alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Time is of the essence of this Note. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, theBorrowers, for themselves and their successors and assigns, expressly waive presentment, demand,protest, notice of dishonor, and any and all other notices, demands and consents in connectionwith the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Note, and herebyconsent to any extensions of time, renewals, releases or any parties to or guarantors of thisNote, waivers and any other modifications that may be granted or consented to by the Bank fromtime to time in respect of the time of payment or any other provision of this Note.Wherever possible each provision of this Note shall be interpreted in such a manner as to beeffective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Note shall be prohibited orinvalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitionor invalidity without invalidating the remainder of such provision or remaining provisions of thisNote. No delay or failure on the part of the Bank in the exercise of any right or remedy hereundershall operate as a waiver thereof, nor as an acquiescence in any default, nor shall any single orpartial exercise by the Bank of any right or remedy preclude any other right, or remedy. The Bank,at its option, may enforce its rights against any collateral securing this Note without enforcingits rights against the Borrowers, any guarantor of the indebtedness evidenced hereby or any otherproperty or indebtedness due or to become due to the Borrowers. The Borrowers agree that, withoutreleasing or impairing the Borrowers’ liability hereunder, the Bank may at any time release,surrender, substitute or exchange any collateral securing this Note and may at any time release anyparty primarily or secondarily liable for the indebtedness evidenced by this Note.This Note shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the internallaws of the State of Missouri.**BORROWERS HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY (WHICH BANK ALSO WAIVES) IN ANY ACTION,SUITE, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM OF ANY KIND ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS NOTE OR ANY OFTHE LOAN DOCUMENTS, THE COLLATERAL, OR BANK’S CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING.**IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrowers have caused this Note to be executed and delivered by theirrespective duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.      **ZOLTEK COMPANIES, INC.**
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
       Appeal Process
    Appellant Q&A
      Electronic Filing
      Forms
      Hearing Sites
		Mediation Appeals Program
		Policy & Resources
     		Regulations
     Whistleblower Q&ASearch and Site Index Information Sheets
a. - Jurisdiction 
(10/12/2007)b. Initial Appeal Process  
(11/13/2012)c. Stay Request 
(11/13/2012)d. Probationary Employees
(11/13/2012)e. Discovery 
(11/13/2012)f. Motion Practice 
(11/13/2012)g. - Military Leave (Butterbaugh) Appeals 
(10/12/2007)h. e-Appeal  
(11/13/2012)i. Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1994 (VEOA)  
(11/13/2012)j. - Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)  
(9/18/2008)k. - Enforced Leave   
(9/18/2008)l. Furloughs  
(7/12/2013)


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
#### IN RE WEISS, HEALEY & REA AND INDIVIDUALLY, JOSEPH C. WEISS, JAMES F. HEALEY AND THOMAS REA.

April 28, 1987.

The petition for review of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion Number 593, entitled *Limitations of Firm Names: Associates, Employees, and In-House Counsel Appearing in a Law Firm’s Name,*is granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID FRITZ.

March 10, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

648 

CAF 14-01134 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ZACHARY H. 

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

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

JESSICA H., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

GORDON J. CUFFY, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (POLLY E. JOHNSON OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

STEPHANIE N. DAVIS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, OSWEGO. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County

(Michele Pirro Bailey, J.), entered May 28, 2014 in a proceeding

pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other

things, terminated respondent’s parental rights over the subject

child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law §

384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia,

terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child on

the ground of permanent neglect and freed the child for adoption. 

Contrary to the mother’s contention, petitioner established “by clear

and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and

strengthen the relationship between [the mother] and the child”

(Matter of Ja-Nathan F., 309 AD2d 1152, 1152; see Social Services Law

§ 384-b [3] [g] [i]; [7] [a]), and that, despite her participation in

some of the services afforded her, the mother “did not successfully

address or gain insight into the problem that led to the removal of

the child and continued to prevent the child’s safe return” (Matter of

Giovanni K., 62 AD3d 1242, 1243, lv denied 12 NY3d 715; see Matter of

Cayden L.R. [Melissa R.], 108 AD3d 1154, 1155-1156, lv denied 22 NY3d

866; Ja-Nathan F., 309 AD2d at 1152). Contrary to the further

contention of the mother, Family Court properly determined that she

failed to plan for the future of the child, although able to do so

(see Matter of Whytnei B. [Jeffrey B.], 77 AD3d 1340, 1341). The

mother did not comply with her service plan, inasmuch as she did not

regularly attend visitation, find stable housing, or consistently
-2- 648 

CAF 14-01134 

engage in mental health treatment. 

