alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20448]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11411]


Florida Disaster <greek-i>FL-00036

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida (FEMA-
1785-DR), dated 08/24/2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 08/24/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/23/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/25/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/24/2008, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Brevard, Monroe, Okeechobee, Saint Lucie.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Collier, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Indian River, Martin, Miami-
Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk, Seminole, Volusia.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for 
economic injury is 11411.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20448 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Herring, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with the suppression court that the array of photographs shown to the prosecution witness was not suggestive and that the portions of the tape recording offered into evidence were audible. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J.—criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00394-CV

Valerie E. Steele, Appellant

v.

Victor Biles, Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-15-002740, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Valerie E. Steele filed her notice of appeal on June 29, 2015. That day, we

notified her that she was required to make a written request and arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record and the reporter’s record within ten days from her receipt of our letter. The clerk’s record

from the trial court was due to be filed in this Court on September 25, 2015.

On November 2, this Court notified Steele that no clerk’s record had been filed due

to her failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice

also informed Steele that on July 30, 2015 the trial court ordered that her affidavit of indigence was

denied, and accordingly, she is not indigent. The Court’s notice requested that Steele make

arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal byNovember 12. 

In addition, the notice informed Steele that her appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not comply

with our instructions. To date, Steele has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this

Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.
If the trial court’s clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to appellant’s failure to pay

or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without

payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, Steele has not established that she is entitled

to proceed without payment of costs, see Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing procedure for establishing

indigence on appeal), and she has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for

preparing the clerk’s record. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: December 17, 2015

2
EXHIBIT 4.9

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                          CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated March 2,
2005 (the "First Amendment"), between Bruce Arthur Hall ("Consultant"), and
Nannaco, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Client").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Consultant and the Client entered into a Consulting Services
Agreement dated September 1, 2004 a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the Consultant agreed to provide certain
consulting services to the Client.

         B. Client and Consultant wish to amend Section 2 of the Agreement to
provide additional stock to Consultant in order to adjust for a subsequent
reverse stock-split and overall decrease price per share following entry into
the September 1, 2004 Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the mutual
agreements, representations, warranties and covenants contained herein, and for
other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and shall read as
follows:

"2.      Consideration.

         Client agrees to pay Consultant, in full satisfaction of all prior
services rendered to Client, billed or unbilled, and for services going forward
as set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto, the amount of 2,000,000 shares of
common stock in the Client. By amendment dated March 2, 2005 Client agrees to
pay Consultant an additional Three Million (3,000,000) shares of common stock of
the Client. All shares and certificates representing such shares shall be
subject to applicable SEC, federal, state (Blue sky) and local laws and
additional restrictions set forth herein."


                 [Signature blocks appear on the following page]

<PAGE>

EXECUTED on the date first set forth above.

                                            CLIENT:

                                            Nannaco, Inc.




                                            By:
                                                ---------------------------
                                            Name: Steve Careaga
                                            Its:  CEO




                                            CONSULTANT:





                                            By:
                                                ---------------------------
                                            Name: Bruce Arthur Hall



                                       2
<PAGE>


                                    Exhibit A

                          Consulting Services Agreement





                                       3
H. R. 6630 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1400 N 

Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PFC JANG HO KIM POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
177 La. 819

#### RIGOLETS COOPERATIVE FUR CO. v. DELAWARE-LOUISIANA FUR TRAPPING CO., Inc.

No. 31872.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1933.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1933.

Brian & Brian, of New Orleans, for appellant.

.Milling, Godehaux, Saal & Milling and Lawrence K. Benson, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This suit is an action in jactitation. The defendant excepted to the petition as not disclosing a right or cause of action. The exceptions were sustained, the suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff perfected a suspensive appeal from that judgment.

In 1922 the Baratarla Land Company (Suc-session of Chas. P. Davidson, Sr., subrogee) and the Louisiana Meadows Company owned abutting land. They had a survey and pro-cés verbal made of an east and west line dividing their properties and forming their respective north and south boundaries. The procés verbal was homologated by a judgment of the district court on March 18, 1922, but this judgment was never recorded. Thereafter the present litigants acquired said lands by mesne conveyance from their respective ancestors in title. They bought on the faith of the public record. If the defendant cannot be compelled to recognize an unrecorded judgment, rendered in a proceeding to which neither he nor the plaintiff were parties, purporting to fix the boundary line separating the lands of their respective authors in title, a jactitation suit does not lie, and the judgment appealed from is correct. We quote from the Revised Civil Code the following:

“All final judgments affecting immovable property shall be recorded in the parish where the immovable property is situated.” Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2265.

“All sales, contracts and judgments affecting immovable property, which shall not be so recorded, shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto.” Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2266.

