alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-A16014-17

2018 PA Super 84

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

IN RE: PETITION OF SANDRA NAVARRA 

BY THE LIMITED GUARDIAN OF HER

ESTATE,

APPEAL OF: CHRIS NAVARRA, LINDA 

D’AUGOSTINE, JOANNE M. NAVARRA, 

RICHARD E. NAVARRA AND CHARLENE 

A. SHELLEDY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1307 WDA 2016

 

Appeal from the Order entered August 25, 2016, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, 

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 109 of 2014 O.C.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER,* J.

DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2018

Although the result reached by the Majority is certainly a fair one, it 

does not comport with the statute. Accordingly, I am constrained to dissent.

The issue of whether the orphans’ court has the authority to substitute 

its judgment for that of that of Wife in order to disinherit Husband’s legatees 

is governed by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536(b). Although the statute has some broad 

language, the only section concerning the modification of a will provides that 

the court may modify “by means of codicil or trust amendment, as the case 

may be, the terms of the incapacitated person’s will ... as the court may 

deem advisable in light of changes in applicable tax laws.” 20 Pa.C.S. 

§ 5536(b)(11). If the legislature desired that the orphans’ court could 

substitute its judgment to modify a will in situations other than those 

involving tax laws, the legislature could easily have included that in the 
J-A16014-17

- 2 -

statute. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

1

 However, the legislature did 

not do so. Thus, I would reverse the order of the orphans’ court as to the 

four legatees over whom the orphans’ court had jurisdiction. 

 

1 “The maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, establishes the inference 

that, where certain things are designated in a statute, all omissions should 

be understood as exclusions. The maxim is one of longstanding application, 

and it is essentially an application of common sense and logic.” 

Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 866 A.2d 423, 430 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(holding “the legislature’s decision to expressly designate that repeated 

threats or course of threats can violate the statute, indicates that they did 

not intend to punish a single such incident”).
##### 



Exhibit (23)(ii)(B)

(IMPERIAL OIL LETTERHEAD)

March 11, 2004CONSENT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEERING OFFICERI hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Offering Circular
constituting part of the Registration Statement of Form S-3 (File No. 33-41418)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 1991 of the
statements and opinions as to reserves under Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data in Imperial Oil Limiteds Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, in reliance upon my authority as
expert and to the reference to me under the heading Experts in the Offering
Circular as modified by the Supplement dated March 15, 2004 to such Offering
Circular./s/ Eddie LuiE.L. (Eddie) Lui, P.Eng.
Vice-President
Oil Sands Development & Research
Imperial Oil Resources
A wholly-owned subsidiary of
Imperial Oil Limited
<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 Q Comm International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael Openshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Michael Openshaw
--------------------
Michael Openshaw
Chief Financial Officer


June 12, 2003
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                              Exhibit 10(g)
               GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay First Columbine
Life Insurance Company a Colorado corporation, the sum of $35 million
($35,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 7.979% per annum from
the date hereof, December 8, 1999 until paid.  In any event, this
note will mature on December 7, 2029.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate
to payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as
well as debts owed to all other classes of debtors, other than
surplus note holders, of Golden American Life Insurance Company in
the event of (a) the institution of bankruptcy, reorganization,
insolvency or liquidation proceedings by or against Golden American
Life Insurance Company, or (b) the appointment of a Trustee, receiver
or other Conservator for a substantial part of Golden American Life
Insurance Company properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of
the final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.

                              GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                              By: /s/ David L. Jacobson
                                  --------------------------------
                                  David L. Jacobson, Senior Vice
                                  President and Assistant Secretary

Attest by:

/s/ Myles R. Tashman
------------------------
Myles R. Tashman
Executive Vice President and Secretary

<PAGE>
<PAGE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00227

- CV

Lulu Danelian a/k/a Lulu Beston Powers a/k/a Lulu Powers v. Charles A. Hicks

On a ppeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017DCV

- 0832

- F

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COUR T OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.
We further order this decision certifie d below for observance. May 24, 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 10,136

