alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SCPW-13-0000115
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RICHARD K. PERKINS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 88-2209; CR. NO. 89-0024; CAAP-11-0000016; SCWC-11-0000016)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J
. )



### Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s motion for reconsideration of the March 20, 2013 order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, which was electronically filed by the appellate clerk on April 4, 2013,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 10, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000115 10-APR-2013 08:39 AM
#### Sharp *v.*McAninch et al.

[No. 12,131.

Filed May 1, 1925.]

From Marion Circuit Court (37,292); *Clarence E. Weir,*Special Judge.

Action between Edna H. Sharp and James E. McAninch and others. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Thomas H. Fittz,*for appellant.

*Sumner Clancy*and *Felt & Forney,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
### Maine coastal storm and flood of February 2, 1976

By: Richard Arthur MorrillEdwin H. ChinW.S. Richardson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1087

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2006158EN.01000101.xml

| 7.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 July 2006

(2006/C 158/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2735 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 147,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4596 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69400 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1818 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5685 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 96,58 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9390 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,499 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 281,53 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0401 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5956 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,68 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,395 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0176 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7157 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4182 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8961 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1103 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0158 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 209,57 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,1625 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1829 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2530 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 614,32 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,669 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,101 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,2880 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,697 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2735

JPY

Japanese yen

147,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4596

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69400

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1818

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5685

ISK

Iceland króna

96,58

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9390

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,499

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

281,53

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0401

RON

Romanian leu

3,5956

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,68

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,395

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0176

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7157

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4182

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8961

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1103

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0158

KRW

South Korean won

1 209,57

ZAR

South African rand

9,1625

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1829

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2530

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 614,32

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,669

PHP

Philippine peso

67,101

RUB

Russian rouble

34,2880

THB

Thai baht

48,697

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
### §938. Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs

Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 78.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 938 | 50:734. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 138), 64 Stat. 144. |

The words "commanding officer" are substituted for the word "commander". The word "who" is inserted after the word "and". The word "commissioned" is inserted after the word "superior" for clarity. The words "The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction" are substituted for the words "That officer" for clarity. The word "send" is substituted for the word "transmit". The word "Secretary" is substituted for the word "Department" for accuracy, since the "Department", as an entity, could not act upon the complaint.
#### Miles *v.*Miller and Sons.

[No. 12,164.

Filed April 8, 1925.]

1. *Appeal.—Ruling on motion will not be considered when motion not set out in appellant’s*brief.—A ruling on a motion for a continuance will not be considered on appeal where the motion is not set out in appellant’s brief, p. 666.

2. *Appeal.—Ruling on motion for continuance cannot be assigned as*error.—A ruling on a motion for a continuance cannot be made the basis of an assignment of error, but must be assigned as a cause for a new trial, p. 666.

*6668. *Appeal.—Trial court’s decision of question of fact conclusive on*appeal.—The decision of the trial court on all issues of fact is conclusive on appeal, and where there was conflicting evidence as to whether a certain payment was to be applied on the note sued on, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal, p. 666.

From Switzerland Circuit Court; *Frank M. Long,*Special Judge.

Action by W. H. Miller and Sons against George W. Miles. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Francis M. Griffith*and *George W. Miles,*for appellant.

*Sulzer, Bear & Bear,*for appellee.

Enloe, J.

Action by appellee against appellant upon a promissory note. A trial by the court resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. The errors assigned on appeal are: overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance, and overruling his motion for a new trial.

1,2. As to the first alleged error, no question is presented for the following reasons, viz.: the failure of appellant to set out said motion in his brief filed herein, and second, because it is now the settled law of this State that such a ruling cannot be made the basis of an independent assignment of error, but, to be available, it must be assigned as a cause for a new trial, in a motion in that behalf. *Yazel*v. *State*(1908), 170 Ind. 585, and authorities cited.

The second assigned error involves a consideration of the evidence.

