alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 13, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 01146
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Z .H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 16
- 03051



### O RDER This accelerated appeal involves the termination of appellant’s parental rights. Appellant is indigent and allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. The clerk’s record is
overdue. By po stcard notice dated October 2, 2017, the Court informed Felicia Pitr e, Dallas County District Clerk, that the record was overdue and instructed her to file the clerk’s record within ten days. As of today’s date, the record has not been filed. According ly, we ORDER Ms. Pitre t o file the clerk’s record by OCTOBER 23, 2017

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
11428.

#### Delpheon Company *v.*Crankshaw.

Bloodworth, J.

1. This court not being fully convinced that this case was appealed for delay only, the motion that the plaintiff in error be taxed ten per cent, damages under § 6213 of the Civil Code of 1910 is refused.

2. “An assignment of error upon the refusal of the court to award a nonsuit will not be considered, where thereafter the case proceeded to a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial, to the overruling of which exception is taken, includes the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.” *Wakefield*v. *Lee,*18 *Ga. App.*648 (1) (90 S. E. 224). See *Buchanan*v. *James,*134 *Ga.*475 (3) (68 S. E. 72), and cit.

3. The fact that the evidence in this case was not reported in “ shorthand” is no reason why a new trial should be granted. There is no law that makes the stenographic reporting of civil cases compulsory, *673or provides that a failure so to report the evidence shall be cause for a new trial.

Decided October 5, 1920.

Complaint; from Fulton superior court—-Judge Ellis. January 15, 1920.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. .

*Douglas & Douglas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Winfield Payne Jones,*contra.

4. “ Where there is an attempt to bind a person by the act of an agent, it is necessary for the person asserting the agency to establish it. After a prima facie ease is made, the declarations of the agent himself, made accompanying the transaction or during the execution or settlement of it, are admissible in corroboration of the prior evidence tending to establish the agency.” *White Sewing Machine Co.*v. *Horkan,*7 *Ga. App.*283 (3) (66 S. E. 811). Applying this principle to the evidence in this ease, there was no error in admitting the evidence of which complaint is made in the 6th ground of the motion for new trial.

5. “The grounds of the motion for a new trial that the court erred in allowing in evidence certain documentary evidence can not be considered, since the evidence referred to is not set forth either literally or in substance in the motion or in an exhibit thereto.” *Arnold*v. *Mitchell,*23 *Ga. App.*658 (1) (99 S. E. 135), and cit. This ruling disposes of ground 7 of the motion for a new trial.

6. When considered in connection with the pleadings and the facts of the case, and in the light of the remainder of the charge, no excerpt therefrom of which complaint is made contains error that would require the grant of a new trial.

7. There is some evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Scott N. Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer,****certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this annual**report on Form 10-K/A of GP Strategies Corporation;

 

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;

 

 
| Date: April 30,   2012 |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
|                        |   |
| /s/ Scott N. Greenberg      |   |
| Scott N. Greenberg          |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*   |   |

 

----
* 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. 96-20509

Summary Calendar

 

RAYMOND LANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARL A SWANSON; DELOIS D. COOPER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-92-3464

- - - - - - - - - -

October 13, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Lang, Texas state prisoner #486632, appeals from the

judgment following a jury verdict in favor of one defendant and

the district court’s dismissal of the other defendant in his

civil rights suit. Lang argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, that the district

court erred by dismissing defendant Swanson from the lawsuit,

that the district court committed error during the voir dire

proceedings, and that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 
No. 96-20509

-2-

error. Lang’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel is

DENIED.

This appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00762-CG-N

G.K. FOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, et al, :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00762-CG-N Document 18 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
10.4





Terms of
Employment Arrangement


between
Bay National Bank


and Mark
A. Semanie





Mr.
Semanie is employed on an at will basis at a rate of pay of $200,000 as of
January 1, 2008. Mr. Semanie is also eligible for incentive bonuses at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and is
entitled to all benefits available to full time employees of Bay National
Bank.





The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank approved
discretionary bonuses to Mr. Semanie of $60,000 in December 2005, $72,000 in
December 2006 and $10,000 in December 2007, respectively. These bonuses were
paid in the subsequent calendar year.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 471 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 471

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Frost, Ms. Lee, 
  Mr. Pallone, Mr. Payne, Ms. Watson, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. 
    Farr) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE'S 
              BENEFITS FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RECEIPT 
              OF SPOUSE'S BENEFITS.

    (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(5)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced 
wife--'' and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and 
inserting ``divorced wife meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(5)(A) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced husband--'' 
and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and inserting 
``divorced husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
(D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (c) Exemption From Deductions on Account of Work.--Section 
203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Except as'' and all that follows 
        through ``the benefit to which'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(2) In any case in which any of the other persons referred to 
        in paragraph (1)(B) is entitled to monthly benefits as a 
        divorced spouse under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for 
        any month, the benefit to which''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              UT
<CIK>                  0000838868
<NAME>                 UPPER PENINSULA ENERGY CORP
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      101,448
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     11,430
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          16,124
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         6,258
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,260
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       21,087
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             19,760
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  40,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              445
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            43,007
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              10,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      260
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  40,701
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  135,260
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       15,573
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               576
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      13,005
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      13,581
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          1,992
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  69
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   2,061
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,205
<NET-INCOME>                                       856
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          5
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      851
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           944
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,868
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           2,551
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31,
2004 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New
York.