 9,223

 8,377

 9,266

 10,177

 10,468

 10,991

 10,557

 11,647

 11,187

 11,733

 9,853

 8,778

 8,903

 7,524

 6,481

 6,326

 7,373

 7,883

 6,193

 10,101

 9,406

 9,371

 11,851

 12,198

 11,022

 9,957

 9,696

 7,907

 8,414

 7,877

 2,107

 2,469

 2,474

 2,670

 3,032

 3,036

 1,634

 1,294

 1,652

 1,591

 1,766

 1,651

 1,364

 1,701

 1,847

 1,901

 1,651

 2,055

 2,465

 1,483

 1,391

 1,671

 2,077

 3,043

 3,092

 2,496

 2,248

 1,907

 1,938

 2,115

 2,764

 5,956

 5,955

 5,554

 5,102

 5,685

 5,548

 5,561

 5,607

 5,798

 5,890

 5,889

 5,329

 4,782

 4,739

 4,719

 4,307

 4,000

 4,282

 4,366

 3,915

 5,110

 5,283

 6,231

 7,249

 7,010

 6,290

 5,901

 4,893

 4,702

 5,005

 5,173

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 11, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
# Official Journal L 235/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 235 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6013 September 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 235

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6013 September 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1540 of 15 May 2017 concerning measure SA.40454 2015/C (ex 2015/N) by which France plans to assist the CEB consortium
  (notified under document C(2017) 3062)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1540 of 15 May 2017 concerning measure SA.40454 2015/C (ex 2015/N) by which France plans to assist the CEB consortium
  (notified under document C(2017) 3062)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2017) 3062)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
§ 303.310 Post-referral timeline (45 days). ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any screening under § 303.320 (if the State has adopted a policy and elects, and the parent consents, to conduct a screening of a child); the initial evaluation and the initial assessments of the child and family under § 303.321; and the initial IFSP meeting under § 303.342 must be completed within 45 days from the date the lead agency or EIS provider receives the referral of the child.
( b ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the 45-day timeline described in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply for any period when— ( 1 ) The child or parent is unavailable to complete the screening (if applicable), the initial evaluation, the initial assessments of the child and family, or the initial IFSP meeting due to exceptional family circumstances that are documented in the child's early intervention records; or
( 2 ) The parent has not provided consent for the screening (if applicable), the initial evaluation, or the initial assessment of the child, despite documented, repeated attempts by the lead agency or EIS provider to obtain parental consent.
( c ) The lead agency must develop procedures to ensure that in the event the circumstances described in (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section exist, the lead agency or EIS provider must— ( 1 ) Document in the child's early intervention records the exceptional family circumstances or repeated attempts by the lead agency or EIS provider to obtain parental consent;
( 2 ) Complete the screening (if applicable), the initial evaluation, the initial assessments (of the child and family), and the initial IFSP meeting as soon as possible after the documented exceptional family circumstances described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section no longer exist or parental consent is obtained for the screening (if applicable), the initial evaluation, and the initial assessment of the child; and
( 3 ) Develop and implement an interim IFSP, to the extent appropriate and consistent with § 303.345.
( d ) The initial family assessment must be conducted within the 45-day timeline in paragraph (a) of this section if the parent concurs and even if other family members are unavailable.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1433, 1435(a), 1436(c))
#### RICH, Respondent, v. RICH, et al, Appellants.

(251 N. W. 187.)

(File No. 7473.

Opinion filed December 5, 1933.)

*H. C. Mundt*and *W. O.*Knight, all of Sioux Falls, for Appellants.

*T. R. Johnson,*of Sioux Falls, for .Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial in a divorce action. The trial court decreed the plaintiff entitled to a divorce from the defendant, awarded plaintiff certain alimony, and subjected certain real property, the legal title to which is now held by the defendant Cheney, to the payment of the judgment for alimony and attorney fees. After a careful consideration of the entire record, the court is of the opinion that the judgment should be modified by striking therefrom all provisions regarding the payment of alimony and subjecting the property now held by the defendant Cheney to any payment whatsoever. This modification will leave remaining of the judgment, other than the recitals, the following provisions thereof.

*33“Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between the plaintiff and defendant Albert B. Rich be, and the same hereby are, dissolved; and each of said parties be restored to the status of a single person.

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant Albert B. Rich for additional attorney’s fees for the use and benefit of her attorney of record, T. R. Johnson, in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty and no-ioo Dollars ($250.00), payable in installments at the rate of $25.00 a month commencing with December 1, 1931. The said amount includes for services in the trial of this case, and in resisting defendant Albert B. Rich’s motion for a new trial in this Court and in the contempt proceedings.

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff have judgment against the defendant Albert B. Rich for her costs in the sum of $62.35, to be inserted herein and taxed, as provided by law.