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

enter a suspended judgment. The record supports the court’s

determination that a suspended judgment, i.e., “a brief grace period

designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter

of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311), was not in the best interests of the

child (see Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 AD3d 1524,

1525). The mother’s “negligible progress” in addressing the issues

that initially necessitated the child’s removal from her custody 

“ ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the

child’s unsettled familial status’ ” (Alexander M., 106 AD3d at 1525).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M. S. V., JR., 

MINOR CHILD,

 Appellant.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00088-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012DCM10912)

O R D E R

Appellant, pro se has filed a subsequent motion to "correct" the clerk's record. We interpret 

this to be a request to supplement the clerk's record to include certain items specified in the motion.

Therefore, we ORDER the District Clerk to, within fifteen days, (1) prepare a supplemental 

clerk's record containing the items requested by Appellant or (2) provide a written explanation as 

to why Appellant's request cannot be completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

KLX INC.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  AS REQUIRED BY  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of KLX Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Senft, Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



Date: March 6, 2015

By:

/s/ MICHAEL F. SENFT Michael F. Senft Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---



QuickLinks
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAZARO NUNEZ.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDY LEE ROWE; SYLVIA MARIE 

ROWE, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 21-71308 

21-71310

IRS Nos. 6432-20 

7592-20

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Sandy Lee Rowe and Sylvia Marie Rowe appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s 

decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue’s determination of deficiencies for tax years 2017 and 2018. We have 

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-71308

21-71310 

Court’s determination that a taxpayer has not met his burden to substantiate a 

deduction. Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). We 

affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the Rowes failed to 

produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed deductions

related to business expenses for tax years 2017 and 2018. See Norgaard v. 

Comm’r, 939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of 

establishing entitlement to a deduction); see also 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (permitting 

deduction of certain “ordinary and necessary” business expenses); id. § 274(d) 

(setting forth substantiation requirements for claimed deductions for travel, 

entertainment, and meal expenses). Contrary to the Rowes’ contention, the Tax 

Court did not err by requiring them to justify their business expenses for tax year 

2018, as they admitted they were seeking a deduction for business expenses rather 

than their initial request for a qualified business income deduction.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Keith Wilson Goodson

Appellate case number: 01-15-00288-CR

Trial court case number: 1457737

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Date: May 28, 2015
585 A.2d 401

#### NEWARK BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER v. GRUZEN AND PARTNERS.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
Exhibit 32.1



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 this Quarterly Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Downey Bridgwater, President and 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) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater                                      
|                      |  |     |  | J. Downey Bridgwater                                          
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer SterlingBancshares, Inc.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel
G. Holman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

/s/ DANIEL G. HOLMAN

Daniel G. Holman
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 14, 2003

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 Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arie
J. Koole, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

/s/ ARIE J. KOOLE

Arie J. Koole
Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)

Dated: February 14, 2003

Page 18
No. 14,426.

#### The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company *v.*Balch.

Verdict.— *When will not be Disturbed.*— -Where circumstances are proved authorizing an inference in favor of a plaintiff, it is proper for a jury to draw it, and their verdict can not be disturbed.

*Same.*— Special.—Must *be Treated as an Entirety.*— A special verdict is not to be dealt with in disconnected fragments, but is to he treated as an entirety.

From the Clinton Circuit Court.

*584Filed Jan. 17, 1890;

petition for a rehearing overruled March 18, 1890.

*G. W. Friedley. 8. O. Bayless, O. G. Guenther*and *E. G. Field,*for appellant.

*J. V. Kent*and *O. E. Brumbaugh,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

This case is here for the second time. *Louisville, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *Balch,*105 Ind. 93.

Witnesses were permitted, to give their opinions as to the value of some of the property involved in this controversy, and this it is contended was erroneous, for the reason that the evidence does not show that it belonged to the appellee. We can not concur with counsel that there was not evidence showing that the plaintiff was the owner of the property. There was unquestionably evidence authorizing the inference that the property belonged to the plaintiff, and this was sufficient. It is not necessary to establish a fact by direct evidence, for it may be proved by circumstances. If circumstances are proved authorizing an inference in favor of a plaintiff it is proper for the jury to draw it, and their verdict can not be disturbed. *Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co.*v. *Collingwood, 71*Ind. 476; *Heaton*v. *Shanklin,*115 Ind. 595, and cases cited.

