alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22081]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, 
September 23, 2008 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no 
earlier notice was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
September 23, 2008 will be:

    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22081 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
[No. 34118.

Department Two.

November 12, 1957.]

#### George Bickel *et al., Respondents,*v. Lewis County, *Appellant.*
      *1*

*Edwin R. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Hull & Armstrong*and *J. A. Vander Stoep,*for respondents.

Reported in 317 P. (2d) 532.

Foster, J.

Lewis county, defendant below, appeals from an order granting a new trial, after verdict in its favor, in an automobile accident case. The negligence alleged is that the county’s driver forced the car, driven by the respondent husband and in which the respondent wife was a passenger, off of the road.

The sole ground upon which the new trial was granted, and the only issue upon this appeal, is whether that portion *279of instruction No. *20,*
      *2*
      **in which the jury was instructed that the wife had a duty to warn her husband of impending danger, was erroneous.

The court therein advised the jury that the wife “had a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to warn her husband driver of impending danger.” Thus it is that the instruction placed upon the wife the duty to warn. In the memorandum opinion granting the motion for new trial, the trial court expressed the view that the correct rule was stated in *Bauer v. Tougaw,*128 Wash. 654, 224 Pac. 20. It was there held that a passenger was only bound to warn the driver of impending danger if a reasonably prudent and cautious person would do so, leaving it to the jury to determine whether a warning should have been given by the passenger. That rule is reaffirmed in *Ross v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,*46 Wn. (2d) 832, 285 P. (2d) 870; *Rutherford v. Deur,*46 Wn. (2d) 435, 282 P. (2d) 281; *Haaga v. Saginaw Logging Co.,*169 Wash. 547, 14 P. (2d) 55.

Whether ordinary care required the wife to warn was a question of fact for the jury’s determination, not a matter of law to be dealt with by the court in the instructions. The trial court was, therefore, correct in granting the motion for new trial, and the order granting it is affirmed.

Mallery, Donworth, and Rosellini, JJ., concur.

December 23, 1957. Petition for rehearing denied.

“You are instructed that the plaintiff, Alice Bickel, had a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to warn her husband driver of impending danger, and if you find from the evidence that she was aware of the danger or as a reasonable, prudent person should have been aware of the same from her observations of defendant’s vehicle in time for her to have warned her driver so that in the exercise of reasonable care he could have slowed or stopped and avoided the accident, and if her failure to do so was a proximate cause of the accident, then you must find that plaintiff, Alice Bickel, was negligent and her negligence is imputed to her husband by law, so that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover.”
EXHIBIT 99(a)


                            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 ABC Family Worldwide,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
A. Iger,  President  of the Company (and in such  capacity  the chief  executive
officer 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),
     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/ Robert A. Iger
Robert A. Iger
President
August 12, 2002
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03-1608-AD-1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 1

of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Andrew R. Wolf

The Wolf Law Office

Michigan City, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re the Adoption of L.J. and 

E.J., minors,

C.S.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

J.J. and J.J.,

Appellees-Petitioners.

July 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

64A03-1608-AD-1886

Appeal from the Porter Superior 

Court 

The Honorable William E. Alexa, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

64D02-1508-AD-7208

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03-1608-AD-1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 2

of 3

[1] On May 16, 2017, in an unpublished memorandum decision, we affirmed the 

adoption court’s determination that the consent of Appellant-Respondent C.S.

(“Birth Mother”) was not required for the adoption of her biological children 

L.J. and E.J. (collectively, “the Children”) by Appellee-Petitioner J.J. (“StepMother”). We also remanded with instructions to conduct a criminal history 

check on Step-Mother pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-19-8-5(d), which 

Birth Mother claimed had not been performed. 

