alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Edward H. Snyder, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

November 23, 1956.

*839*Richter & Levy*for Minnie Shapiro, as executrix and trustee, petitioner.

*Schmidt & McCormick for New*York Association for the Blind, respondent.

*Jacob K. Javits, Attorney-General*(P. *Hodges Combier*of counsel), in his statutory capacity under section 12 of Personal Property Law and section 113 of Real Property Law.

George Frankenthaler, S.

The attorneys for the executrix having withdrawn their request for a fee in excess of the amount heretofore paid to them and having agreed to accept such amount as compensation for all legal services rendered and to be rendered through the entry of a decree herein, a ruling upon the first objection to the account is not required.

It was held in a prior accounting proceeding that the provisions of the will limited the petitioner to the statutory commissions of an executor and that petitioner was not entitled to a further commission as a trustee (N. Y. L. J., March 10, 1950, p. 871, col. 5, affd. 280 App. Div. 911). This determination established the law of this estate. Accordingly the accounting party is allowed executor’s commissions for the receipt and payment of principal sums during the period subsequent to the prior accounting but it is held that the accounting party is not entitled to the annual principal commissions which she claims as a trustee. A recomputation of commissions in conformity with this ruling is to be filed.

In the absence of explicit statutory permission for the payment of commissions to a testamentary fiduciary without prior judicial approval commissions are not due and payable unless and until they are allowed by the court (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, §§ 285, 285-a; *Beard*v. *Beard,*140 N. Y. 260; *Matter of Worthington, 141*N. Y. 9; *Oakeshott*v. *Smith,*104 App. Div. 384, affd. 185 N. Y. 583; *Matter of Furniss,*86 App. Div. 96; *Matter of Eno,*92 Misc. 658; *Matter of Hoff,*186 Misc. 684, 686). The duty of fixing allowable commissions rests upon the court irrespective of objection by a party and for this reason there is no occasion to rule as to the status of the presently objecting party.

Submit decree on notice.
Order entered September 16 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01146
- CR JOSEPH WAYNE HUNTER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F13
- 56295
- R



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s September 15, 2015 pro se motion for an extension of time to file a response to the Anders brief he asserts counsel filed. Appellate counsel filed a brief raising issues on the meri ts, not an Anders brief. Appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s pro se motion to file . See Rudd v. State , 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order by first

- class mail to Joseph Hunter and by electronic transmission to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52035-52036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1442-000]


Flat Ridge Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

August 29, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Flat Ridge Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 19, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the

[[Page 52036]]

FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 
service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or 
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an 
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ccac9decfc3e2e0e5e2e9dff9fcfce3fef8cceae9feefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efa9aabdaca0818386818abc9a9f9f809d9baf898a9d8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a> 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20714 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2020 Workiva-->
<!--r:c00349a5-bed7-4127-b6d1-837bcea54f5f,g:7fbac095-071e-44ab-aa2d-77b890615c2a-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20201211" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20201211">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2019-01-31" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2019/dei-2019-01-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201211_cal.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/calculationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201211_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201211_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201211_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Thomas M. OFlynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.





|/s/ Thomas M. OFlynn                       
|--------------------------------------------
|Thomas M. OFlynn                           
|Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|August 1, 2008                              









---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LLC (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Thomas F. Karam, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David
J. Kvapil, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, 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
his knowledge:

               (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) as applicable, 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.

/s/  Thomas F. Karam
-------------------------------
Name:   Thomas F. Karam
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   November 14, 2003

/s/  David J. Kvapil
-------------------------------
Name:   David J. Kvapil
Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:   November 14, 2003

This certification is furnished pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K and shall
not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise be subject to the liability of
that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 3

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish

the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of

the President and Vice President of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to abolish the electoral college and to provide

for the direct popular election of the President and Vice

President of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 3 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall

5 be elected by the people of the several States and the dis6 trict constituting the seat of government of the United

7 States.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. The electors in each State shall have

9 the qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and

10 Representatives in Congress from that State, except that

11 the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive

12 qualifications with respect to residence and Congress may

13 establish uniform residence and age qualifications.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. The persons having the greatest number

15 of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.

16 ‘‘SECTION 4. Each elector shall cast a single vote

17 jointly applicable to President and Vice President. Names

18 of candidates may not be joined unless they shall have con19 sented thereto and no candidate may consent to the can20 didate’s name being joined with that of more than one

21 other person.

22 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress may by law provide for

23 the case of the death of any candidate for President or

24 Vice President before the day on which the President-elect
3

•HJ 3 IH

1 or Vice President-elect has been chosen, and for the case

2 of a tie in any election.

3 ‘‘SECTION 6. This article shall apply with respect to

4 any election for President and Vice President held after

5 the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the

6 date of the ratification of this article.’’.