It is a part of the public policy of the state to stabilize titles to real property, and to this end, with one exception, which decision has been repudiated, the courts have consistently held: (1) That unrecorded contracts are without effect save between the parties to them; and (2) that in matters of real estate no notice other than registry can prove knowledge.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
#### Michael Dwayne ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7700.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Michael Dwayne Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failing to particularize his claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 6, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2002.* Because Rogers failed to file a *593timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Exhibit 5.1


                         Citizens Communications Company
                                3 High Ridge Road
                               Stamford, CT 06905
                                 (203) 614-5600


                                  May 29, 2008


Citizens Communications Company
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT  06905

         Re:   Statement on Form S-8
               ---------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I have acted as counsel to Citizens  Communications Company (the "Company")
in connection  with the  preparation and filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission   of  the   Company's   Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-8  (the
"Registration  Statement")  under the Securities  Act of 1933, as amended,  with
respect to 75,609  shares of the  Company's  common  stock,  par value $0.25 per
share (the "Common  Stock"),  that may be issued under the terms of the Citizens
Utilities Company Management Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the "Plan").

     In so acting, I have examined  originals or copies  (certified or otherwise
identified to my satisfaction) of the Registration  Statement and such corporate
records,  agreements,  documents and other instruments, and such certificates or
comparable  documents of public officials and of officers and representatives of
the Company,  and have made such inquiries of such officers and  representatives
as I have deemed relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions  hereinafter
set forth.

     In such examination,  I have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the
legal  capacity  of all  natural  persons,  the  authenticity  of all  documents
submitted  to me as  originals,  the  conformity  to original  documents  of all
documents submitted to me as certified,  conformed or photostatic copies and the
authenticity of the originals of such latter  documents.  As to all questions of
fact material to these opinions that have not been independently  established, I
have  relied  upon   certificates  or  comparable   documents  of  officers  and
representatives of the Company.

     Based on the foregoing,  and subject to the qualifications stated herein, I
am of the opinion  that the Common  Stock to be issued  pursuant to the terms of
the Plan have been duly authorized  and, when issued,  delivered and paid for in
accordance with the terms of the Plan,  will be validly  issued,  fully paid and
non-assessable.  The opinions expressed herein are limited to the corporate laws
of the State of  Delaware  and the  federal  laws of the  United  States,  and I
express no opinion as to the effect on the  matters  covered by this  opinion of
the laws of any other jurisdiction.

<PAGE>

     I  hereby  consent  to  the  use  of  this  letter  as an  exhibit  to  the
Registration Statement.

                                   Very truly yours,

                                   /s/ Hilary E. Glassman

                                   Hilary E. Glassman
                                   Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
                                   Secretary
                                   Admitted in New York only
National Institute
NUD | ciitstice 202 YEAR IN
STRENGTHEN SCIENCE. ADVANCE JUSTICE. REVI EW

3 Solicitations 1 35

Awards Granted, Totalling
Launched = $91,866,607

20 15 9 13

Web Articles Trade “Five Things” Reports
NU o.cov Articles Briefs

Crim ATIC
SOLUTIONS 40: ‘atings—

RELIABLE RESEARCH. REAL RESULTS.

© © ©

Videos Webinars Podcasts

473 rs A6 1 National

NIJ-Sponsored Director Speaking NIJ | stent mae AYE.
Abstracts Published Engagements

EVIDENCE TC ACTION

ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH SCIENCE nij.ojp.gov
#### Lyle D. MCMULLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5054.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 5, 2003.

Before BRYSON, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R.36
| **Commitments And Contingent Liabilities (Narrative) (Details) (Maximum [Member], USD $)** | 12 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| Maximum [Member]                                                                           |            |
| Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote                                    | $ 500,000       |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cinf_EstimateForWhichRiskOfLossIsMoreThanRemote**Namespace Prefix:**cinf_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20433]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Social 
Psychology, Personality and Interpersonal Processes Study Section, 
October 6, 2008, 8 a.m. to October 6, 2008, 5 p.m., Admiral Fell Inn, 
888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21231 which was published in the 
Federal Register on August 21, 2008, 73 FR 49465-49467.
    The meeting will be held at the Pier V Hotel, 711 Eastern Avenue, 
Baltimore, MD 21205. The meeting date and time remain the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20433 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, serving
as its Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 12, 2010                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Principal Financial Officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
[Cite as State v. Theirauf, 2023-Ohio-3109.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

CASSIE MARIE THIERAUF,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-04-036

D E C I S I O N

 9/5/2023

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No.22CR39711

Jesse D. Bowman, for appellant.

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Cassie Marie Thierauf, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Warren CA2023-04-036

- 2 -

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
Warren CA2023-04-036

- 3 -
[Cite as State v. Theirauf, 2023-Ohio-3109.]