firm, P.A., and Daniel L. Monfiston, for appellees.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. JOHN SAMIA.

(Filed 16 October, 1940.)

Constitutional Law § 26—

Where a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors is transferred from the recorder’s court to the Superior Court, defendant may be there tried upon the original warrant without a bill of indictment. Public Laws of 1929, ch. 115, see. 2.

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*at February Term, 1940, of GRAVEN.

The defendant was charged with unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. From judgment on verdict of guilty, defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*J. A. Jones for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

A witness for the State testified that be bought a pint of whiskey from the defendant. The defendant offered no evidence. The only question was the credibility of the State’s witness. The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt and rendered verdict accordingly. In the trial we find

No error.

Motion in Arrest oe Judgment.

In this Court defendant entered a motion in arrest of the judgment on the ground that the ease was transferred from the Craven County recorder’s court to the Superior Court for trial, and that defendant was there tried upon the original warrant without a bill of indictment. This, procedure was authorized by statute, Public Laws 1929, ch. 115, sec. 2, and has been upheld by this Court in *S. v. Publishing Co.,*179 N. C., 720, 102 S. E., 318; *S. v. Saleeby,*183 N. C., 740, 110 S. E., 844. See, also, *S. v. Boykin,*211 N. C., 407, 191 S. E., 18.

Motion in arrest of judgment denied.
#### In Re Assessment by the CORPORATION COMMISSION Against the Stockholders of the BANK OF ROSE HILL, GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, BANK OF ROSE HILL, the BANK OF DUPLIN, J. C. WILLIAMS, CHARLES TEACHEY, MAURY WARD, D. W. FUSSELL, HENRY FUSSELL, D. B. HERRING, G. W. BONEY, et al.

(Filed 29 June, 1932.)

Appeal by stockholders, petitioners, from *Grady, J.,*at December Term, 1931, of DupliN.

Reversed.

*Geo. R. Ward for Gurney*P. *Hood, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. Bank of Rose Hill and Bank of Duplin.*

*Butler & Butler for appealing stockholder's.*

Per Curiam.

The only exception and assignment of error on the part of the appealing stockholders, is to the judgment sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the stockholders’ appeal and declaring the assessment on the stockholders valid. We think this is error and the *841judgment should be reversed. From the pleadings as they now appear of record, we think that all matters in controversy should be settled in this action and all the rights of the appealing stockholders heard and determined. Such amendments to the pleadings as are necessary to the complete determination of this action, should be allowed. As to the question of jurisdiction, see *Corporation Commission v. Bank,*199 N. C., 586. The judgment below is

Beversed.
#### Susan F. Brewer, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Martin, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 32.1

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 ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John L. Wagner, 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 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/ John L. Wagner
John L. Wagner
Chief Executive Officer

August 7, 2009
UN PUBLISHED
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 un published per curiam opinion

.
James Thomas Martin, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Charleston, South Carolina , Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani , RICHARDSON P LOWDEN & 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 22 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 2 1 , 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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

URS Energy & Construction, Inc. 

Under Contract No. F A3002-06-D-OOO 1 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 61255, 61256, 61257 

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq. 

Elizabeth A. Buehler, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: March 15, 2019 

rative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61255, 61256, 61257, Appeals of 

URS Energy & Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### STATE v. JOHN JONES.

(Filed 21 May, 1930.)

1. Criminal Law G d — Testimony of deaf mute in this case held competent.

Upon the trial for a homicide, testimony of a deaf mute that he saw the defendant take the arm of the deceased “and make like to cut him” is competent with other testimony to like effect and as substantive evidence.

2. Criminal Law L e — Question calling for hearsay evidence which is not answered will not he held for reversible error.

Where a question asked by the solicitor of a physician calls for hearsay evidence, it will not be held for reversible error if the question is not answered and it does not appear what the answer would have been.

Appeal by defendant from *Schenclc, J.,*at January Term, 1930, of BuNCOmbe. No eri’or.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*W. A. Sullivan and B. R. Beynolds-for defendant.*

Adams, J.

Four defendants were indicted for tbe murder of Claude Gentry. Sam Jones and *W.*C. Jones were discharged when tbe action as to tbem was dismissed, Ed Swan was acquitted, and Jobn Jones was convicted of manslaughter. From tbe judgment pronounced tbe latter appealed.'

There are only two assignments of error. F. G. Hembry testified without objection that be was present when tbe fatal wound was inflicted and saw tbe defendant knock tbe deceased backward, get on top of him, and cut him with a knife in tbe stomach or side. A deaf mute afterwards testified that be saw tbe defendant take tbe arm of tbe deceased and “make like to cut him.” To tbe last statement tbe defendant excepted. This testimony corroborated 'Hembry and was itself substantive evidence; it was therefore properly admitted.

