alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. T. Moore, et al., *v.*Wm. Suerd.

Appeal — Time in Which Taken.

Ini ascertaining the time in, which ,an appeal is to. be taken to the circuit court, the day on which the judgment was rendered and the day on which the appeal is taken are both to be counted.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 4, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It is apparent that according to the rule for the computation of time, as prescribed in *Chiles v. Smith's Heirs,*13 B. Mon. 460, and subsequent cases, the appeal in this case was not taken within sixty days.

The judgment was rendered by the Pike quarterly court on the 24th of March, 1874, and the appeal was taken tO' the circuit court for Pike county on the 23d of May, 1874. By including the 24th of March, 1874, in the computation, that being the day on which the judgment was rendered in the quarterly court, and the 23d of May, *4861874, the day on which the appeal was taken, they make sixty-one days, consequently the appeal was not prosecuted within sixty days, as required by Sec. 852 of the Civil Code, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be *affirmed.*

*Moore & Jones, for appellants. O. C. Bowles, for appellee.*
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS G. BRENNAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action 11-00418-CB-N

)

DAVID WISE, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated August 28, 2014, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas G. Brennan’s petition for 

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docs. 1, 2, 12) is DENIED, that this action 

is DISMISSED with prejudice, and that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of 

appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of _September__ 2014.

/s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.

CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00418-CB-N Document 28 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.27 (b)
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
TRANSITION AND SUCCESSION AGREEMENT
     1.
    
    The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 5(a) of the Agreement:
  2.
    
    The following shall be added as a new Section 5(c):
 Conditions to Payment and Acceleration; Section 409A of the Code




---



##### 



provided however
 3.
    
    The last sentence of Section 7 is hereby amended by deleting the words of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and replacing them with of the Code.
 4.
    
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.5.
    
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all respects.
  MYLAN INC./s/ Rodney L. PiattBy:  Rodney L. PiattTitle:
    Chairman, Compensation Committee/s/ Heather BreschHeather Bresch 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Great Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      J. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer, certify to the best of my knowledge,
      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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August
      8,
      2007




***/s/
                Michael J. Rogers***
              Michael
                J. RogersExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Financial Officer
11293.

#### Terry Shipbuilding Corporation *v.*DuBose.

Smith, J.

The defendant, being engaged in building ships, employed the plaintiff to operate a drill motor and to countersink holes in the side of a ship, and in order to perform this' work the plaintiff stood on a scaffold, some 35 or 40 feet high, and while so engaged one of the unnailed and loose planks of the scaffold upon which he was standing “gave way, slipped, and turned,” causing him to be precipitated to the ground; and for the injuries occasioned by the fall he brought this suit against the master, alleging that the latter was negligent in failing to provide for him a reasonably safe place upon which to work. *Held-.*A petition which amplifies but alleges in substance only the above facts does not set out a cause of action, and is subject to general demurrer, since no reason is alleged “why the master should have taken the unusual' protection of nailing down the planks, or why the servant should have had any reason to believe that the planks were nailed down. Planks upon temporary scaffolds of this kind are not usually nailed down, the natural inference arising in the mind of any man of ordinary intelligence and experience [and the plaintiff was such a man] upon approaching such a platform is that the planks are unsecured; and this petition suggests no reason why the plaintiff conceived any other notion. It would be far fetched indeed to say that the master ought to have foreseen that any servant would presume that the planks were nailed down.” *Riverside Mills*v. *Brooks,*6 *Ga. App.*67, 69 (64 S. E. 282). See also *Daniel*v. *Forsyth,*106 *Ga.*568 (32 S. E. 621); *Ludd*v. *Wilkins,*118 *Ga.*525 (45 S. E. 429) ; *159
      *Bolden*v. *Central Ry. Co.,*130 *Ga.*455 (60 S. E. 1047); *Quinn*v. *Allen,*1 *Ga. App.*807 (57 S. E. 957).

Decided April 8, 1920.

Action for damages; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. January 15, 1920.

