alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re CARL FRANKLIN BARWICK.

(Filed 29 October, 1947.)

Habeas Corpus § 3: Appeal and Error § 48—

In *habeas corpus*to determine tlie custody of a minor child as between husband and wife separated but not divorced, G. S., 17-39, the findings of the court that the best interests of the infant require that its custody he awarded its mother are sufficient to support the judgment in her favor, and an exception to the signing and entering of the judgment cannot be sustained.

Appeal by respondent from *Nimocks, J.,*at Chambers, 12 April, 1947. From LeNOIb.

Affirmed.

*J. A. Jones for petitioner, appellee.*

*J. Faison Thomson and Whitaker <& Jeffress for respondent, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The petition of Madeline Dunn Barwick for the custody of her infant son was beard upon return to the writ of *habeas corpus*issued under Gr. S., 17-39. Petitioner is separated from ber husband but not divorced. *Barwick v. Barwick, ante,*109. After full bearing afforded to petitioner and respondent, and consideration of the supporting affidavits of each, judgment was rendered awarding custody of the child to the petitioner, the court finding “that the best interest and general welfare of said infant Carl Franklin Barwick require thaL its custody, care and control be awarded to its mother, Mrs. Madeline Dunn Barwick.” Provision was made for respondent father to have the child with him at certain times. Respondent appealed. His only exception “was to the signing and entering of judgment.” The facts found by the court below were sufficient to support the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

###### Information Security Oversight Office  

          - [NARA-2016-015]

# AGENCY:

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces the following committee meeting.

# DATES:

The meeting will be March 16, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at                         *robert.tringali@nara.gov*. Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov*                         and the NISPPAC at                         *NISPPAC@nara.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program                           ( print page 7595)                        policy matters. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, March 11, 2016. ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.                

Dated: February 8, 2016.

Patrice Little Murray,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2016-02934 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-336]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and Dissemination 
Notice of Meeting

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

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and 
Dissemination.
    Date and Time: January 23, 1995; 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; January 24, 
1995; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Place: Room 375, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Iris Rotberg, Program Director, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, room 855, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306-1656.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals and provide advice and 
recommendations as part of the selection process for proposals 
submitted to the Studies and Indicators Program.
    Reason for Closing: Because the proposals reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with 
proposals, the meetings are within exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c), Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 3, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-336 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### JANIE GILL, Administratrix of Martha Gill, v. CEASES’ LUNCH SYSTEM, Inc.

(Filed 26 October, 1927.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sinclair, J.,*at May Special Term, 1927, of Duehak.

*Brawley & Q-antt for plaintiff.*

*Fuller, Beade & Fuller for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

This was an action for the recovery of damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by her eating unwholesome food negligently provided in the defendant’s cafeteria. At the close of the evidence the action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit. The judgment is affirmed on the authority of *Lamb v. Boyles,*192 N. C., 542. See annotation in 49 A. L. R., 592.

Affirmed.
#### RENA WARREN v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 26 March, 1941.)

Appeal and Error § 49a—

When the evidence upon the subsequent hearing is substantially the same as that considered upon the former appeal, a peremptory instruction given in accord with the opinion in the former appeal will not be held for error.

Devin, J„ dissents for the reasons stated in former appeal.

Clarkson and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hamilton, Special Judge,*at November Term, 1940, of Pitt.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover on double indemnity provision of a life insurance policy.

From judgment on verdict for defendant plaintiff appeals.

*Smith, Wharton & Hudgins and J. B. James for defendant, appellee.*

*Albion Dunn for plaintiff, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

This is the fourth appeal in this case. Former appeals are reported in 212 N. C., 354, 193 S. E., 293; 215 N. C., 402, 2 S. E. (2d), 17; and 217 N. O., 705, 9 S. E. (2d), 479, where the material facts are set forth.

The substantive evidence tending to show the circumstances under which deceased met his death offered in the trial below is substantially the same as that appearing in the record on the last appeal. There is no material variance. This evidence, considered in the light most favorable *369to tbe plaintiff, tends to show that the deceased suffered death as a result of a gunshot wound intentionally inflicted by another. If believed and accepted by the jury, when considered in connection with such evidence as tendered to contradict the same and to impeach the witness, it was such as to require a finding favorable to the defendant. The peremptory instruction given was in accord with the opinion in the former appeal reported in 217 N. C., 705, 9 S. E. (2d), 479.

In the judgment below there is

No error.

Devin, J., dissents for the reasons stated in former appeal.

Clarkson and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 9438]

## Closed Meeting

The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on February 23 and 24, 2016. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas.

For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214.

 Dated: February 2, 2016.

Bill A. Miller,

Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2016-02583 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
#### STATE v. WILLIAM H. BRYANT.

(Filed 11 November, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*June, 1959 Regular Criminal Term, Ware Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment which charged the defendant with the crime of bribery.

The evidence before .the jury disclosed the defendant paid two Raleigh police officers money for the purpose of having them “lay off his numbers business.” The officers reported the defendant’s proposition to their superior officer. They later met the defendant at his request outside the city at night .and accepted a fifty dollar bill, at which time the defendant said he would meet them again “in two weeks — at the same time and place for another pay-off.” The officers received the money but promised nothing. At the trial the defendant did not offer testimony. He excepted to the refusal of the court to allow his motions to dismiss.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, Harry W. McGalliard, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Thomas W. Ruffin, Robert L. McMillan, Jr. for defendant, appellant*

PeR CuRiam.

