alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,807.

#### Crow *v.*Bannister.

Filed Oct. 16, 1889.

From the Sullivan Circuit Court.

*W. S. Maple*and *J. S. Bays,*for appellant.

*J. T. Beasley, A. B. Williams*and *J. C. Briggs,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

This was an action by Crow against Bannister, to recover the possession of a tract of land in Sullivan county. Trial by the court, finding and judgment for the defendant.

The only question made upon this appeal relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of tbe court. It is only necessary to say the evidence fully sustains the finding.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

_____________________

No. 18-11479

_____________________

CHAD EVERET BRACKEEN; JENNIFER KAY BRACKEEN; STATE OF 

TEXAS; ALTAGRACIA SOCORRO HERNANDEZ; STATE OF INDIANA; 

JASON CLIFFORD; FRANK NICHOLAS LIBRETTI; STATE OF 

LOUISIANA; HEATHER LYNN LIBRETTI; DANIELLE CLIFFORD, 

Plaintiffs - Appellees 

v. 

DAVID BERNHARDT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR; TARA SWEENEY, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs; BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

ALEX AZAR, In his official capacity as Secretary of the United States 

Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendants - Appellants 

CHEROKEE NATION; ONEIDA NATION; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; 

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, 

Intervenor Defendants - Appellants

__________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

__________________________

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion August 9, 2019, Modified August 16, 2019, 

5 Cir., 2019, 937 F.3d 409)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 18-11479

Before OWEN, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, STEWART, DENNIS,

ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, COSTA, 

WILLETT, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.1

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petitions for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active 

service and not disqualified having voted in favor,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc

with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a

briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

 

1 Judge Ho is recused and did not participate in this decision.

2
Exhibit 4.391

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 174442 dated May 23, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

cable radio services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 

(Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until May 23, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated May 23, 2019 No. 298-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
 
    	
/signature/ A.А.   Pankov
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
#### Otto BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-4279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 2010.

Otto Black, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Otto Black appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion raised eight grounds for relief premised on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court held a full evidentiary hearing and thereafter entered its order denying relief *in toto.*We affirm the order as to Grounds One through Six and Ground Eight, but reverse as to Ground Seven. Although the court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, it denied Ground Seven solely because the trial record refutes that claim. But the court failed to attach to the order those portions of the record supporting the denial. We therefore reverse and remand for the lower court to attach such parts of the trial record conclusively refuting the allegations made in Ground Seven. *See Gatlin v. State,*24 So.3d 743, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding where postconviction court held hearing on some 3.850 claims and denied others as *286refuted by the record but failed to attach relevant portions of the record to denial order).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
MSHA Impact Inspection List

(September 2023)

Mine Information x Type of Issuance x S&S Information x Issuances - Type of Action x Justifications

District State

Coal/

MNM Mine ID Controller Name Operator Name Mine Name

Citations

Orders

Safeguards (Coal only)

Total

S&S

Non-S&S

Total

S&S

Rate

104(a) Citation

104(b) Order

104(d)(1) Citation

104(d)(1) Order104(d)(2) Order

104(e)(2) Order

314(b) Safeguard

103(k) Order

104(g)(1) Order

103(j) Order

107(a) Order

Total

1. Operator Tactics

2. Hazard Complaints /Hotline Calls

3. Plan Compliance Issues

4. Inadequate Exams

5. Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses

6. Fatal Accidents

7. Enforcement History

8. Adverse Conditions

9. Respirable Dust Issues

10. Operational Changes

Barbourville TN M 4003530 Dwayne Potter Potter South East LLC Potter South East Stone Facility 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0.00% 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 x x

Beckley WV C 4609377 Sev.en Global Investments a.s. Rockwell Mining LLC Glancy Surface Mine 5 0 0 5 1 4 5 20.00% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 x

Duluth IL M 1101105 Holcim Ltd Holcim - MAMR, Inc. Holcim Elburn Sand & Gravel 11 0 0 11 0 11 11 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 x x

Madisonville KY C 1519744 ACNR Holdings, Inc Muhlenberg County Coal Resources, Inc. Pride 7 0 0 7 1 6 7 14.29% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 x x x

Morgantown MD C 1800780 Quintana Capital Group GP Ltd Maryland Energy Resources, LLC Casselman Mine 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0.00% 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 x x

Mt. Pleasant PA C 3608581 Maria Cantwell; Bonnie R Ryan; Brian R Rich Reading Anthracite Company Girard Breaker 22 0 0 22 8 14 22 36.36% 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 x

Norton MD M 1800019 Holcim Ltd Holcim (US) Inc. Holcim (US) Inc-Hagerstown Facility 23 1 0 24 0 24 24 0.00% 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 x x x

Pineville WV C 4608249 John M Potter Coal-Mac LLC Cub Branch Surface 9 0 0 9 1 8 9 11.11% 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 x x

Warrendale OH M 3300099 Holcim Ltd Holcim Quarries NY, Inc Marblehead Aggregates 25 0 0 25 6 19 25 24.00% 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 x x x

Total Mines: 9 National Totals 122 1 0 123 17 106 123 13.82% 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 123 2 1 0 1 4 0 8 2 0 1

Last Updated 10/12/2023
#### Sibberson, a Minor, Appellant, *v.*The Sherlock Baking Co., Appellee.

(No. 3959

Decided April 26, 1943.)

