alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Janice F. WATKINS, etc. et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and William Haber, Appellees.

No. 80-1932.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 1981.

Decided Feb. 23, 1981.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 17, 1981.

Sheldon Weinhaus, Levin & Weinhaus, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Stephen E. Alpern, Associate Gen. Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., D. Richard Froelke, Regional Labor Counsel, Gregg R. Sackrider, Asst. Regional Labor Counsel, United States Postal Service, Chicago, 111., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a nonprobationary Postal Service employee, was suspended and discharged and an arbitration hearing on her grievance for suspension and discharge was scheduled. The Postal Service, out of pique with the arbitrator for overruling its procedural objection to plaintiffs’ efforts to tape record the hearing, refused to proceed and the arbitrator adjourned the hearing. When a second arbitration hearing was ordered plaintiffs sued in the district court. The district court dismissed the action and indicated that the parties should proceed expeditiously to arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed and by order of October 16, 1980, this court refused to prohibit defendants from proceeding to an arbitration hearing and noted a hearing was scheduled.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of the trial court’s memorandum opinion dated October 21, 1980.
627 A.2d 1125

#### GRACE M. HARRIS, ETC. v. WAYNE PATERNO, ETC. AND SGT. WILLIAM OSBOURNE, ETC., ET AL.

February 4, 1993.

ORDER

The Court having granted leave to appeal to consider the Law Division’s denial of plaintiffs motion for a protective order with respect to disclosure of the address and telephone number of a witness;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that leave to appeal is hereby vacated as improvidently granted.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, and GARIBALDI join in this Order.

Justices O’HERN and STEIN have filed a separate concurring opinion.

*413O’HERN and STEIN, JJ.,

concurring.

We concur in the Court’s disposition of the appeal. We add our own views about the further course of the matter.

The parties agreed before us that *Rule*4:10-3 empowers the Law Division to enter “any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden.” Plaintiff can reapply to the Law Division for a protective order based on further proofs in affidavit form or *de bene esse*deposition. Such proofs would better enable the court to balance the witness’s asserted need for confidentiality with defendant’s need for the address and telephone number of the witness as either “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” or as information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See *R.*4:10-2(a).
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: International Trade Administration.
    Title: Procedures for Importation of Supplies for Use in Emergency 
Relief Work.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    OMB Control Number: 0625-0256.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 10.
    Number of Respondents: 5.
    Average Hours per Response: 2.
    Needs and Uses: The regulations (19 CFR 358.101-104) provide 
procedures for requesting the Secretary of Commerce to permit the 
importation of supplies, such as food, clothing, medical, surgical, and 
other supplies (such as building materials), for use in emergency 
relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Wendy Liberante, (202) 395-3647.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b599a8bfb4ba91b5beb2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8bc90a1b6bdb398bcb7bbf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via 
the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f083a313b260013710013363d3a2d3e312b3a1f30323d713a302f71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c99eaca7adb09685e79685a0abacbba8a7bdac89a6a4abe7aca6b9e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-2512 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Michael James KINNEY, Appellant, v. Jamie Danielle KINNEY, a/k/a Jamie Burnes, Appellee.

No. 2D09-5932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

*344Michael James Kinney, pro se.

Deborah M. Schmitt, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

KELLY, Judge.

Michael James Kinney, the Husband, appeals an order denying his motion for modification of a judgment of dissolution of marriage. The judgment of dissolution anticipates further judicial labor on the issue of “retroactive child support,” and it is not final in this respect. In his motion for modification, the Husband, in essence, sought reconsideration of or rehearing on matters that either have not been finally determined by the trial court, including retroactive child support, or otherwise will not be at issue until the rendition of a final, appealable judgment of dissolution of marriage.- The order denying the Husband’s motion is a nonappealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Dismissed.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and LaROSE, J„ Concur.
HMN FINANCIAL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date:  May 5, 2011
    /s/ Bradley KrehbielBradley KrehbielPresident
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Jon EberleJon EberleSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Miriam EAGAN v. The SHAW GROUP, INC., Fleetwood Industries, Inc., Woodrow Wilson Construction, Inc., XYZ Insurance Company, Def Insurance Company and GHI Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0809.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Woodrow Wilson Construction Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 642-546; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-C-83.

Denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’ CONSENT 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-68929 and 333-64242 of Gevity HR, Inc.on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2004, which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company’schanging from gross revenue reporting to net revenue reporting for worksite employeesalaries, wages and payroll-related taxes and relating to the Company’s changing itsmethod for accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 142 during the year ended December 31, 2002,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gevity HR, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2003. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP
#### Frederick Devon HILLS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0970.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 30, 2011.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 2011.

Frederick Devon Hills, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WOLF, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
#### Joey CANTERBURY, Daisey Pearah, Christie Leigh Shaffer, Michael Todd Stewart and Lindsey Lee Trautman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WILLIS KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER a/k/a Willis Knighton Health Systems d/b/a Willis Knighton Pierremont Medical Center.

No. 2011-CC-1948.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re All Others Similarly Situated; Canterbury, Joey; Pearah, Daisey; Shaffer, Christie Leigh; Stewart, Michael Todd; Trautman, Lindsey Lee; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 545,245; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,815-CW.

Denied.
No. 11,740.