3. The note which was the foundation of this action was executed in 1911, and indorsed thereon was a credit of $25, as having been paid thereon February 19, 1919. The president of appellee company testified that this payment, which was by check of appellant, was made by appellant as a partial payment *667on this note; this, the appellant denied. The issue thus raised was one of fact for the trial court; its decision on all issues raised by the pleadings we cannot, upon this record, disturb. The appellant has presented no error.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the quarterly  filing of Meier Worldwide  Intermedia  Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  I,
James  Meier,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350), 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.


March 14, 2005


By:/s/ James Meier
     James Meier, President, CEO and Chief Accounting Officer
### §3708. Right to examine contractor records

For the purpose of evaluating the accuracy, completeness, and currency of cost or pricing data required to be submitted by this chapter, the head of an agency shall have the authority provided by section 3841(b)(2) of this title.

(Added and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1831(a), (i), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4209, 4216.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The text of subsec. (g) of section 2306a of this title, which was transferred to this section and amended by Pub. L. 116–283, §1831(i), was based on Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1205, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3276.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283, §1831(i), transferred subsec. (g) of section 2306a of this title to this section, struck out subsec. (g) designation and heading "Right of United States To Examine Contractor Records" at beginning, and substituted "this chapter" for "this section" and "section 3841(b)(2)" for "section 2313(a)(2)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section and amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note preceding section 3001 of this title.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPoint-Focus Concentration Compact Telescoping Array: Extreme Environments Solar Power Base Phase Final ReportOrbital ATK, in partnership with Mark ONeill LLC (MOLLC), has developed a novel solar array platform, PFC-CTA, which provides a significant advance in performance and cost reduction compared to all currently available space solar systems. PFC refers to the Point Focus Concentration of light provided by MOLLCs thin, flat Fresnel optics. These lenses focus light to a point of approximately 100 times the intensity of the ambient light, onto a solar cell of approximately 125th the size of the lens. CTA stands for Compact Telescoping Array, which is the solar array blanket structural platform originally devised by NASA and currently being advanced by Orbital ATK and partners under NASA and AFRL funding to a projected TRL 5+ by late-2018.The NASA Game Changing Development Extreme Environment Solar Power (EESP) Base Phase study has enabled Orbital ATK to refine component designs, perform component level and system performance analyses, and test prototype hardware of the key elements of PFC-CTA, and increased the TRL of PFC-specific technology elements to TRL 4. Key performance metrics currently projected are as follows: Scalability from 5 kW to 300 kW per wing (AM0); Specific Power 500 Wkg (AM0); Stowage Efficiency 100 kWm3; 5:1 margin on pointing tolerance vs. capability; 50 launched cost savings; Wide range of operability between Venus and Saturn by active andor passive thermal management.Document ID20180000351Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMcEachen, Michael E.*(Orbital ATK, Inc. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Murphy, Dave*(Orbital ATK, Inc. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Meinhold, Shen*(Orbital ATK, Inc. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Spink, Jim*(Orbital ATK, Inc. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Eskenazi, Mike*(Orbital ATK, Inc. Pasadena, CA, United States)*O'Neill, Mark*(O'Neill (Mark), LLC Keller, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 9, 2018Publication DateDecember 1, 2017Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2017-219712GRC-E-DAA-TN46881E-19440Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: SPEC5721CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC16CA23CWBS: WBS 432938.11.01.03.06.01.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180000351.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2006224EN.01004902.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/49

---

Action brought on 1 August 2006 — Gerson v OHIM (Paint filter)

(Case T-201/06)

(2006/C 224/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc (Middleboro, USA) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005-2) of the Board of Appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005-2) of the Board of Appeal in its entirety;

| — | order the Office to pay the applicant the costs incurred in connection with prosecuting this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the applicant the costs incurred in connection with prosecuting this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: 3-dimensional mark consisting of ‘the colour light yellow in the shade claimed, applied to the mesh in the tip of a paint filter’ for goods and services in classes 16 and 21— application No 3 969 367.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application.