*David S. Atkinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. S. Fuller,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50491

EFREN GARCIA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HECTOR MONTENEGRO, Individually; PAUL PEARSON, Individually;

ELIZABETH VELOZ, Individually; JERRY MOLINOSKI, Individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-123

Before KING, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment below is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth in the

district court’s well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0670 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW DOUGLAS WEBB ,

Respondent and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 25 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

**M P**  **D** Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 26 2020

08/26/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0670
Exhibit No. 32.  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 report of Questar Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ronald W. Jibson, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and S. E. Parks, Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.  QUESTAR GAS COMPANY    March 11, 2009 /s/Ronald W. Jibson Ronald W. Jibson President & Chief Executive Officer    March 11, 2009 /s/S. E. Parks S. E. Parks Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
#### V. Hall *v.*Lebanon & Maysville Turnpike Co.

Damages — Defective Bridge — Negligence.

Where defendant’s bridge was out of repair and by reason thereof an animal fell through it and such animal in falling frightened plaintiff’s horse but did not come in contact with it, plaintiff cannot recover from1 the owner of the bridge for injury received to himself or horse, as the injury to plaintiff and his property was not the natural consequences of negligence of allowing the bridge to become out of repair.

*477APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1875.

*Russell & Averitt, for appellant. Harrison & Knott, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The destruction of the wagon which appellant was driving, and the personal injuries he sustained, were neither the natural nor proximate result of the defect in appellee’s bridge.

The natural and proximate result of that defect was the injury and fright of the animal that fell through the bridge; and possibly, if that animal, in endeavoring to escape from danger, or whilst under the influence of the fright produced by the defect in said bridge, had come in contact with the wagon or with appellant, the injuries thereby inflicted might not have been considered too remote to constitute a cause of action. But here the injuries were the result of the fright of the animal that was being driven by appellant, which fright he says was superinduced by the action of the animal that fell through the bridge. The injuries complained of may be said to be the consequences of appellee’s neglect; but they certainly were not the natural consequences thereof. They arose directly from the extraneous cause, the fright and conduct of the animal being driven, and not from the alarm and action of the one falling through the bridge. To sustain appellant’s cause of action, it would be necessary to apply the rule insisted on by Patch, in his case against the city of Covington. *Patch v. City of Covington,*17 B. Mon. 722. That rule is, “That whenever injury occurs, directly or consequently, from the wilful neglect of corporate duty, an action is clearly maintainable by a party especially injured, irrespective of the events or parties that intervene.” Said rule was condemned by this court in that case, and we see no reason why it should be applied in this case.

The conclusion thus reached avoids the necessity of inquiring into the action of the circuit court, in compelling appellant to elect as to which of the original defendants he would proceed against.

The demurrer was properly sustained and the petition properly dismissed.

Judgment *affirmed.*
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXCECUTIVE**

**OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofNash Finch Company, (the “Company”) for the period ended January 3, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), we, Ron Marshall and Robert B. Dimond, Chief Executive Officer andExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, that to our knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed inthe Report.

 

 
| Date:  | March 10, 2004                             |                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | By:  /s/ Ron  Marshall                |
|   | Name: Ron Marshall                         |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer             |
|   |                                       |
|   | By:  /s/  Robert B. Dimond            |
|   | Name:  Robert  B. Dimond              |
|   | Title:   Executive Vice President and |
|   |                                       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4892 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4892

 To establish that marriage in the United States consists only of the 
                      union of a man and a woman.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2004

    Mr. Istook (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Baker, Mr. Bartlett of 
Maryland, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, 
     Mr. Cantor, Mr. Culberson, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
  Doolittle, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Garrett of New 
Jersey, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
  Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Linder, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. 
 McCotter, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pence, 
   Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. 
Tancredo, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
    Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Brady of Texas, and Mr. Collins) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish that marriage in the United States consists only of the 
                      union of a man and a woman.

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

SECTION 1. MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Marriage in the United States shall consist only 
of the union of a man and a woman.
    (b) Jurisdiction.--
            (1) U.S. supreme court.--The Supreme Court of the United 
        States shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine a 
        claim arising under this section.
            (2) Other courts.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no 
        Federal or State court shall have jurisdiction to hear or 
        determine a claim arising under this section.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.19
(c)
 AMENDMENT TO
EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     1.
    