The jury find that the property in controversy was owned by the plaintiff, and this finding is not inconsistent with any of the other specifications of the special verdict, and it is, therefore, not correctly assumed that the plaintiff can not have judgment because it does not appear that he was the owner of the property.

It is a mistake to suppose that a special verdict is to be dealt with in disconnected fragments, for it is the rule of law, as well as of logic, that an instrument is to be taken as an entirety. Taking, as we must, the verdict as an entirety there can be no doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon it.

We can not disturb the verdict upon the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.
## NO. 06-15-00037-CV
I N THE 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE 

### S IXTH 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### T EXARKANA

MICHAEL D. LEE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT
V. THE ROGERS AGENCY, C. MICHAEL ROGERS & NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLEES

N OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL COMES NOW John R. Mercy, of the law firm of M ERCY p C ARTER p
T IDWELL , L. L

. P ., and hereby enters his appearance as lead counsel for MICHAEL D. LEE, Appellant, herein. All parties hereto take notice of this appearance. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John R. Mercy John R. Mercy Texas State Bar No. 13947200 M ERCY p C ARTER p T IDWELL , L. L

. P

. 1724 Galleria Oaks Drive Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 794-9419 Facsimile: (903) 794-1268 E-mail: jmercy@texarkanalawyers.com ACCEPTED 06-15-00037-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/3/2015 11:45:18 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKJ am es A. Ho l m es Tex as St at e Bar No . 0 0 7 8 4 29 0 T H E L A W O F F I C E O F J A M E S H O LM E S , P C 2 1 2 So ut h M ars h al l Hen d ers on , TX 7 5 6 5 4 Tel ep h o n e: (9 0 3 ) 6 5 7 -2 80 0 Facs i m i l e: (9 0 3 ) 6 5 7-2 8 5 5 Em ai l : jh @ Jam es Ho l m es L aw.co m
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E
I h ereb y cert i fy t h at o n t h i s 3 r d d ay o f Au g u s t, 20 1 5, I s erv ed a t ru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h e fo reg o i ng No t i ce o f Ap p ea r an ce a s Co u n sel u p o n o pp o s i n g co u n s el v i a t h e Tex as Efi le s y s t em , an d t o al l o t h er p art i es reg i s t ered wi t h s ai d s y s t em t o recei v e co p ies

. / s / John R. Mercy J o hn R. M ercy

Notice of Appearance as Counsel – Page 2
#### Harry Hull v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County.

[See 86 Mich. 449.]

*Criminal law*— Admission *to bail*— Mandamus.

After a respondent was convicted of murder, which conviction was reversed, he was admitted to bail. Pending his second trial he was ordered into custody, and a *mandamus*to compel the circuit judge to admit him to bail is denied.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted October 6, 1891.

Denied October 7, 1891.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to admit him to bail. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*John G. Hawley,*for relator.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the Wayne circuit court, which conviction was reversed by this Court, and a new trial ordered, and the prisoner admitted to bail.1 A second trial is now in progress, and the circuit judge has ordered him into the custody of the sheriff of Wayne county. He has applied to the judge to admit him to bail, and he has declined. We are asked to compel the ' circuit judge by *mandamus*to admit relator to bail pending trial. We decline to do so, and the writ is denied.

1

 See 86 Mich. 449.
# Sitemap

## July 09, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 07
- July 09, 2020

            - What Is the Commercial Crew Program? (Grades 5-8)
            - Investigaciones Destacadas de la Ciencia en la Estación Espacial: Semana del 29 de junio de 2020
            - NASA’s Deep Space Station in Australia Is Getting an Upgrade
            - Comet NEOWISE from the International Space Station
            - NASA’s Perseverance Rover Attached to Atlas V Rocket
            - What Is the Commercial Crew Program? (Grades K-4)
            - Alabama High School Students Create a Meal NASA Will Send to Astronauts in Space
            - Conditions Ripe for Active Amazon Fire, Atlantic Hurricane Seasons
            - Artemis Testing: NASA SLS Green Run Checklist
            - STS-135: Shuttle’s Final Launch and the Beginning of a New Era