Dr. Mooneyhan was asked whether in bis presence tbe deceased said who cut him. Tbe proposed testimony was not *res gestee,*but tbe narrative of a transaction, and was not a dying declaration. It was hearsay.

Moreover, it does not appear what tbe answer would have been. There is

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8235-8236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3491]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


 Firstar Corporation; Formation of, Acquisition by, or Merger of 
Bank Holding Companies

    The company listed in this notice has applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that application or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Any comment on an application that 
requests a hearing must include a statement of why a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute and summarizing 
the evidence that would be presented at a hearing.
    Comments regarding this application must be received not later than 
March 9, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. Firstar Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Firstar 
Corporation of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares [[Page 8236]] of Firstar Credit Card Bank, N.A., 
Gurnee, Illinois, a de novo bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 7, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-3491 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 Exhibit 23(i)



                      Consent of Independent Accountants


The Board of Directors
Chrysalis International Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-49124 and No. 33-70976) on Form S-8 of Chrysalis International
Corporation of our report dated February 5, 1999, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Chrysalis International Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and related
consolidated financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December
31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Chrysalis International Corporation.

Our report dated February 5, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a net
working capital deficiency and is in default of certain of its debt covenants
which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

KPMG LLP



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 31, 1999
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 28, 2018

No. 04-18-00137-CV

IN RE STONEBROOK MANOR, SNF, LLC, d/b/a Advanced Rehabilitation Healthcare of 

Live Oak, LLC f/k/a Stonebrook Manor at Broadway

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The Real Party in Interest’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 

to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to March 

26, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017-CI-19392, styled Janet Baxter, As Next Friend of Ella Baxter, An 

Incapacitated Person v. Stonebrook Manor SNF, LLC d/b/a Advanced Rehabilitation Healthcare of Live Oak, LLC 

f/k/a Stonebrook Manor at Broadway, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Meditecnic, Inc. (the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the quarter  ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Bernard Arbalet, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/ Bernard Arbalet

By: Bernard Arbalet

Chief Executive  Officer

November 6, 2008
EX-10.29





 Exhibit 10.29 

EXECUTION VERSION 
 Primavera Capital Acquisition
Corporation (“SPAC”) 
 41/F Gloucester Tower 

15 Queen’s Road Central 
 Hong Kong 

Primavera Capital Acquisition LLC (the “Sponsor”) 

41/F Gloucester Tower 
 15 Queen’s Road Central 

Hong Kong 
 December 2, 2022 

 

	Re:	 Waiver 



Dear Sirs: 
 Reference is made to certain
Promissory Note, dated January 28, 2022, by and between the Sponsor and SPAC (as may be amended, restated, supplemented or modified from time to time, the “Promissory Note”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meaning ascribed to them in the Promissory Note. 
 Pursuant to Section 14 of the Promissory Note, the Sponsor hereby
irrevocably waives, subject to the Closing and effective immediately prior to the consummation of the Initial Merger, its right to receive any payment of the principal balance of the Promissory Note from SPAC. 

This letter shall become effective on the date hereof and shall terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the
Business Combination Agreement, dated as of March 23, 2022, and as amended on October 17, 2022, October 20, 2022, October 28, 2022 and December 2, 2022 (as may be further amended, restated, modified or varied in accordance
with the terms therein, the “Business Combination Agreement”), by and among SPAC and certain other parties thereto, without the Closing (as defined in the Business Combination Agreement) having taken place. 

Sections 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the Promissory Note are incorporated herein by reference mutatis mutandis; provided that, in each
case, references to “this Note” in such paragraphs shall mean this letter. 
 [Signature Pages Follow] 












 
					
	Very truly yours,
	
	Primavera Capital Acquisition LLC 
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tong Chen

		 	Name:	 	Tong Chen
		 	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory


 [Signature Page to Waiver Letter] 












 
					
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	Primavera Capital Acquisition Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tong Chen

		 	Name:	 	Tong Chen
		 	Title:	 	Director


 [Signature Page to Waiver Letter]
EXHIBIT 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Premiere Global Services, Inc. We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Premiere Global Services, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) Nos. 333-79599, 333-87635, 333-89891, 333-51380, 333-57698, 333-67292,
333-101262, 333-116506 and 333-151962 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 27, 2009 (February 26, 2010 as to Note 5), relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph regarding the retrospective adjustment of the 2008 and 2007 consolidated financial statements for discontinued operations), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Atlanta, GA

February 26, 2010