[2] Birth Mother now petitions for rehearing, contending that we erroneously 

affirmed the adoption court’s determination regarding her consent but 

conceding that the required criminal history check has, in fact, already been 

performed on Step-Mother. Birth Mother also submits an affidavit from her 

counsel to this effect. Although we conclude that Birth Mother’s first 

contention does not warrant relief on rehearing, we accept her second. To that 

end, we grant Birth Mother’s rehearing petition for the limited purpose of 

vacating any portion of our May 16, 2017, memorandum opinion indicating 

that the cause should be remanded for the purpose of performing a criminal 

history check on Step-Mother.1 We grant Birth Mother’s petition for rehearing 

in part and consequently affirm the judgment of the adoption court in all 

respects. 

 

1

 In an order issued contemporaneously with this opinion on rehearing, we grant Birth Mother leave to file 

an appendix with her petition for rehearing. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03-1608-AD-1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 3

of 3

Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 137 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 137

  To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the 
 National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal 
                               year 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Nadler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the 
 National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal 
                               year 2001.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEALER.

    Section 319(d) of Public Law 106-291 is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (2), and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on 
October 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF L.L.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.H., NATURAL FATHER

:

:

:

:

No. 19 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 Fiscal Quarter End Report of Cash Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 21, 2003 |  |                         |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|                     
|                      |  | /s/    BRUCE
KORMAN     |  | 
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0813

_____________________________
V INCENT J ONES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Du val County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. October 24, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Vincent Jones, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Order filed April 2 8 , 2022
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00377

- CV

____________ VICTOR ANTHONY CHARLES , Appellant

V.
CHERYL HARRIS DIGGS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 08158



### O R D E R

The clerk ’ s record was filed October 28, 2021 , and the first supplemental clerk’s record was filed on December 21, 2021

. We have determined that a relevant item in the first supplemental clerk ’s r ecord is defective. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5( d ). Specifically, most of the letters are missing from the document that begins at page 38 in the first supplemental clerk’s record, described in the index as “ Plaintiff ’ s Reply to Defendant ’ s Reply to Plaintiff ’ s Response to Defendant ’ s No

- Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment ,” filed May 21, 2021.2

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before May 9 , 2022 , containing a readable copy of “ Plaintiff ’ s Reply to Defendant ’ s Reply to Plaintiff ’ s Response to Defendant ’ s No

- Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment ,” filed May 21, 2021

. If the case file does not contain a readable “ Plaintiff ’ s Reply to Defendant ’ s Reply to Plaintiff ’ s Response to Defendant ’ s No

- Eviden ce Motion for Summary Judgment ,” the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the case file does not contain the item in a readable form

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00501

- CR

Arthur Delgado Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1295164D)

February 5, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
193 La. 1072

#### BATTS v. MARTHAVILLE MERCANTILE CO., Limited.

No. 35549.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 1939.

E. S. Prudhomme, of Natchitoches, for plaintiff and appellant.

J. D. Rusca, of Natchitoches, for defendant and appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The appellant is suing for $99.99 damages, alleging that his property was taken from him by the defendant without due process of law. The suit was tried on its merits, and the plaintiff’s demand was rejected. He is appealing from the decision. The defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in dispute is not enough to make the case appealable. The appellant, • answering the motion to dismiss, claims that a homestead exemption is in contest, and that, for that reason, the case is within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He claims also that the suit is an attack upon the constitutionality of the chattel-mortgage law [Act No. 198 of 1918, as amended by Act No. 81 of 1922, Act No. 119 of 1924, Act No. 232 of 1924, Act No. 157 of 1928, Act No. 166 of 1932, Act No. 189 of 1932, and Act No. 178 of 1936], and that, for that reason also, the case is within .the appellate jurisdiction of this court.

According to Sections 29 and 35 of Article VII of the Constitution there is no right to appeal, either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, from a judgment rendered by a District Court in a case where the amount in dispute is less than $100,' — unless the case is within some such exception as the appellant claims this case is.

There is no merit in the argument that this court has jurisdiction over the suit because it is an attack upon the constitutionality of the chattel-mortgage law. In the first place no such attack is made in the suit. And in the second place if the constitutionality of the statute had been questioned this court would not have appellate jurisdiction unless the statute was adjudged unconstitutional. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 10. There was no adjudication on that subject by the District Court in this case.