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal made several factual errors of assessment and adopted at least one error made by the Examination Division. Moreover, in the appraisal of the available evidence the Board of Appeal allegedly failed to do the appropriate balancing reaching, thus, a wrong conclusion when considering Article 7(1)(b) of the above mentioned regulation.

Pleas in law:

The applicant finally contends that the application is distinctive of one trade source and therefore does not offend Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation. In fact, the applicant claims the use of colour would be noticed by the relevant public as being associated with only the single trade source.

---
§ 213.24 Rate of rents and royalties on oil and gas leases. The lessee shall pay, beginning with the date of approval of oil and gas leases by the Secretary of the Interior, a rental of $1.25 per acre per annum in advance during the continuance thereof, together with a royalty of 121 ⁄ 2 percent of the value or amount of all oil, gas and/or natural gasoline, and/or all other hydrocarbon substances produced and saved from the land leased, save and except oil and/or gas used by the lessee for development and operation purposes on the lease, which oil or gas shall be royalty free. A higher rate of royalty may be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative, prior to the advertisement of land for oil and gas leases. During the period of supervision, “value” for the purposes of the lease may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior be calculated on the basis of the highest price paid or offered (whether calculated on the basis of short or actual volume) at the time of production for the major portion of the oil of the same gravity, and gas, and/or natural gasoline, and/or all other hydrocarbon substances produced and sold from the field where the leased lands are situated, and the actual volume of the marketable product less the content of foreign substances as determined by the supervisor. The actual amount realized by the lessee from the sale of said products may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be deemed mere evidence of or conclusive evidence of such value. When paid in value, such royalties shall be due and payable monthly at such time as the lease provides; when royalty on oil produced is paid in kind, such royalty oil shall be delivered in tanks provided by the lessee on the premises where produced without cost to the lessor unless otherwise agreed to by the parties thereto, at such time as may be required by the lessor. The lessee shall not be required to hold such royalty oil in storage longer than 30 days after the end of the calendar month in which said oil is produced. The lessee shall be in no manner responsible or held liable for loss or destruction of such oil in storage by causes beyond his control.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE
ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          48,408
<SECURITIES>                                    22,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (857)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,975
<PP&E>                                           4,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     54,599
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,211)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,830
<SALES>                                        122,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,735
<CGS>                                          100,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (159)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,507)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued March 7, 2000

Decided March 21, 2000.

Before Judges PRESSLER, KIMMELMAN and CIANCIA.

*Richard L. Plotkin,*for appellant, *(Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch,*attorneys; *Mr. Plotkin, Christopher J. Stracco*and *Gregory J. Kerr,*on tbe brief).

*Heather A. Turnbull,*for respondent, *(Skoloff & Wolfe,*attorneys; *Saul A. Wolfe,*of counsel; *Mr. Wolfe*and *Ms. Turnbull,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

This appeal relates to 1996 assessment of .four lots in Wayne, New Jersey, formerly used as the corporate headquarters for the plaintiff corporation. Plaintiff only appeals assessments placed on three of the lots, specifically, Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Block 3703. American Home Products bought out plaintiff in 1994. Use of the property gradually declined thereafter and by 1996 the property was vacant.

*47The factual background of this matter is fully set forth in Judge Kuskin’s opinion reported at 17 *N.J. Tax*542 (Tax 1998). Plaintiff sought a reduction in the local property assessments. The aggregate amount of the assessments placed on the three lots under appeal was $51,070,900. Defendant counterclaimed seeking an increase in such assessments.

Trial in the matter was held before the Hon. Maureen Dougherty. Judge Dougherty resigned from the Tax Court at the conclusion of the trial and the case was reassigned to Judge Kuskin. Post-trial briefs were submitted to him. While Judge Kuskin did hold a hearing with counsel, he relied mainly on the record submitted to him to decide the case. After a complete and thorough analysis of the evidence and the factual presentations of counsel, Judge Kuskin reduced the aggregate assessment to $46,945,800.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and are satisfied that the judgment of the Tax Court should be affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Kuskin in his reported opinion.