    The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 4(b) of the Agreement:Such bonus shall be paid no later than March 15th of the year following the year in
which the annual award is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.2.
    
    The first sentence of Section 9(a)(iii) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following two
sentences:
  3.
    
    The first sentence of Section 9(c) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following two
sentences:




---



##### 



4.
    
    Section 9(e) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 provided however
 5.
    
    Section 9(h) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
 Conditions to Payment and Acceleration; Section 409A of the Code
 2




---



##### 



provided however
 6.
    
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.7.
    
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all respects.
  MYLAN INC./s/ Rodney L. PiattBy:  Rodney L. PiattTitle:
    Chairman, Compensation Committee/s/ Rajiv MalikRajiv Malik 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES TROUTMAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
[Exhibit 32.2]

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
V,  Inc.  (the "Company") on  Form 10-KSB  for the period  ending
April  30,  2004  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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: June 16, 2004

                                /s/ William Colucci
                                ---------------------------------
                                William Colucci, Treasurer
                                BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00412-CR

Gerardo Leyva, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 97-832-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On March 11, 1998, Gerardo Leyva was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in the

above Williamson County cause. The conviction was affirmed by this Court. Leyva v. State,

No. 03-09-412-CR (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

On May 7, 2009, Leyva filed his pro se “motion to enter notice of appeal nunc pro

tunc” in the district court. In the motion, Leyva contends that he was denied the opportunity to file

a petition for discretionary review and asks the court to “allow the records to show his eligibility to

file his petition for discretionary review.” The district clerk treated the motion as a notice of appeal

and forwarded it to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(e).

It is too late to perfect an appeal from the 1998 conviction and, in any event, the

conviction was previously appealed and affirmed. The proper procedure for establishing Leyva’s
2

entitlement to an out-of-time discretionary review is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding.

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2008). 

The appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 17, 2009

Do Not Publish
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1550 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to restore and standardize 

work requirements for able-bodied adults enrolled in the supplemental 

nutrition assistance program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. LATURNER (for himself, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

and Mr. GUEST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to restore 

and standardize work requirements for able-bodied adults 

enrolled in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. 

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 ‘‘Jobs and Opportunities 

5 for SNAP Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1550 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTORING THE WORK REQUIREMENT FOR ABLE2 BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS IN 

3 THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSIST4 ANCE PROGRAM. 

5 Section 2301 of the Families First Coronavirus Re6 sponse Act (Public Law 116–127; 7 U.S.C. 2011 note) 

7 is repealed. 

8 SEC. 3. STANDARDIZING WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR ABLE9 BODIED ADULTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NU10 TRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

11 Section 6(o)(3) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

12 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(3)) is amended to read as follows: 

13 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (2) shall not 

14 apply to an individual if the individual is— 

15 ‘‘(A) under 18 or over 65 years of age; 

16 ‘‘(B) medically certified as physically or 

17 mentally unfit for employment; 

18 ‘‘(C) a parent or other member of a house19 hold with responsibility for a dependent child 

20 under 7 years of age; 

21 ‘‘(D) otherwise exempt under subsection 

22 (d)(2); or 

23 ‘‘(E) a pregnant woman.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1550 IH

1 SEC. 4. STANDARDIZING ENFORCEMENT OF WORK RE2 QUIREMENTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRI3 TION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

4 Section 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

5 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(4)) is repealed. 

6 SEC. 5. REFORMING WORK REQUIREMENT EXEMPTIONS IN 

7 THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSIST8 ANCE PROGRAM. 

9 Section 6(o)(6) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

10 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(6)) is amended— 

11 (1) in subparagraph (E) by striking ‘‘12 per12 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘3 percent’’, and 

13 (2) in subparagraph (G) by inserting ‘‘that be14 gins before the date of the enactment of the America 

15 Works Act of 2023’’ after ‘‘year’’ the 2d place it ap16 pears. 

17 SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

18 Section 16(h)(1))(E)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition 

19 Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(E)(ii) is amended— 

20 (1) in subclause (II) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the 

21 end, 

22 (2) by striking subclause (III), and 

23 (3) by redesignating subclause (IV) as sub24 clause (III). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS