alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. G. KEEBLE, Trustee of P. R. ASHBY, Bankrupt, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF BALTIMORE et al.

(Filed 27 October, 1926.)

(For digest see *Robinson Manufacturing Oo. v. R. L. Blayloclc et at, ante,*407.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Barnhill, J.,*at March Term, 1926, of WaKE.

*417Civil action' to recover balance alleged to be due under a road construction contract.

From a judgment in favor of tbe Fidelity and Deposit Company of Baltimore, Maryland, rendered on facts agreed, a jury trial having been waived, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*J. G. Little for ‘plaintiff.*

*8. Brown Shepherd for Fidelity and Deposit Go.*

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe controlling facts are as follows: 1. In December, 1921, P. R. Asbby, contractor, entered into a contract witb tbe State Highway Commission of North Carolina to build a road in Wilson County, known as Project No. 291.

2. Tbe Fidelity and Deposit Company of Baltimore, Maryland (hereafter called tbe surety), became surety on tbe contract bond and thereby obligated itself, among other things, to save tbe State Highway Commission harmless from “any and all claims of persons furnishing material or performing labor in and about the construction of said roadway,” etc.

3. The actual work of construction had been completed, or practically so, but with many claims for labor and material unpaid, on 4 January, 1924, when the contractor was adjudged a bankrupt and the plaintiff herein appointed trustee in bankruptcy as provided by law.

4. On default by the contractor, the surety was compelled, under the terms of its bond, to pay. the claims of laborers and materialmen, amounting to more than $9,000.00.

5. At the time of the adjudication in bankruptcy, the State Highway Commission had in its hands, under the provisions of the construction contract, retained percentages of the contractor’s account, amounting to $8,098.92.

6. These retained percentages had been duly assigned to the surety at the time of the execution of the surety bond.

Upon these, the facts chiefly pertinent, the appeal presents the single question as to whether the aforesaid retained percentages should be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy for distribution among the general creditors of the bankrupt, or to the surety, under and by virtue of the terms of its contract and bond.

The judgment awarding the sum to the surety must be affirmed on authority of *Robinson Mfg. Co. v. Blaylock et al.,*ante, 407.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                        NEOMETRIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
                            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 NEOMETRIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Norman J. Birmingham, the President, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ NORMAN J. BIRMINGHAM
-------------------------------------------
Norman J. Birmingham
President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer) and Director
August 30, 2004

The foregoing certifications are made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.7: Reduce individual Social Security benefits if modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI (AGI less taxable Social Security benefits plus nontaxable interest income) is above $60,000 for single taxpayers or $120,000 for taxpayers filing jointly. This provision is effective for individuals newly eligible for benefits in 2028 or later. The percentage reduction increases linearly up to 50 percent for single/joint filers with MAGI of $180,000/$360,000 or above. Index the MAGI thresholds for years after 2028, based on changes in the SSA average wage index.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
#### In re Will of HIRAM BARFIELD.

(Filed *25*May, 1955.)

Trial § 49: Wills § 27—

The discretionary authority of the trial court to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence extends to a verdict rendered in a caveat proceeding.

Appeal by caveator from *McKeithen, S. J.,*September-October 1954 Term, CumbeRLAND.

The will of Hiram M. Barfield was probated in common form in Cumberland County, North Carolina, on 15 September, 1952. Thereafter, on 29 September, 1953, a caveat was filed, challenging the validity of the will upon two grounds: (1) Its execution was procured by undue influence and duress; and (2) the maker did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a will. Four issues were submitted and answered by the jury as follows:

1. Was the paper writing offered for probate as the last will and testament of Hiram M. Barfield signed and executed according to law? Answer: Yes.

2. If so, did the said Hiram M. Barfield have mental capacity to make a will? Answer: No.

3. If so, was the execution of said paper writing procured by undue influence? Answer: No.

4. Is the paper writing propounded by Lela Gladys Trogden and every part thereof the Last Will and Testament of Hiram M. Barfield, deceased? Answer: No.