The evidence before the jury was ample to establish all essential elements of the offense charged and to support the judgment imposed. The .assignments of error with respect to the admissibility of evidence are without merit. The defense of entrapment interposed by the defendant is not supported by the evidence. The record discloses

No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Friedhelm Blobel,
Chief Executive Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/    FRIEDHELM BLOBEL,
PH.D.                 
|                     |  |  |  | Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer


February 25, 2009
|   | (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/ MICHAEL BARTH       |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Michael Barth           |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
| March 16, 2011          |   |   |   |   |

----
## Benefit Calculation Examples for Workers Retiring in 2024

- Office of the Chief Actuary 

## Primary Insurance Amount

PIA formula
|   | Formula bend points |        |
|---|---------------------|--------|
||
| A | $5,321              | $1,174 | $7,078 | .9(1174) + .32(5321 - 1174) = **$2,383.64** |
| B | 10,911              | 960    | 5,785 | .9(960) + .32(5785 - 960) + .15(10911 - 5785) = **$3,176.90** |

	 Because the worker in case A is first eligible for benefits in 2024, 	 and also retires in 2024, there are no applicable 	 cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs,	 to the amount computed above. Therefore, the case-A PIA is the case A amount     computed above truncated to the next lower dime, or $2,383.60.

    The worker in case B is first eligible in 2020 (the year case B reached age 62).     Thus the case-B PIA is the case B amount computed above truncated to the next lower    dime and increased by cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for 2020 through 	 2023. These COLAs are 1.3 percent, 5.9 percent, 8.7 percent, 3.2 percent, respectively.  	 The resulting PIA is $3,822.80.

## Benefit Based on PIA and Age

    The amount of retirement benefits paid depends on a person's age when he or    she begins receiving benefits.  We reduce benefits taken before a person's     normal (or full) retirement age and we increase benefits    taken after normal retirement age.	

    We assume the worker in case A begins receiving benefits at the earliest possible    age, which is age 62.  Because case A's normal retirement age is 67 years,    the benefit amount for case A is reduced for 60 months of     early retirement.    The $2,383.60 PIA is thus reduced to a monthly benefit of $1,668.00.    

    The benefit amount for case B, assuming that benefits begin exactly at normal     retirement age of 66 years and 8 months, is not reduced except for rounding down to the    next lower dollar. The $3,822.80 PIA is thus reduced to a monthly benefit of    $3,822.00.    

    In addition to case B, we also have other benefit examples for    workers whose earnings have equalled or exceeded    maximum taxable amounts. These examples show AIME and benefit amounts for    retirement at ages 62, 65, 66, 67, and 70.Two Other Methods
Two other methods for computing a PIA   have limited applicability.    Relatively few new beneficiaries qualify for these two other methods.

**PREVIOUS**
Footer menu
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GARRICK GIDEON JOHN,

Appellant,

v.

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ and FLORIDA DENTAL CENTER OF LAKE 

PARK, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1533

[February 9, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502010CA017346.

Garrick Gideon John, Lake Butler, pro se.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Thomas H. Wilson, Respondent, v. The Kings County Elevated Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
<PAGE>


                           HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION

                               HOMEQ TRUST 2001-A

                  I, ARTHUR Q. LYON, THE PRESIDENT OF HOMEQ SERVICING
CORPORATION, CERTIFY THAT:

1.       I HAVE REVIEWED THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K, AND ALL REPORTS ON FORM
         8-K CONTAINING DISTRIBUTION OR SERVICING REPORTS FILED IN RESPECT OF
         PERIODS INCLUDED IN THE YEAR COVERED BY THIS ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HOMEQ
         TRUST 2001-A;

2.       BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION IN THESE REPORTS, TAKEN AS A
         WHOLE, 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 AS OF THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS ANNUAL
         REPORT;

3.       BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THE DISTRIBUTION OR SERVICING INFORMATION
         REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CERTIFICATE ADMINISTRATOR BY THE
         SERVICER UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF
         FEBRUARY 28, 2001 (THE "AGREEMENT") WITH RESPECT TO THE HOMEQ TRUST
         2001-A, HOMEQ ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-A IS INCLUDED IN
         THESE REPORTS;

4.       I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE SERVICER
         UNDER THE SERVICING AGREEMENT AND BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE AND THE
         ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW REQUIRED UNDER THE AGREEMENT, AND EXCEPT AS
         DISCLOSED IN THE REPORTS, THE SERVICER HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATIONS
         UNDER THE AGREEMENT; AND

5.       THE REPORTS DISCLOSE ALL SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES RELATING TO THE
         SERVICER'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM SERVICING STANDARDS BASED UPON
         THE REPORT PROVIDED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, AFTER
         CONDUCTING A REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION
         PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS OR SIMILAR PROCEDURE AS SET FORTH IN THE
         AGREEMENT, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THESE REPORTS.

                                                     HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION

                                                     BY: /S/ ARTHUR Q. LYON
                                                         NAME: ARTHUR Q. LYON
                                                         TITLE: PRESIDENT


DATED:  MARCH 28, 2003
#### ELIZABETH WILLIAMS v. J. A. PATLA, Trustee, et al.

(Filed 6 June, 1930.)

Appeal by defendants from *Finley, J.,*at October Term, 1929, of Buncombe.

Civil action to quiet title and to remove a cloud therefrom.

There was a judgment for tbe plaintiff, from wbicb tbe defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*Bourne, Pan'her •& Jones and Thomas J. Richman for plaintiff.*

*Wéaver & Patla for defendants.*

Peb Cubiam.

No reversible error has been pointed out by appellants, hence tbe judgment will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.