Æ
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I S I DR O F . DE L UN A, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. B E N C U R R Y , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 16610 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 2 4 9 1 - CRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C ha r l e s R . B r e y e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t11, 2011 ** B efo re: T H O M A S , S IL V E R M A N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner I si dro F . D eL un a app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td en yi n g h i s 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n . W e d i sm i ss. D e L u n ac o n te n d s th a t th e B o a r do f P r is o n T e rm s ’ 2 0 0 5 d e c is io n to d e n yh im pa r ol e w a s nots upport e d by“ s om e e vi de nc e ” a nd the r e f or e vi ol a t e d hi s due 

# FI LED AU G 16 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 16610 2 p r o c e s s r ig h ts . A f

te rth e b r ie f

in g w a s c o m p le te din th is c a s e , th is c o u rt h e ldth a t a c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility( “C O A ” ) is r e q u ir e dto c h a lle n g e th e d e n ia l o f p a r o le . Se e H a y w a rd v . M a rs h a ll , 603 F . 3d 546, 554- 55 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( e n ba nc ) . N ow th e S up rem e C o u rth as h el dth atth e o n l y fed eral ri g h tati ssu e w h en th ere i s a l i b erty i n t eresti n p aro l e i s p ro cedu ral , an dth e o n l y p ro p er i n q u i ry i s w h atp ro cess th e i n m at e received , n o tw h eth er th e st at e co u rtd eci d edth e case co rrect l y. See Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 131 S . C t . 859, 863 ( 2011) ( pe rc ur i am ) . B e c aus e D e L una r a i s e s no pr oc e dur a l c ha l l e nge s r e ga r di ng hi s pa r ol e he a r i ng, aC O A m a ynoti s s ue o n th is c la im . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . F urthe r , be c aus e D e L unaha s notm a de as ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of the de ni a l of ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o n h is o th e rc la im s , w e a ls o d e c lin e to c e rtif yth o s e c la im s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . B e c au s e th e r e is n o C O A , w e d is m is s th e ap p e a l f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) . DI S MI S S E D.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10056 Summary Calendar

JONATHAN MARSHALL, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-2335-H
July 24, 1998 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jonathan Marshall, Sr., Texas prisoner # 96032321, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. The district court certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that Marshall’s appeal was not taken in good faith. Marshall’s motion for IFP status is2

treated as a challenge to the district court’s certification.
See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Marshall fails to show that he will raise a meritorious issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court did not err in certifying that Marshall’s appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Because the appeal is dismissed as frivolous, Marshall’s motions for preparation of the record at the Government’s expense and for immediate release are DENIED as moot.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
J-A32039-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SHANTICE TILLERY, IN HER OWN RIGHT 

AND PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 

ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON, 

SHAMIR D. TILLERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 v.

THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF 

PHILADELPHIA, CHILDREN’S 

HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., 

MONIKA GOYAL, M.D., JOEL FEIN, M.D., 

KYLE NELSON, M.D.

APPEAL OF: THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 

OF PHILADELPHIA AND MONIKA GOYAL, 

M.D.

No. 1823 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 15, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No.: December Term, 2011 No. 02168

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017

Appellants, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Monika 

Goyal, M.D., appeal from the judgment entered on April 15, 2016.1 We 

quash.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A32039-16

- 2 -

Appellants filed a timely appeal from the judgment at docket number 

1508 EDA 2016, in which they alleged both trial and judgment errors. (See

Tillery v. CHOP, No. 1508 EDA 2016, at *4-5 (Pa. Super. filed February 

____, 2017)). In this appeal, at docket number 1823 EDA 2016, they again 

seek to challenge the judgment. (See Appellants’ Brief, at 4).

This Court conducted an exhaustive merit review of the claims raised 

challenging the judgment at docket number 1508 EDA 2016, and our 

conclusions are the law of the case. See Signora v. Liberty Travel, Inc., 

886 A.2d 284, 290 (Pa. Super. 2005), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 958 (Pa. 

2007) (“Under [the] law of the case doctrine, a court involved in the later 

phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another 

judge of the same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the 

matter.”) (citations omitted).2 Appellants are not entitled to a “second bite 

at the apple” to challenge the judgment again. We quash.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

1 Appellants purport to appeal from the order entered on May 12, 2016 

denying their emergency motion to vacate the judgment. However, an 

appeal properly lies from the final order, which “disposes of all claims and of 

all parties[.] ” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1); see also Pa.R.A.P. 702(a). We have 

changed the caption accordingly.

2 Appellants raise three of the same issues that we thoroughly addressed 

previously, namely the reduction of future medical expenses to present 

value, whether that claim was properly preserved, and delay damages. 

(See Tillery, supra at *21-25, *21 n.6; Appellants’ Brief, at 4). Their issue 

regarding post-judgment interest, (see Appellants’ Brief, at 4), was not 

raised in either a timely post-trial motion or in the original appeal to this 

Court, and is waived. 
J-A32039-16

- 3 -

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2017