alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, Fl,RST CIRCUIT

KAREEN GEORGE

VERSUS

BYRON TERRY, TERRY TRUCKING, 

LLC AND OOIDA RISK RETENTION

GROUP, INC. 

In Re: Kareen George, applying

Judicial District Court, 

No. 713726. 

NO. 2022 CW 1303

MARCH 6, 2023

for supervisory writs, 19th

Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial court's September 19, 

2022 judgment granting OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc.'s

exception of no right of action and dismissing OOIDA Risk

Retention Group, Inc. with prejudice is a final appealable

judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915 (A) ( 1). Therefore, the

writ application is granted, for the limited purpose of

remanding the case to the trial court with instructions to grant

relator, Kareen George, an appeal pursuant to the pleading that

notified the trial court of her intention to seek supervisory

writs. See In re Howard, 541 So.2d 195, 197 ( La. 1989) ( per

curiam). In the event plaintiff, Kareen George, seeks to appeal

the trial court's judgment, she shall submit an order for appeal

to the trial court within thirty days of this court's order. 

Additionally, a copy of this court's order is to be included in

the appellate record. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

JEW

AHP

WIL
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                     PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  For the Six Months            For the Years Ended
                                                    Ended June 30,                   December 31,
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2006      2005     2005     2004    2003     2002    2001
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            (Millions, except ratios)
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-tax Income from Continuing Operations       $   203   $    284  $  583   $  592  $  376   $  320  $  324
Fixed Charges                                       168        170     342      362     390      408     461
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings                                        $   371   $    454  $  925   $  954  $  766   $  728  $  785
                                                ============================================================

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                $   168   $    170  $  342   $  362  $  390   $  406  $  458
Interest Factor in Rentals                           --         --      --       --      --        2       3
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                             $   168   $    170  $  342   $  362  $  390   $  408  $  461
                                                ============================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 2.21       2.67    2.70     2.64    1.96     1.78    1.70
                                                ============================================================
</TABLE>

(A)   The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
      operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to
      exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B)   Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
      amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
      interest implicit in rentals.
[J-79-2014] [MO: Baer, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.C.D., MINOR 

APPEAL OF: CLINTON COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 MAP 2014 

Appeal from from the order of the Superior 

Court dated April 23, 2014 at No. 1484 

MDA 2013 which reversed the Decree of 

the Clinton County Court of Common 

Pleas, Orphans Division, dated July 23, 

2013 at No. 12-2012. 

SUBMITTED: July 29, 2014 

CONCURRING OPINION 

MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: December 15, 2014

I agree with the majority’s reversal of the Superior Court’s decision and 

reinstatement of the trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights. I write separately 

solely to distance myself from the majority’s examination of other possible remedies 

when faced with an agency that fails to provide reasonable efforts to reunite child and 

parent. 

Neither § 2511 of the Adoption Act1 nor § 6531 of the Juvenile Act2 preclude a 

court from ordering the termination of parental rights where a child-welfare agency fails 

to provide reasonable efforts to promote reunification. Incorporating a reasonableefforts requirement at the termination-of-parental-rights stage would do nothing more 

than improperly punish children, as their placement in foster care would be unjustly 

lengthened solely as a result of an agency’s deficiencies. Thus, I agree with the 

 

1

 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. 

2

 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351. 
[J-79-2014] [MO: Baer, J.] - 2 

majority’s conclusion that it is erroneous to refuse a properly proven termination-ofparental-rights petition based on the failure to employ reasonable reunification efforts. I 

further agree the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in terminating father’s 

parental rights. 

Notably, this Court granted review to consider whether an agency’s lack of 

reasonable efforts requires reversal of an otherwise-established termination petition. 

Yet, after determining faults of an agency do not inhibit termination — thereby deciding 

the issue we granted — the majority elaborates further by describing potential remedies 

or financial penalties that courts might impose against agencies neglecting to make 

reasonable efforts and follow court orders and permanency goals. See Majority Slip 

Op., at 23-24. In my view, the majority’s discussion, particularly as to federal 

reimbursements and federal funding available to child-welfare services, serves only as 

dictum; it is inapposite to the instant case and beyond the scope of the issues we 

granted. Thus, I concur. 

Mr. Justice Stevens joins this concurring opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-79-01-SM

Jeffrey Edmunds

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 11) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than September 30, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00079-SM Document 13 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: December 19, 2005 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: January 4, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

September 26, 2005 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Bjorn Lange, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00079-SM Document 13 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

 

In connection with the amended Annual Reportof Solei Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joshua Flood, Chief Financial Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: April 10, 2019

 

/s/Joshua Flood

_____________________________________________________

Joshua Flood,

Chief Financial Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer & Principal Accounting Officer

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Commonwealth, to use, Appellant, *v.*Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland.

Argued March 15, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

*456
      *Paul A. Eunkel,*with him *Lynn M. Irvine,*for appellant.

*William E. Neely,*with him *Lewis S. Eunkel,*for appellee.

April 13, 1938:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is by the plaintiff from an order refusing to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense for more than $855.29, with interest from June 30, 1931. The action is against the surety on a guardian’s bond. It is concerned with the receipt by the guardian of money from the sale of ¡real estate in Massachusetts which belonged to the ward. The proceedings relative to the sale of the land in Massachusetts are not made a part of the plaintiff’s statement. The liability of the surety may be affected by the proceedings and order of the court in Massachusetts authorizing the sale and the receipt of the money by the guardian.