The court entered the following judgment:

“And upon the coming in of the verdict, the propounder through her attorneys, Clark and Clark, having moved the Court in its discretion to set aside the second and fourth issues of the verdict as against the greater weight of the evidence, and parties litigant, through counsel, having agreed that the motion might be heard out of term in chambers, and upon such hearing the Court in his discretion having granted the said motion.

“It Is THEREFORE, OrdeRed, Adjudged, and DeCReed that the verdict rendered by the Jury in the above entitled action be and the same hereby is set aside in the discretion of the Court and a new trial is hereby ordered.”

*Seavy A. Carroll and Lemuel M. Williford, By Seavy A. Carroll, for caveator, appellant.*

*Clark & Clark for propounder, appellee.*

*309Per CuRiam.

The caveator challenges the authority of the trial court to set aside the verdict on the ground that in a caveat proceeding there are no parties, a nonsuit cannot be taken or directed, the issue must be passed on by the jury, and hence no discretionary power is lodged in the court to set the verdict aside. This Court has held the trial judge does have authority to set aside the verdict in his discretion when the verdict is against the greater weight of the evidence. On the authority of *In re Westfeldt,*188 N.C. 702, 125 S.E. 531, and *In re Hargrove,*207 N.C. 280, 176 S.E. 752, the order of the Superior Court of Cumberland County is

Affirmed.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Apply 4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $300,000 in 2017, with the $300,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017.  Give proportional benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for benefit computation. |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 14, 2010 |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6993
JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCKOY; LIEUTENANT NASH; OFFICER CHISLEY; TONY FOREMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees, and CORPORAL MOSBY, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 2647-CCB) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: November 1, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, David Eugene Stevenson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the order granting partial summary judgment to five Defendants; dismissing the claim concerning the denial ofpre-release transfer; denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; allowing the claim of excessive use of force to proceed; and staying further action in this matter. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, ex rel. BANK OF STOKES COUNTY, v. J. W. NEAL et al.

(Filed 4 January, 1933.)

Appeal by defendants from *Clement, J.,*at April Term, 1932, of Stokes.

Civil action instituted against tbe living officers and directors of tbe Bank of Stokes County, and against tbe executors and administrators of tbe officers and directors since deceased, for alleged misconduct and mismanagement on tbe part of said officers and directors during their respective administrations, and in which it is alleged they all participated under a general course of dealing or systematic policy of mismanagement, negligent waste and unlawful diversion of funds, commencing in tbe year 1921° and ending 8 November, 1930, when tbe bank was closed because of insolvency.

In tbe second cause of action, set out in tbe complaint, a large number of deeds and conveyances are sought to be set aside as fraudulent, *865alleged to have been given without consideration and with intent to hinder and delay the plaintiff in the collection of funds due by reason of the matters and things set out in the first cause of action.

Demurrer interposed on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Overruled; exception; appeal by defendants.

*Brown & Trotter for plaintiff.*

*Spruill*c£ *Olive, W. B. Dalton, Folger & Fo'lgm-, S. Porter Graves, Benbow & Hall and Gilmer Sparger for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on authority of *Hood, Commissioner, v. Love, ante,*583, *Trust Co. v. Peirce, 195*N. C., 717, *143*S. E., 524, *Bank v. Moseley,*202 N. C., 836, 162 S. E., 923, *Carswell v. Talley,*192 N. C., 37, 135 S. E., 181.

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 35 7 . DENZ EL TATE HAYW OOD v . THE STATE.

A ju ry fo un d Den zel Hay wo o d g u i l t y o f ro b b ery b y i n ti m i dat i o n , ag g rav at ed

as s au l t , an d b at t ery , an d t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered s en ten ce o n M arch 6
, 2 02 0

. Th e t ri al

co u rt d en i ed H ay wo o d ’ s m o t io n fo r new tri al on J an u ary 2 0
, 2 0 2 1

. Hay wo o d fi l ed a t i m el y n o t ice o f ap peal
, wh i ch we d o ck et ed as Cas e N u m b e r A2 1 A 1 1 2 5