The property which the plaintiff says was taken from him by the defendant without due process of law is described in his complaint as movable property, on which the defendant held a chattel mortgage to secure a debt of $400. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the property was subject to the homestead exemption, under Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution; and that the property was taken from him in spite of the exemption. It is declared in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of Article VII of the Constitution that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases involving homestead exemptions, “except that in cases involving only movable property, the appeal shall lie to the court having jurisdiction of *722the amount or the value of the property involved.” There i? nothing in the record in this case to show the value of the property which the plaintiff says was taken from him, except his demand for $99.99 damages for his loss of the property. The case therefore is not within the appellate jurisdiction either of this court or of the Court of Appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The Central United National Bank of Cleveland *v.*Hendler et al.

(No. 23998

Decided June 7, 1933.)

*Messrs. Néedham & Smith*and *Messrs. Fuerst & Brown,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Becherman, Booth & Gordon*and *Mr. William W. Rosensweig,*for defendants in error.

It appearing that the judges of the court are equally divided in opinion as to the merits of this case (the court now being constituted of but six judges) and are for that reason unable to agree upon a judgment, and the entry of that fact constituting an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, it is ordered that the defendants in error recover from plaintiff in error their costs herein expended.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Í)ay and Jones, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Isaac Mwangi, Lisa Mwangi and

Safari Merchandising Centre, LLC

v. Civil No. 06-cv-175-JM

Zahid Alam and

Premium Gas, LLC, et al.

O R D E R

The parties appeared before me today for a scheduled hearing

on plaintiffs’ requests for enhanced damages, attorney’s fees,

and an attachment of defendant’s assets. At the hearing, the

defendant was not ready to proceed with the hearing because his

attorney had not yet received the transcripts of the trial in

this matter. Accordingly, I grant defendant’s request to

continue the portion of this hearing relating to enhanced damages

and attorney’s fees.

The parties were heard on the plaintiff’s motion to attach. 

The parties reached an agreement in Court as to how to proceed

given the circumstances of this matter. Pursuant to that

agreement, the defendants are ordered to make no transfer or

encumbrance of any assets, except as necessary for the normal

day-to-day operations of business. Zahid Alam, in accordance

with his agreement in open court, is to give and cause his LLCs

Case 1:06-cv-00175-JM Document 34 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

to give plaintiffs’ mortgages sufficient to secure a potential

one hundred and forty thousand dollar ($140,000.00) judgment in

favor of the plaintiffs on all of the following four pieces of

property:

- 55 River Road, Apt. 1-D, Manchester, N.H.

- 274-280 Court St., Laconia, N.H.

- 495 Front Street, Manchester, N.H.

- 322 Sunapee St., Newport, N.H. 

Defendant must comply with the directives of this Order within

ten (10) business days of the date of the hearing, July 23, 2007.

Upon notification from counsel that the transcripts of the

trial in this matter have been prepared and received by the

parties, the clerk shall schedule a hearing to resolve the

damages and attorney’s fees matters pending before the Court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 23, 2007

cc: Craig S. Donais, Esq.

James W. Craig, Esq.

Marc van Zanten, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00175-JM Document 34 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 1998


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV216

ORDER

This matter is before the Court following a telephone conference held with counsel for 

the parties on October 4, 2024, before Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson regarding a dispute 

over proper comparators and redactions of their sensitive personal information. The parties 

submitted dispute statements regarding their positions in advance of the conference, which are 

attached to this Order. The Court generally ruled in favor of Defendant on this dispute. 

Specifically, the Court found Defendant’s compromise to remove the redactions regarding 

employees who are individuals with the same position as the Plaintiff (i.e. facing the same safety 

hazards at work and subject to the same safety policies) and with the same medical condition, 

specifically, neurological issues, was appropriate. Defendant may redact the employees’

identification number and use initials instead of their full names. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 83 Filed: 10/04/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 1001