#### The Elkhart Mutual Aid, Benevolent and Relief Association *v.*Houghton.

" Life *Insurance.*— Mutual *Aid Association.*— insurable *interest.*— Complaint. —Certificates of membership in mutual aid associations are in effect policies of life insurance, and are governed by the same rules which control ordinary contracts of insurance. A stranger, who has no interest in the life of another, can not obtain a membership for that person, in such association, where the membership secures an insurance upon the life of the member. The existence of an insurable interest in the person taking the insurance upon the life of another must be shown by the statement of facts in a complaint from which such interest may be inferred. A general averment of such an interest is a conclusion of law, and not the statement of a traversable fact.

Ex’om the Starke Circuit Court.

*150Filed Oct. 30, 1884.

*J. M. Vanfleet,*for appellant.

*J. S. Bender*and *A. I. Gould,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

The appellee’s complaint counts upon two certificates of membership issued by the appellant. These certificates are in legal effect policies of insurance upon the life of James Mitchell. In many respects certificates such as these are governed by the same rules as those which prevail in cases of ordinary contracts of insurance. The reasons which support the rule that a stranger can not take out a policy on a life in which he has no insurable interest, apply quite as forcibly to contracts of insurance issued by mutual aid societies, as to those issued by ordinary insurance companies. The evils which the rule is intended to prevent are the same in the one case as in the other. A stranger, who has no interest in the life of another, can not obtain a membership for that person in any mutual benefit society where the membership secures to him an insurance upon the life of the member. Hirschl Law of Fraternities, *20; Mutual Benefit Association*v. *Hoyt,*46 Mich. 473.

The existence of an insurable interest in the person taking the insurance upon the life of another is an essential element of the cause of action in a suit upon the contract. Facts must be stated from which, as a matter of law, the court can infer the existence of such an interest. In the complaint before us, no facts are stated from which such an inference can be made. It is true that it is alleged in general terms that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the life of James Mitchell, but this is the statement of a conclusion of law, and not the averment of a traversable fact. The case of *Franklin Life Ins. Co.*v. *Sefton,*53 Ind. 380, is directly in point and decisively against the sufficiency of the complaint before us.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
No. 13,319.

#### Lindley et al. *v.*The State, ex rel. Wells, Administrator.

Decedents’ *Estates.*— Sale *of Personalty.*— Insufficient *Security.-*— Adminis*trator Liable on Bond.*— An administrator who negligently accepts promissory notes executed by insolvent persons, at a sale of his intestate’s personal property, is liable under section 2303, E. S. 1881, on his bond for both principal and interest, but he is entitled to have the notes turned over to him.

From the Orange Circuit Court.

*J. W. Buskirk, H. C. Duncan, W. Farrell*and *W. Throop,*for appellants.

*W. H. Martin,*for appellee.

*236Filed Sept. 29, 1888;

petition for a rehearing overruled Dec. 11, 1888.

Elliott, J.

This is an action on the bond of an administrator..

The special finding states that the administrator sold the personal property of the intestate and took in payment promissory notes executed by insolvent principals and sureties. Under the provisions of section 2303, R. S. 1881, the appellants are liable. That section requires, the administrator to show that he used *“*due care and caution in taking such note or obligation,” and thus casts upon him the burden of showing that he was careful and diligent.

The court did right in charging the administrator with interest, for he lost to the estate the principal and interest by accepting the obligations of insolvent persons.

There was certainly no error of which appellants can complain in the order of the court directing that the claims against insolvent debtors be turned over to him.

Judgment affirmed.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                          Washington, DC  20549

                             Form 10-QSB\A

[X]    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
       OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1996

Commission file number 1-13162

                               EMPIRIC ENERGY, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


            Texas                                     75-2455467
(State or other jurisdiction of                     (IRS Employer 
incorporation or organization)                      Identification No.)


    8201 Preston Road, Suite 580
           Dallas, Texas                                   75225
(Address of principal executive offices)                 (Zip Code)


                               (214) 265-8392                 
           (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



   Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that
the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

           Yes __X__                                No _____


                         PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 6.  EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.

     There were no reports filed.

     In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.

Date:  June 25, 1997

                               EMPIRIC ENERGY, INC.



                               By:_____Clyde E. Skeen______________
                                    Clyde E. Skeen
                                    Chief Financial Officer



                               By:_____James J. Ling______________
                                    James J. Ling
                                    President
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)**

 

I, Timothy A.Timmins, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,2004;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:                  May 10, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Timothy A. Timmins     |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Timothy A. Timmins         |
| President, Chief Executive |
| Officer and Director       |

 

----
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Senesco Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Joel Brooks, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


(1)           The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.




Dated: October 24, 2011
/s/ Joel Brooks *Joel BrooksChief Financial Officer, Secretary andTreasurer(principal financial and accounting officer)




*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179  RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C21 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014- C21 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016 /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
648 A.2d 721

#### IN THE MATTER OF CECELIA F. COOK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 27, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having reported to the Court recommending that CECELIA F. COOK of VAUXHALL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1979 and who was temporarily suspended from practice on April 17, 1991, and who remains suspended at this time, be disbarred on the basis of her convictions of theft by failure to make required disposition of property, failure to pay New Jersey transfer inheritance taxes and filing a false New Jersey inheritance tax return;

And respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and CECELIA F. COOK of VAUXHALL is disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that CECELIA F. COOK be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by CECELIA F. COOK, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

*83ORDERED that CECELIA F. COOK comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that CECELIA F. COOK reimburse the.Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs; and it is further

ORDERED that this Order be published in two successive issues of the *New Jersey Law Journal*and the *New Jersey Lawyer,*and the Office of Attorney Ethics cause this Order to be published on two successive days in a newspaper of general circulation in Union County.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jarrett BRINSON.

No. 2010-KK-2386.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 25, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 497-262; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1462.

Stay denied. Writ denied.