. W e d i s m i s s ed t h i s ap p eal on Au g u s t 1 6
, 20 2 1
, b ecau s e H a yw o o d h ad fai l ed t o fi l e an ap p el l at e b ri ef an d en um erat io n o f erro rs . See Co urt o f Ap peal s Ru l e 2 3 (a). On Sep t em

b e r 1 5
, 2 0 2 1, Hay wo o d fi l ed an ou t -o f-t i m e n o t i ce o f ap p eal
, an d
t h e t ri al co u rt t ran s m it t ed t h e reco rd

. W e, h o w ev er, l ack ju ri s d ict i o n ov er t hi s ap p eal

. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s of en t ry o f t h e o rd er s o u g h t to b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). “ [A] t i m el y -fi l ed n o t i ce o f ap p eal is a j u ri s d i ct i o n al
p rereq u i s i t e t o a v al i d ap p eal .” Hen d er s o n v. St a t e , 2 6 5 Ga. 3 1 7 (1 ) (4 5 4 SE2 d 4 5 8 ) (1 9 9 5). Here, Hay wo o d fi l ed hi s n o ti ce o f ap peal m o r e t h an 18 m on t h s aft er t h e d en ial o f h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Al th o ug h Hay wo o d p u rp o rt ed t o fi l e an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal , t h e Su p rem e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t h at an o ut -o f-t im e ap p eal i s n o t a v i ab l e

rem e d y i n a cri m i n al cas e. See Co o k v. S t a t e ,

_ _ _ Ga.

_ _ _ ,

_ _ _ (5 ) (Cas e No

. S2 1 A1 27 0
, d eci d ed M arch 1 5
, 2 0 2 2 ). Becau s e t he t ri al co u rt was wi t h o u t j u ri s d i ct i o n t o d eci d e Hay wo o d ’ s m o t i o n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i n t h i s cas e, we VACATE t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er an d REM AND wi t h i n s t ru ct i o n s t o d i s m i s s t he m o t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. April 06, 2022

04/06/2022
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

          - [BAC 6735-01]

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 11, 2016.

# PLACE: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Premier Elkhorn Coal Company,*                         Docket No. KENT 2011-827, and                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Trivette Trucking,*                         Docket No. KENT 2011-1223. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in vacating a citation alleging that a truck driver had failed to maintain control of his truck and in excluding certain evidence from the record.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

 Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2016-02214 Filed 2-2-16; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
**CERTIFICATION**

I, Bernard J. Pitz, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Intertape Polymer Group Inc.; 

2. Based onmy 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 withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

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

4. The Company’s other certifying officer 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)] andinternal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)] for the Company 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 Company,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. Designed such internal control over financing reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 7, 2012
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of The JAAG
Group

January 26, 2009

The Board of Directors 
Premiere Global Services, Inc. 
The Terminus Building 
3280 Peachtree Road, NW 
Suite 1000 
Atlanta, Georgia 30305-2422

Re:  Consent of The JAAG Group

Members of the Board:

The JAAG group hereby consents to
the use in the Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007, and any amendments
thereto, by Premiere Global Services, Inc. of references to, and descriptions of, our
market survey conducted in January 2008, and references to our firm name therein. In
giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose
consent is required under, nor do we admit that we are experts for purposes of, the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations adopted by the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.

THE JAAG GROUP

By:      /s/ David K. Francis 
  Name:
David K. Francis 
  Title: Managing Partner
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ahmed McLean, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 856]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts), robbery in the second degree (six counts), burglary in the second degree, criminal pos*609session of a weapon in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (six counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tardbania,*72 NY2d 852 [1988]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641 [1986]). In any event, it is without merit (see *People v Chellel,*307 AD2d 974 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 569 [2003]; *People v Russo,*201 AD2d 512 [1994], *affd*85 NY2d 872 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### Ariel S. Thurston, Executor, etc., Respondent, v. George D. Bartholemew, Appellant, Impleaded, etc

—Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Cost-of-Living Adjustment

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						A5: Starting December 2024, add 1 percentage point to the annual COLA for beneficiaries who have lived past a "specified age". The "specified age" is the sum of: (1) 65 and (2) the unisex cohort life expectancy at age 65.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates