alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. Spencer *v.*Rosemary Miller.

[No. 2-273A32.

Filed June 20, 1973.

Rehearing dismissed July 19, 1973.]

*Robert E. Hughes,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Robert W. Maher,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause is pending before the Court on the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm, which alleges that the praecipe in this cause was not filed within thirty days after the trial court’s ruling on the motion to correct errors.

An examination of the record reveals that the motion to correct errors was filed on November 10, 1972, and overruled on November 14, 1972. The praecipe was not filed until December 26, 1972.

*463Since the motion to correct errors was filed after April 1, 1972, Rule AP. 2 applies. Said rule provides as follows:

> “An appeal is initiated by filing with the clerk of the trial court a praecipe designating what is to be included in the record of the proceedings, and that said praecipe shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the court’s ruling on the Motion to Correct Errors or the right to appeal will be forfeited.”

The Court in several recent cases has construed the rule to be mandatory. See: *Brennan*v. *National Bank & Trust Co.*(1972), 153 Ind. App. 628, 288 N.E.2d 573; *Bell, et al.*v. *Wabash Valley Trust Co.*(1972), 154 Ind. App. 575, 290 N.E.2d 454; *In re Est. of Moore*(1973), 155 Ind. App. 92, 291 N.E.2d 566; *Soft Water Utilities, Inc.*v. *LeFevre*(1973), 293 N.E.2d 788. Therefore, in accordance with our understanding of the rule, the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is sustained and this cause is dismissed.

Sullivan, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissenting Opinion

Sullivan, J.

The chronology and sequence of the crucial procedural steps followed in this case are virtually identical to those in *Farmers Bank*v. *Moore*(1973), 155 Ind. App. 92, 291 N.E.2d 566, wherein I dissented from a dismissal of that appeal. I would here reiterate what was said in that dissent but would append thereto the observation that AP. Rule 14(B) seems to support my belief that AP. Rule 2(A) is not a jurisdictional rule in the sense that an otherwise timely appeal must be dismissed if the praecipe has not been requested within thirty (30) days of the ruling on a Motion to Correct Error.

AP. Rule 14(B) provides that no extension of time for the filing of a record of proceedings will be granted unless the praecipe has been filed within the period provided by AP. 2(A). If failure to timely file a praecipe constitutes irretrievable waiver of the right to appeal and is truly jurisdic*464tional, the provision of AP. 14(B) is totally unnecessary and redundant. The clear implication of AP. 14(B) is, at least in my view, that notwithstanding failure to file a praecipe for the record within thirty (30) days, and the appellate tribunal within its discretion permits it, an appeal may be considered upon a record of proceedings filed within ninety (90) days of the ruling upon the Motion to Correct Error. I would overrule the Motion to Dismiss.

Note. — Reported at 297 N.E.2d 491.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11098 Summary Calendar

ALVIN COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRUCE WAYNE WORTHAM, # 584610, Price Daniel Unit; T.J. MEDART, Warden, Price Daniel Unit; NFN SWEETEN, Assistant Warden, Price Daniel Unit; MAJOR SMITH, Price Daniel Unit; CAPTAIN RANSBURGER, Price Daniel Unit; NFN ROTH, State Unit Classification, Price Daniel Unit Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CV-181-C

-------------------- March 23, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Alvin Coleman, Texas inmate # 665951, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Coleman argues that he is entitled to the restoration of his good-time credits and to compensatory and punitive damages because his due process rights were violated during a disciplinary proceeding. BecauseNo. 00-11098 -2- Coleman has not shown that his conviction or sentence has not been invalidated, he fails to state a claim, and the district court’s dismissal was proper. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Coleman argues that the defendants’ refusal to provide him with a safe environment was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Coleman has alleged only that another inmate made verbal threats against him. The Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibits prisoners from recovering for mental or emotional injury suffered while in prison, absent a showing of physical injury. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Jones v. Greninger , 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, this claim is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Coleman argues that after he filed grievances about Inmate Wortham he was falsely accused of being at the scene of a riot. A prison official may not retaliate against or harass an inmate for exercising his right of access to the courts or other First Amendment rights. Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). If Coleman’s allegation that prison officials filed a false disciplinary report against him because he filed grievances about Inmate Wortham’s verbal threats is true, Coleman has sufficiently alleged that he exercised a constitutional right and that he suffered an adverse act. Thus, the district court’sNo. 00-11098 -3- dismissal of this portion of Coleman’s suit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 99.2

                          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 Quarterly Report of Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James F. Whalen, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.


Date: August 14, 2002                      By:     /s/  James F. Whalen
      ---------------                         --------------------------------
                                                     James F. Whalen
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 942 

To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to 

certain employees of the United States Postal Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself and Mr. MCKINLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to certain employees of the United States 

Postal Service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Postal Employee Ap5 peal Rights Amendments Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF APPEAL TO MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC7 TION BOARD. 

8 Section 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of title 39, United States 

9 Code, is amended to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 942 IH

1 ‘‘(I) is an officer or employee of 

2 the Postal Service who— 

3 ‘‘(aa) is not represented by a 

4 bargaining representative recog5 nized under section 1203; and 

6 ‘‘(bb) is in a supervisory, 

7 professional, technical, clerical, 

8 administrative, or managerial po9 sition covered by the Executive 

10 and Administrative Schedule; 

11 and’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AS AMENDED



I, Jugal K. Taneja, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DrugMax, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, 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 and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period that this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in this case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jugal K. Taneja    
|                      |  |     |  | Jugal K. Taneja        
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63823-63824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Federal Advisory Committee; Defense Advisory Committee on 
Military Personnel Testing

    Agency: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 
DoD.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine 
Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the 
Department of Defense announces that the Defense Advisory Committee on 
Military Personnel Testing will meet November 18-19, 2010, in Carmel, 
CA.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 18 (from 8:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m.) and Friday, November 19, 2010 (from 8:30 a.m. to noon).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Pine Inn, Ocean Avenue 
between Lincoln St. and Monte Verde St., Carmel, CA 91921.

[[Page 63824]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Committee's Designated Federal Officer 
or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession 
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness), Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, 
telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Meeting

    The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and 
progress in developing computerized and paper-and-pencil enlistment 
tests.

Agenda

    The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test 
development timelines and planned research for the next 3 years.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, 
and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public.

Oral Presentations/Written Statements

    Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written 
statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. 
Jane M. Arabian (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than 
November 10, 2010.

    Dated: October 13, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-26189 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARIO WILLIAMS.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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
February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Chief Financial 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, as amended; and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|April 8, 2005          
|                       
|/s/ Philip S. Chan     
|Philip S. Chan         
|Chief Financial 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.



31
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet on October 25-26, 2010, in the Chandelier Ballroom at the St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.

The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Public comments will be received at 2 p.m. each day. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.

                    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Robert Watkins, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation and Pension Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail at                     *Robert.Watkins2@va,gov*. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Mr. Watkins at (202) 461-9214.                

Dated: October 17, 2010.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Vivian Drake,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-26484 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 of the Quarterly Report of CTD Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, C.E. Rick Strattan, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ C.E. Rick Strattan

-----------------------------------
C.E. Rick Strattan
Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          44,415
<SECURITIES>                                    27,437
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (62)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,212
<PP&E>                                          40,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,114)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,724
<BONDS>                                          4,791
<COMMON>                                           162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,092
<SALES>                                         44,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,883
<CGS>                                           32,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,658
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.3

 

Consent of Independent Auditor

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-220757 and No. 333-206519) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (No. 333-217890 and No. 333-214014) on Form S-8 of MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of GruenePointe Holdings, LLC and Subsidiaries, comprising the consolidated statements of operations and changes in members’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2015, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017, as amended (Form 10-K/A).

 

 

/s/ McNair, McLemore, Middlebrooks & Co., LLC

March 31, 2018

Macon, Georgia
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-024-CV

TOKA GENERAL CONTRACTORS, APPELLANT

LTD.

V.

HIDALGO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, APPELLEE

INC.

----------

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion To Withdraw Notice

Of Appeal And Dismiss Appeal.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion

should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 25, 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
#### MARGARET M. KOCHY v. G.M.A.C.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.