“It is further ordered and adjudged and decreed that the defendant A. B. Rich’s cross-complaint be, and the same hereby is dismissed on the merits.”

As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed. No costs will be taxed in this court.

RUDOLPH, P. J., and POLLEY, CAMPBELL, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

WARREN, J., not sitting.
### §938. Notice of proposals

At least thirty days before approving a proposal to utilize a lamprey control measure or install a device in any stream, the United States Section shall cause notice of such proposal to be sent to the official agency having jurisdiction over fisheries in each of the States through which the stream flows.

(June 4, 1956, ch. 358, §9, 70 Stat. 243.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7063]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12492 and <greek-i>12493]


Ohio Disaster <greek-i> OH-00026

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of OHIO dated 03/18/2011.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 02/27/2011 through 03/08/2011.
    Effective Date: 03/18/2011.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/17/2011.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/19/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Auglaize, Marion.
Contiguous Counties: Ohio:
    Allen, Crawford, Darke, Delaware, Hardin, Logan, Mercer, Morrow, 
Shelby, Union, Van Wert, and Wyandot.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
    Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...............      5.125
    Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere............      2.563
    Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...............      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.250
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
    Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without           4.000
     Credit Available Elsewhere..............................
    Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available              3.000
     Elsewhere...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12492 6 
and for economic injury is 12493 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Ohio.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: March 18, 2011.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-7063 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
§ 21.51 Initial decision in applications not subject to the CRRA. ( a ) In applications not subject to the jurisdiction of the CRRA, the adjudicative officer shall issue an initial decision on an application within 30 days after completion of proceedings on the application.
( b ) The initial decision must include the following: ( 1 ) Written findings, including sufficient supporting explanation, on— ( i ) The applicant's status as a prevailing party;
( ii ) The applicant's eligibility;
( iii ) Whether the position of the Department was substantially justified;
( iv ) Whether special circumstances make an award unjust;
( v ) If applicable, whether the applicant engaged in conduct that unduly or unreasonably protracted the adversary adjudication; and
( vi ) Other factual issues raised in the adversary adjudication.
( 2 ) A statement of the amount awarded, including an explanation—with supporting information—for any difference between the amount requested by the applicant and the amount awarded.
( 3 ) A statement of the applicant's right to request review by the Secretary under § 21.54.
( 4 ) A statement of the applicant's right under § 21.56 to seek judicial review of the final award determination.
( c ) The explanation referred to in paragraph (b)(2) of this section may include— ( 1 ) Whether the amount requested was reasonable; and
( 2 ) The extent to which the applicant unduly or unreasonably protracted the adversary adjudication.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504 (a)(3) and (c))
§ 700.21 Records not subject to correction. The following records are not subject to correction or amendment as provided in § 700.20: ( a ) Transcripts of testimony given under oath or written statements made under oath;
( b ) Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, judicial proceedings, or quasi-judicial proceedings that constitute the official record of such proceedings;
( c ) Presentence records that are the property of the courts, but may be maintained by the Office in a system of records; and
( d ) Records duly exempted from correction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or 552a(k) by notice published in the Federal Register.
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 1 December 2005         

amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland

(2005/866/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,

Having regard to the Recommendation ECB/2005/10 of the European Central Bank of 26 October 2005 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (1),

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Article 1(5) of Decision 1999/70/EC shall be replaced by the following:

‘5.   Deloitte & Touche are hereby approved as the external auditors of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland from the financial year 2005 for a duration of three years, with the possibility of extension.’

Article 2

This Decision shall be notified to the European Central Bank.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2005.

For the Council

The President

A. MICHAEL            

----

(1)OJ C 277, 10.11.2005, p. 30.

(2)OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69. Decision as last amended by Decision 2005/512/EC (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 20).

----
### §973e. Criminal offenses

#### (a) Prohibited acts

A person is guilty of a criminal offense if he or she commits any act prohibited by section 973c(a)(8), (10), (11), or (12) of this title.

#### (b) Sentence and fine

Any offense described in subsection (a) of this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $50,000, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; except that if in the commission of any such offense the person uses a dangerous weapon, engages in conduct that causes bodily injury to any Authorized Officer, Authorized Party Officer, or observer under the Treaty in the conduct of their duties, or places any such Authorized Officer, Authorized Party Officer, or observer in fear of imminent bodily injury, the offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.

#### (c) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any offense described in this section.

(Pub. L. 100–330, §7, June 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 594.)