*229*Messrs. Deeds & Zeigin,*for appellant.

Messrs. *Kirhbride, Cole &*Frease,-for appellee.

Lloyd, J.

The defendant, The Sherlock Baking Company, engaged in a general baking business and operated in connection therewith a number of trucks for the delivery of its products to its customers. On April 6, 1942, one of its delivery wagons was being so used on Norwalk street in Toledo. The plaintiff infant resided with his parents on the southerly side of this street where there was a sidewalk paralleling the 18- or 20-foot vehicular-travelled portion of the street, which portion was 8 or 10 feet from the sidewalk line. In addition to the Sibberson home, there were several other residences on that side of the street. The baking company truck stopped at the second house westerly of the Sibberson home. At this time there were two children on the sidewalk in front of the residence next adjoining that of the Sibbersons. The plaintiff was not one of them.

The driver of the truck, who had not at any time seen the plaintiff, re-entered and started the truck and, an instant later, one of the children on the sidewalk “hollered,” whereupon the driver at once stopped. The father of the boy testified that the driver said:

“I didn’t see the boy. If that other little boy wouldn’t have hollered, I would have run right over his stomach.”

How or when the boy ran into or under the truck, or where he had been before, or where, in fact, he was when the truck was started, the evidence does not disclose. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the baking company. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, the *230plaintiff appeals to this court, on questions of law.

Plaintiff contends that the duty rested upon the employees of the baking company in charge of the truck to exercise ordinary care to see that there were no children in close proximity to the truck, who might be injured thereby. What ordinary care demands should or should not be done, depends upon the factual conditions and circumstances present in the particular case under consideration. In the instant case, there was nothing to warn the driver that the plaintiff, coming from somewhere unknown to and unseen by him, was near the truck. There is nothing in the evidence tending to prove that the employees in charge of the truck acted otherwise than persons of ordinary care and prudence would have, under the same or similar circumstances.

The plaintiff contended, also, that the opening statement of counsel was such as, if true, would require a reversal of the judgment. Prom the reading of such statement, however, the members of the court find nothing therein inconsistent with the facts developed by the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Carpenter and Stuart, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|January 12, 2007       
|                       
|/s/ Chiu M. Chan       
|Chiu M. Chan           
|Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for
any other purpose.
----

----

|   | (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/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | June 3, 2011                         |

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND COX.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

s1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

146875

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146875

COA: 306965

Wayne CC: 11-005613-FH

ANTHONY GERALD LAGINESS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, L. George Klaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ L. George Klaus                                  
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | L. George Klaus                                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Michael A. Piraino, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                  
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael A. Piraino                                                                           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Michael A. Piraino                                                                               
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
(logo) pwc

 

 

Report of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic,Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial RealEstate Services, Inc. (the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc.complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgageloan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year thenended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance withattestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence aboutthe Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourexamination included testing of selected servicing activities related to thePlatform, and determining whether the Company performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Companyduring the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed todetect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliancewith the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for theyear ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax serviceprovider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

February 4, 2016

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800,Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991,www.pwc.com/us
# Sitemap

## March 14, 2018

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2018
- 03
- March 14, 2018

            - This Week in NASA History: STS-109 Lands – March 12, 2002
            - Mystery of Purple Lights in Sky Solved With Help From Citizen Scientists
            - NASA Needs Your Help to Find Steve and Here’s How
            - The Marshall Star
            - Photography Students Discover Art in Space
            - NASA to Highlight Science Launching on Next Resupply Mission to Space Station
            - Soyuz Spacecraft in Integration Facility
            - Upper Stage Rocket Booster and Soyuz Spacecraft
            - Soyuz Spacecraft in Integration Facility
            - Soyuz Spacecraft Encapsulated in Upper Stage Rocket Booster
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY TILLMAN,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, SCI HOUTZDALE, SCI

SOMERSET, ALLEN G. JOSEPH, CCPM

LT. BROTHERS, BCI/PREA

COORDINATOR,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 35 MAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court dated June 9,

2017 at docket No. 327 MD 2016.

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: July 18, 2018

AND NOW, this 18 th day of July, 2018

, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, L. George Klaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/L. George Klaus     
|    |  | L. George Klaus        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, Michael A. Piraino, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor
Software Corporation.



|    |  |                                                     
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/Michael A. Piraino                               
|    |  | Michael A. Piraino                                  
|    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE

UPLOADING CPDM SAMPLE FILES

Visit www.msha.gov and select Upload/Review CPDM 

Sample Files at the bottom right of the homepage under 

QUICK LINKS. 

On the CPDM Sample File Transmission Page, select 

Upload CPDM sample files or Digital Dashboard to check 

the status of previously uploaded files.

Enter your email address and password, and click Login.

a) Click Choose File and select a file.

b) Click Add File to List.

c) Repeat for additional files as necessary.

d) Click Submit Samples to MSHA.

1

Go to the CPDM Sample File 

Transmission page

2

Upload or Check the Status of CPDM 

Sample Files

3

Log into eGov

4

Upload CPDM Files

5

Print Confirmation Page
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Quarterly Report of CTD Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C.E. Rick Strattan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CTD Holdings, Inc.
  Date: August 13, 2010
   By: /s/  C.E. Rick Strattan
 C.E. Rick Strattan
 Chief Executive Officer
 (principal executive, financial and accounting officer)