After reading the pleadings and considering the arguments of counsel we cannot say that it is “clear and free from doubt” that the court erred in refusing judgment for the balance of plaintiff’s claim. See *Kaster v. Penna. Fuel Supply Co.,*300 Pa. 52, 150 A. 153. On the contrary we are of opinion that the liability of the defend*457ant may be affected by the record of the court proceedings in Massachusetts, and hence the case is not one for summary judgment but calls for a full development of the facts on the trial.

Following the usual course pursued in such cases we shall not discuss the applicable rules of law until the facts have been developed on the trial.

Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
12/31/96 RALSTON PURINA CO. BALANCE SHEET & STMT OF EARNINGS & IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STMTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   106,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,016,300
<ALLOWANCES>                              37,700
<INVENTORY>                              764,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,001,400
<PP&E>                                 2,854,200
<DEPRECIATION>                         1,373,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         4,961,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1,933,700
<BONDS>                                1,411,800
<COMMON>                                  11,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    317,700
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                               817,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           4,961,700
<SALES>                                1,760,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,760,300
<CGS>                                  1,047,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,047,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         463,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        44,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          205,700
<INCOME-TAX>                              76,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      137,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             137,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                               1.23
<FN>
LOSS - PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSE ABOVE.
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DALONTE D. FOARD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TODD BAHENSKY, Director; D. WINKLER, 

Correction Officer; HOBBS, Correction 

Officer; and BEAVERNESS, Correction 

Officer;

Defendants.

8:23CV217

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On September 14, 2023, the 

Clerk of the Court sent an Order to Plaintiff at his last known address. Filing No. 17. The 

Order granted Plaintiff 30 days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. Id. at 2. On September 27, 2023, the order was 

returned indicating Plaintiff was no longer housed at his last known address at USP 

Leavenworth. See Filing No. 18.

Plaintiff has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all 

times. See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and 

inform the court of address changes within 30 days). 

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 19 Filed: 10/02/23 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID # 82
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will result 

in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum and 

Order to both Plaintiff’s last known address listed in the prior change of address filed by 

Plaintiff, Filing No. 16, and to the following address, which is Plaintiff’s current location 

according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website:1

Dalonte Foard, Register #23341-509

USP Lee

U.S. Penitentiary 

P.O. Box 305

Jonesville, VA 24263

3. Due to Plaintiff’s apparent institutional transfer, the Court sua sponte 

extends the deadline to comply with the Court’s Order requiring him to show cause for his 

failure to pay his initial partial filing fee by October 16, 2023, Filing No. 17, to 30 days 

from the date of this Order. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of Filing No. 9, the order 

granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, to Plaintiff at USP Lee and to the appropriate 

official at the USP Lee. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to remove the prior case 

management deadline of October 16, 2023: check for response to show cause order, 

and to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: 

November 1, 2023: check for response to show cause order and updated address.

1 See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Sept. 28, 

2023).

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 19 Filed: 10/02/23 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID # 83
3

Dated this 2nd day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 19 Filed: 10/02/23 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID # 84
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that to the best of 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 results of operations of
     the Company.


    /s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
    ------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
    November 15, 2004

<FN>
*Assigned original of this written statement has been provided to the
 Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.10



SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
CARDINAL HEALTH 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN
(As Amended and Restated January 1, 2016)


Background Information


		
	A.
	Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) previously adopted and currently maintains the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of employees of Cardinal Health and its subsidiaries and affiliates.




		
	B.
	Section 12.02 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended at any time through a written resolution adopted or approved by the Financial Benefit Plans Committee (“FBPC”), with respect to any amendment that, when aggregated with any other amendment or amendments approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of $5 million or less.




		
	C.
	The FBPC has concluded that the amendment set forth below, when aggregated with any other amendments set to be approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of less than $5 million.




		
	D.
	The FBPC desires to amend the Plan’s definition of “Total Disability” to provide that a participant is considered totally disabled for purposes of the Plan if he or she is determined to be totally disabled under Cardinal Health’s long-term disability plan or is determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.




Amendment of the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan


The Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective as of April 1, 2018.


1.    Section 1.38 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 1.38    Total Disability / Totally Disabled.”  Occurs when a Participant has either (a) qualified for long-term disability benefits under the Employer’s long term disability plan, or (b) been determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.”


2.    Section 8.10 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 8.10    [Reserved].”


3.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.







	
			
	 
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
FINANCIAL BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE

	 
	By:
	/s/ Kendell F. Sherrer

	 
	Its:
	VP, Benefits

	 
	Date:
	April 2, 2018
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00451

- CR

Harold Dewayne Ferguson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 43rd District Court

o f Parker County (CR16

- 0101 )

December 7, 2017

Opini on by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         493,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,000
<INVENTORY>                                    117,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               891,926
<PP&E>                                      15,650,936
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,131,918)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,410,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,116
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,071,610
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,410,944
<SALES>                                        854,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               903,763
<CGS>                                          636,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  888,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.CSECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc. (the “Registrant”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned , KariStefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and (2) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.

 
|        | Dated: August 9, 2007 | /s/ Kari Stefansson           |
|--------|-----------------------|-------------------------------|
|   |                  | Kari Stefansson               |
|   |                  | Chairman, President and Chief |
|   |                  | Executive Officer             |
|   |                  |                          |
|   | Dated: August 9, 2007 | /s/ Lance Thibault            |
|   |                  | Lance Thibault                |
|   |                  | Chief Financial Officer and   |
|   |                  | Treasurer                     |

 

 

----