Date:
May 6, 2004

| | /s/ CASEY J. SYLLACasey J. Sylla
Chairman of the Board and President            | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ STEVEN E. SHEBIKSteven E. Shebik
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 

E-5

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1512 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1512

  To allow women greater access to a wider range of self-administered 
contraceptives approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2023

   Ms. Mace introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow women greater access to a wider range of self-administered 
contraceptives approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Greater Access to Contraceptive 
Options Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATIONS FOR NON-PRESCRIPTION CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS.

    (a) Priority Review of Application.--The Secretary of Health and 
Human Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
give priority review to any supplemental application submitted under 
section 505(b), 510(k), or 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b), 360, 360e) for a self-administered contraceptive 
method to be marketed without being subject to section 503(b)(1) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)) or treated 
as a prescription device.
    (b) Fee Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the fee under section 
736(a)(1) or 738(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 379h(a)(1); 379j(a)(2)) (as applicable) with respect to a 
supplemental application that receives priority review under subsection 
(a).
    (c) Applicability.--This section applies with respect to a 
supplemental application described in subsection (a) that--
            (1) is submitted before the date of enactment of this Act 
        and remains pending as of such date of enactment; or
            (2) is submitted after such date of enactment.
    (d) Self-Administered Contraceptive Method Defined.--In this Act, 
the term ``self-administered contraceptive method'' means a drug or 
device (as those terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) or combination product approved 
for use under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 
et seq.) as a method of contraception that is administered without the 
intervention of a health care professional, including the birth control 
pill, patch, vaginal ring, or injection, such as depot 
medroxyprogesterone acetate.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT MANDATO,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 128 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 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 Quarterly Report of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, William P. Spencer, CEO, President and
director and Debra L. Spencer, Secretary/Treasurer and director of the
Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Registrant.


Dated: 2/23/04                        /s/William P. Spencer
      ----------                      ---------------------------
                                      William P. Spencer
                                      CEO, President and director



Dated: 2/23/04                        /s/Debra L. Spencer
      ----------                      ---------------------------
                                      Debra L. Spencer
                                      Secretary/Treasurer and director
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4867

To amend title 3, United States Code, to permit an objection to the certificate 

of the electoral votes of a State to be received by the Senate and 

the House of Representatives if the objection is signed by either a 

Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2004

Mr. DEUTSCH (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, and Ms. CORRINE

BROWN of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title 3, United States Code, to permit an objection 

to the certificate of the electoral votes of a State to 

be received by the Senate and the House of Representatives if the objection is signed by either a Senator or 

a Member of the House of Representatives.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4867 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING OBJECTION TO CERTIFICATE OF 

2 ELECTORAL VOTES TO BE RECEIVED IF 

3 SIGNED BY SENATOR OR MEMBER OF THE 

4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

5 The fifth sentence of section 15 of title 3, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and shall be signed 

7 by at least one Senator and one Member of the House 

8 of Representatives’’ and inserting ‘‘and shall be signed by 

9 at least one Senator or Member of the House of Rep10 resentatives’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

REGINA BROWN, on behalf of :

GREGORY L. BROWN,

:

Plaintiff, 

:

vs. 

 : CIVIL ACTION 05-0661-CG-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of :

Social Security, 

:

Defendant. 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor

of Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart and against Plaintiff Regina Brown, on behalf of Gregory L.

Brown.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00661-CG-M Document 21 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY S. MCCAMMON, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0718-BH-M

:

JAMES JOHNSON, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) that Plaintiff’s Complaint be

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and

prosecute this action. Plaintiff has, in turn, filed an Objection

(Doc. 13) to the Magistrate’s Report. 

On January 10, 2006, after review of Plaintiff's Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court ordered (Doc. 5)

Plaintiff to pay a $5.76 partial filing fee within twenty days.

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Order

within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his

action. On the date the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation was

entered, March 21, 2006, the Court was unaware that Plaintiff’s

filing fee had been received. Therefore, the Magistrate properly

suggested that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to

comply with the Court’s Order. Plaintiff, however, objects to the

Report and Recommendation, contending that he paid, via his

brother, the requisite filing fee on or about January 14, 2006. 

Case 1:05-cv-00718-BH-M Document 16 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 2
Upon further investigation, the Court has found that Plaintiff

did indeed submit his filing fee in a timely manner in January

2006. (Doc. 15). Though notice of such payment was inadvertently

left out of the record, the omission has now been rectified.

Therefore, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff disobeyed the

Court’s Order (Doc. 5) of January 10, 2006 and the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is due to be and hereby

DENIED.

So ORDERED, this 6th day of April, 2006. 

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00718-BH-M Document 16 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2