alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MODINE MANUFACTURING CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

July 6, 1993.

Rehearing Filed July 16, 1993.

Order Denying Rehearing and Revising Opinion Aug. 23, 1993.

Debra L. Hill and George H. Buxton, III, Oak Ridge, for appellee.

Lynn Bergwerk, Knoxville, for appellant.

*OPINION*

DAUGHTREY, Justice.

The only issue raised in this workers’ compensation appeal is whether a new provision in T.C.A. § 50-6-229(a) should be given retrospective application. A 1992 amendment to that statute permits the trial court to commute attorney fees in a workers’ compensation case to payment in a lump sum, even though the disability award to the injured worker is not commuted.

This amendment was passed on May 5, 1992, as part of the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1992, which took effect on July 1, 1992. *See*1992 Tenn.Pub.Acts, eh. 900, § 25. The Reform Act is silent on the issue of retroactivity of the provision governing commutation of attorneys fees, although it does indicate that certain new benefits to injured workers are available only for injuries arising from and after August 1, 1992. *See, e.g.,*1992 Tenn.Pub.Acts, ch. 900, §§ 16 & 32.1 We conclude that because the amendment permitting lump-sum payment of attorneys fees does not carry a specific effective date and because it does not affect the substantive rights of the parties to the litigation, there is nothing to prevent its application to the payment of attorney fees set on or after July 1, 1992.

We conclude that commutation would be proper in any *pending*case in which the attorney has made a timely application for the lump-sum payment of fees after the effective date of the amendment. Obviously, the courts may not entertain motions to reopen cases to award the lump-sum payment of benefits to an injured worker as *294a pretext for securing the lump-sum payment of attorneys fees, where the issue of commuting those fees was not timely raised.

Remanded with instructions. Costs will be paid by appellee.

REID, C.J., and DROWOTA, O’BRIEN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The parties have filed a petition to rehear in which they point out that the procedural history recounted in our opinion of July 6, 1993, is incorrect. Upon review of the record, we conclude that a rehearing in this case is unnecessary, because the changes required in the opinion do not affect the result of the appeal or the reasons underlying that result.

The petition is therefore DENIED. The attached opinion will be substituted for the previous opinion released in this ease.

1

. Other sections carry even more distant effective dates. *See, e.g.,*1992 Tenn.Pub.Acts, Ch. 900, §§ 27 & 28.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-94026, 33-51234, 33-75028, 33-77684, 33-57628,
33-80581, 33-80583, 333-42775, 333-89325, 333-89329, 333-89327 and 333-114694 on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 16, 2006, relating to the financial statements
and financial statement schedule of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. and managements
report of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 22, 2006
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of BDO Seidman, LLP





CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





MULTIMEDIA GAMES, INC.


AUSTIN, TEXAS





We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Multimedia Games, Inc., on Form S-8 (File No. 333-23123, and File No. 333-51072) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-30721 and File No. 333-64128) of our report dated November 8, 2002, relating to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Multimedia Games, Inc. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002.





BDO Seidman, LLP





Houston, Texas


December 20, 2002
Exhibit 32.1



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending October 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

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 D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

Principal Executive Officer

December 14, 2012
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60800 

Conference Calendar

 

TROBY D. BENSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KIRK FORDICE, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95-CV-141-PG

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Troby D. Benson, Mississippi prisoner # 45675A, appeals the

district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action. Benson argues that the district court abused its

discretion in summarily dismissing his complaint because the

court failed to entertain his valid theory of recovery under the

Constitution. He argues that he stated a claim of malicious

prosecution with regard to the burglary charge, that such a claim

is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), that the

defendants are not immune, and that the statute of limitations 
No. 97-60800

-2-

was tolled by the defendants’ actions in fraudulently concealing

the facts underlying his action.

The facts underlying his claims are set forth in the

Mississippi Supreme Court opinion affirming his conviction. 

Benson v. State, 551 So. 2d 188 (Miss. 1989). Benson was

convicted for the acts for which he was arrested and for which he

was detained for those four months prior to his indictment on the

robbery charge. His challenge to the existence of probable cause

to detain him during that time until the grand jury returned an

indictment would implicate the validity of his conviction. See

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The district court did not err in

dismissing Benson’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to § 1915A. 

See Ruiz v. United States, F.3d (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 1998,

No. 97-20950). 

Benson’ appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. We caution Benson that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Benson is cautioned further to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Estill Dwain HORNING, Appellant.

No. WD 43430.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 7, 1991.

Dan K. Purdy, Osceola, for appellant.

Michael L. Ash, Pros. Atty., Stockton, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and TURNAGE and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Estill Dwain Horning was found guilty following a bench trial of the Class B Misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010, RSMo 1986, and the Class A Misdemeanor of assault in the third degree, § 565.070, RSMo 1986. Sentence on the driving while intoxicated charge was a $150.00 fine and ten days in jail with the execution of jail sentence stayed and ten days in jail on the assault charge.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8128]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard
[CGD01-95-032]


Marine Inspection Office New York/Captain of the Port New York 
Industry Day

AGENCY: Coast Guard DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Coast Guard Marine Inspection Office New York and Captain of 
the Port, New York are sponsoring an Industry Day to exchange 
information with the maritime community. The meeting will be open to 
the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the State University of New York 
Maritime College at Fort Schuyler, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR James Candee, USCG Marine 
Inspection Office, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, 
telephone (212) 668-7850, facsimile (212) 668-7863.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rear Admiral John L. Linnon, Commander, 
First Coast Guard District and Rear Admiral James C. Card, Chief, 
Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection will be 
featured speakers. Topics to be addressed include President Clinton's 
``Presidential Regulation Reinvention Initiative,'' Port State Control, 
and the Alternative Compliance and Prevention through People 
Initiatives. Feedback received in the past from small passenger vessel 
owners and operators indicated a need to provide a separate Industry 
Day addressing their concerns. That was accomplished during Marine 
Inspection Office New York's small passenger vessel public forums. 
While small passenger vessel issues will not be specifically addressed 
during the April 11th meeting, small passenger vessel operators are 
still encouraged to attend. Attendance is open to the public. Advance 
registration is requested. Registration and agendas may be obtained by 
contacting the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-8128 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15495-15496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7297]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 95-119]


Calling Party Telephone Number; Privacy

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 15496]] ACTION: Stay of effective date of Order establishing 
final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Order stays the effective date of the Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, April 18, 1994, which 
adopted the Commission's rules regarding privacy and other requirements 
for Calling Party Telephone Numbers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert E. Kimball, (202) 634-7150, Domestic Services Branch, Domestic 
Facilities Division, Common Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
in CC Docket No. 91-281, FCC 95-119, adopted March 17, 1995, released 
March 17, 1995. The item is available for inspection and copying during 
normal hours in the Commission's FCC Reference Center (room 230), 1919 
M St., NW., Washington, D.C., or a copy may be purchased from the 
duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (202) 
857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. The Order 
will be published in the FCC Record.

Analysis of Proceeding

    In the process of reviewing petitions for reconsideration of the 
Commission's Rules governing passage of Calling Party Number (CPN) on 
interstate telephone calls, we have decided on our own motion that the 
public interest would best be served by temporarily staying 
effectiveness of 47 CFR 64.1601 and 64.1603. Interested parties have 
persuasively argued that no matter how the issues raised in the 
petition for reconsideration are resolved, and even if the Commission 
adheres to its original decision in every material respect, compliance 
will not be possible by April 12, 1995, the effective date specified in 
the March 29, 1994 Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 59 FR 18318.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) of the 
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 1 and 154(i), that effectiveness of 
Secs. 64.1601 and 64.1603 of the Commission's Rules IS STAYED until 
further notice.
    It is further ordered that this order is effective upon adoption.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Calling party number identification, Privacy, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7297 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lam Liang
Corp. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. Anchana Chayawatana,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.

                              LAM LIANG CORP., Registrant

Date: September 11, 2005        /s/ Anchana Chayawatana
                              -----------------------------------------
                              By: Dr. Anchana Chayawatana, Chief
                                  Executive Officer













<PAGE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5033

Radio Systems Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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





I,
      Rick
      Wilson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-QSB of Blacksands
      Petroleum, Inc. ,
      for the
      fiscal quarter ended July 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands
      Petroleum, Inc.


Date:
                  September 14, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Rick WilsonRick
                  Wilson, Principal Financial
                  Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1980

Wultrad, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JAMAR G. BAGLEY,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 41 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 FedFirst Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John G. Robinson, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: November 9, 2006                  /s/ John G. Robinson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John G. Robinson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Michael Dean THOMPSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45-88.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Jan. 18, 1989.

Edmund J. Zielinski, Gainesville, for appellant.

*431Jack A. McGaughey, Dist. Atty., Montague, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury for manufacture of a controlled substance and punishment was assessed at 50 years confinement and a $50,000.00 fine. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. *Thompson v. State,*741 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1987). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review raising two grounds for review.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that none of the grounds raised requires reversal. As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, however, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See *Sheffield v. State,*650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I, JamesW. Klingler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly ReportTroy Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2003fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Troy Group, Inc.

 

 
|   | By:                                                          |    /s/James  W. Klingler |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  James W. Klingler                                     |
|   | Title:  Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----