alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ARTHUR P. HINES, PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, NEW JERSEY, A BODY POLITIC, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted January 18, 1914

Decided March 16, 1944.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Bodine and Colie.

For the prosecutor, *J. Bernard Saltzmm.*

For the respondents, *George Surosky*and *John F. Evans.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

Prosecutor is a veteran of World War No. 1 and was a senior clerk in the electrical bureau of the building department of the City of Paterson. He was first appointed April 1st, 1926. He was notified on December 29th, 1936, that in the interest of economy the position which he held was to he abolished effective December 31st, 1936.

He then took an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. This he withdrew, and then under date of September 30th, 1937, he filed a new petition requesting a hearing. This was granted. A hearing was held January 6th, 1938. The Civil Service Commission ruled against him.

Cn the 25th of June, 1938, he filed an affidavit in this court. Upon that affidavit, *certiorari*was allowed on Septem*74ber 12th, 1938, as of June 11th, 1938. Why the writ should antedate the affidavit is not disclosed.

More than seven years have elapsed since the prosecutor was dismissed. The State Civil Service Commission is not a party to the proceeding. This would be fatal. *Cutley*v. *State Highway*Commission, 10 *N. J. Mis. R.*991.

However, we have considered the merits. The proofs clearly show that the abolition of- the position was in the interest of economy, and even though the prosecutor is an honorably discharged veteran of World War No. 1, still this status does not entitle him to his position when the position was abolished in good faith and for the betterment of the public service. *Harker*v. Bayonne, 85 *N. J. L.*176.

The writ will be dismissed.
# Sitemap

## November 23, 2021

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2021
- 11
- November 23, 2021

            - NASA Awards Information Technology Support Services Contract
            - Launch Day for NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test
            - What is the Airspace Technology Demonstration 2?
            - Meet the DART Team: Jason Jagdmann
            - Thanksgiving Celebrations in Space
            - Mariel Friberg Uses Satellite Data to Study Wildfires
            - NASA’s Super Guppy Arrives in California with Future Artemis Heat Shield
            - LitCoin Challenge
            - NASA Research Launches a New Generation of Indoor Farming
            - Webb Space Telescope: Into the Unknown
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 64699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1714]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; VF Corporation (Apparel, 
Footwear and Luggage Distribution), Martinsville, VA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the New River Economic Development Alliance, Inc., grantee 
of Foreign-Trade Zone 238, has made application to the Board for 
authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the warehouse/
distribution facilities of VF Corporation, located in Martinsville, 
Virginia (FTZ Docket 54-2009, filed 12/02/2009);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 66621-66622, 12/16/2009) and the application 
has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to apparel, footwear and luggage 
warehousing and distribution at the facilities of VF Corporation, 
located in Martinsville, Virginia (Subzone 238A), as described in the 
application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of October 2010.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26418 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20214

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ALFRED E. DAWSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3943)

_________________________________________________________________

January 13, 1999

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Dawson, pro se, appeals the adverse summary judgment in

his Tile VII action against the City of Houston. 

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de

novo, applying the same standard as the district court. E.g., OHM

Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116 F.3d 1574,

1579 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there

is no genuine issue of material fact and ... the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Dawson claims that he was excluded from job advancements

because of his race; that he was discharged (during his

probationary period) because of his race; and that the City

intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. Pursuant to

our de novo review of the record and review of the briefs, summary

judgment is proper for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court. See Dawson v. City of Houston, No. H-96-3943, slip

op. (S.D.Tex. Feb. 2, 1998).

AFFIRMED
| 1)     |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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/      Jay      Gottlieb                                  |   |   |
| Jay      Gottlieb                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |   |
| Chairman      of the Board, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Principal Executive      Officer                                                                                                                                 |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, George C. Platt, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of ViewCast.com, Inc. (the Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the Report). By execution of this statement, I certify that:  (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report. This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended
that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  November 15, 2004Date
    
    /s/ George C. PlattGeorge C. PlattPresident and Chief Executive Officer 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Laurie L. Latham, is the Chief Financial Officer of
ViewCast.com, Inc. (the Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the Report). By execution of this statement, I certify that:  (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report. This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended
that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: November 15, 2004Date
    
    /s/ Laurie L. LathamLaurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer 2
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 15 - 00113 - CV

________________________ MOHAMMED FAWWAZ SHOUKFEH , M . D . , P . A ., D/B/A TEXAS CARDIAC CENTER, APPELLANT V. JAMES G. GRATTAN AND TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 99th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 2014 - 510,479 ; Honorable William C. Sowder , Presiding May 7 , 201 5 

### ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. By opinion and judgment dated May 1, 2015, this Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal for failure to timely remit the required filing fee of $195. On May 5, 2015, Appellant filed his Amended Verified Motion to Reconsider and to Reinstate the2

Appeal. 1 By the motion, Appellant’s counsel explains that nonpayment of the filing fee was an inadvertent mistake and not an intentional disregard of this Court’s earlier letter advising Appellant of the nonpayment of the required filing fee . The motion is supported by c ounsel’s affidavit as well as counsel’s legal assistant ’s affidavit . In addition, Appellee, James Grattan, is unopposed to the motion and Appellee, Texas Workforce Commission , has agreed to waive the ten - day response time and will not file written opposit ion to the motion. Accordingly, w e grant the motion and reinstate the appeal. The appeal will proceed in due course. It is so ordered. Per Curiam

1 On May 4, 2015, Appellant filed his original Motion to Reconsider and to Reinstate the Appeal. Our disposition of his amended motion render s consideration of the original motion moot.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00781

- CV

WC 4th and Colorado, LP , Appellant

v.

Colorado Third Street, LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order to release funds signed by the tr i a l court on December 8, 2021

,

the order to dismiss certain claims with prejudice signed by the tr i a l court on March 21, 2022

,

and the severance order signed by the tr i a l court on September 20, 2022 . Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the court’s

orders

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s orders and remands the case to the trial

court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion . A ppell ee shall pay all costs

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
# Sitemap

## July 1994

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1994
- July 1994

            - 09
| 1)     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Greggory Schneider                  |   |   |
| Greggory Schneider                                                                                                           |   |   |
| Director, Chief Financial and Principal Financial Officer                                                                    |   |   |
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CLIFTON HANNAH.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. See *State v. O’Connor,*105 *N.J.*399 (1987), and *State v. Hartye,*105 *N.J.*411 (1987).
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  10549

RE:  PDS Financial Corporation
     Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-85966)


We are aware that our report dated May 8, 1997, on our review of interim
financial information of PDS Financial Corporation for the period ended March
31, 1997, and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 1997, is incorporated by reference in this registration
statement.  Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this
report should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or
certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 8, 1997


                                          16
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEANDRO DE JESUS and DIJALMA LEMOS
, Appellant s ,

v.

IN RE: TEREZA BECKER
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 490

[ January 23, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Peter M. Weinstein , Judge; L.T. Case No. MH

- C

- 18

- 3600

.

Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant s

.

Beth Konken and Keturah A. Dunne, Associate General C ounsel, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Patterson, NY, for

app ellants Leandro De Jesus and Dijalma Lemos Amicus Curiae

.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, G ERBE R and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### ROBERT C. ZABITA v. CHATHAM SHOP RITE, INC., AND SECOND INJURY FUND.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7215

LASHAWN GILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00709-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lashawn M. Gill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lashawn Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gill has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1
 
 HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP
 Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB
 for the Quarter ended March 31, 2004
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: April 23, 2004      /s/ Lawrence P. Ward
 Lawrence P. Ward,
 President and Chief Executive Officer
#### IN RE PRESENTMENT OF SPECIAL UNION COUNTY GRAND JURY PANEL NUMBER 3.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Taylor, Appellee, *v.*Taylor, Appellant.

(No. 3588

Decided September 20, 1943.)

*192*Messrs. Smoyer, Kennedy, Smoyer & Vogel,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Amer, Cunningham & Keeney,*for appellant.

Stevens, P. J.

This- appeal on questions of law from an order of *the*Court of Common Pleas, granting alimony to plaintiff *pendente lite*for her support and the support of the minor child of the parties, and requiring defendant to vacate the residence of the parties, owned in part by defendant, was presented to this court on the record, but without a bill of exceptions.

We have inquired into the question as to whether the order made herein was a final order, reviewable on law by this court, and have concluded that it was and is such an order, affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding, as comes within the definition of a final order contained in Section 12223-2, General Code, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12002, General Code, which were rendered inoperative by the constitutional amendment of 1912 fixing the jurisdiction of this court, and the adoption of the Appellate Procedure Act (Section 12223-1 *et seq.,*General Code).

We are, however, required to indulge the presumption that the order of the trial court is a valid order, made upon proper evidentiary showing, until the contrary is shown.

There being no bill of exceptions or other showing that the trial court did not have before it such applications, and such evidence or statements of counsel as warranted the order made, indulgence of said presumption requires an affirmance of the order made by the trial court.

*Order affirmed.*

Washburn and Doyle, JJ., concur.