alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lillian Ackerman, appellee, v. Andrew G. Allender, Impleaded with Henry L. Peters, appellant.

Filed October 16, 1901.

No. 10,351.

1. Order Vacating Appraisement Presumed Made on Sufficient Showing. An order vacating- an appraisement of real estate being-sold under an order of sale in foreclosure proceedings, entered on the application of the plaintiff, on the ground that one of the appraisers was not a freeholder, will, in the absence of the evidence on which the order was made, be conclusively presumed to have been made upon a showing amply sufficient to sustain the action taken.

2. Vacating Appraisement: Harmless Error. When an appraisement of real estate is set aside and a new -appraisement is made, which is much higher than the first, and under which the laud is sold, a party claiming to own the land is not prejudiced by the order vacating the first appraisement, and, even if erroneous, it is no sufficient ground of objection to the confirmation of the sale.

-Appeal from the district court for Dawson county. Heard below before Sullivan, J.

*Affirmed.*

*E. A. Cook,*for appellant.

*W. H. Thompson*and *Thompson & Thompson*and *J. L. Ensminger, contra.*

*701Holcomb, J.

Defendant appeals from a final order of confirmation of sale of real estate, made in foreclosure proceedings. The ground of the objection, as urged in brief of counsel for appellant, is that a second appraisement of the mortgaged premises was made and the property sold thereunder before the same had been twice offered for sale under a prior appraisement and not sold for want of bidders. There are two very substantial reasons why the objection can not prevail. The record presented discloses that after the first appraisement, on motion of the plaintiff,it was by the order of court vacated and set aside on the ground that one of the appraisers was not a freeholder as required by law. No exception was taken to this order nor is the evidence preserved and presented to us on which the court acted when the order was entered, and it will, in the absence of such evidence, be conclusively presumed that the cóurt acted upon a showing amply sufficient to sustain the action taken. The defendant at no time made any attempt to have this order vacated for any reason and it must now, we think, be regarded as having been correctly entered.

It also appears from the record before us that the first appraisement, which the defendant is contending the sale should be made under, fixed the gross value of the lands ordered sold at the sum of $1,600, while the second appraisement, which is objected to, finds the gross value to be $2,400. It is hard to conceive, admitting an irregularity existed in setting aside the first appraisement, how the defendant has been prejudiced by the procedure taken. The second appraisement being higher the appellant is benefited and has no valid objection on that ground to the confirmation of the sale. *Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. v. Hamer,*40 Nebr., 281.

The order of confirmation is accordingly

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18516-18517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7719]


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

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME


Senior Executive Service; Combined Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Armed Forces Retirement Home.

ACTION: Notice of Members of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Review 
Board (PRB).

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to U.S.C. 431(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of members of the combined PRB for the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home. The

[[Page 18517]]

Board reviews the performance appraisals of career and non-career 
senior executives. The Board recommendations regarding proposed 
performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate 
personnel actions.
    Composition of PRB: The Board shall consist of at least three 
voting members. In the case of an appraisal appointee, more than half 
of the members shall consist of career appointees. The names and titles 
of the PRB members are as follows:

Primary Members

    Cynthia Z. Springer, Executive Director, Administrative Resource 
Center, Bureau of Public Debt Debra L. Hines, Assistant Commissioner, 
Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of Public Debt Kimberly A. 
McCoy, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information Technology, Bureau 
of Public Debt.

Alternate Members

    Keith Rake, Deputy Executive Director, Administrative Resource 
Center, Bureau of Public Debt Matt Miller, Deputy Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Information Technology, Bureau of Public Debt.

DATES: Membership is effective on the date of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven McManus, Acting Chief Operating 
Officer, Armed Forces Retirement Home, Box 1303, Washington, DC 20011, 
(202) 730-3533.
    This notice does not meet the Armed Forces Retirement Home's 
criteria for significant regulations.

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Steve McManus,
Acting Chief Operating Officer, Armed Forces Retirement Home.
[FR Doc. 2011-7719 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8250-01-M
#### Max Drucker, as Administrator of the Estate of Gilbert Drucker, Deceased, Respondent, v. Brooklyn and Queens Transit Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur; Adel and Taylor, J J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion the evidence with respect to the lifeguard device did not describe its construction and operation adequately and was insufficient to support the finding that it was negligently maintained. That issue, on the evidence adduced, should not have been submitted to the jury. Although there was no exception to the court’s charge, there was a consistent attitude of protest on appellant’s part as to the sufficiency of the evidence on that issue. We believe that a new trial is warranted in the interests of justice, inasmuch as the jury may have rested its verdict upon a theory of negligence that was not established.
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

 608

 536

 622

 612

 621

 636

 650

 615

 623

 623

 645

 645

 535

 684

 680

 547

 571

 586

 676

 673

 635

 680

 578

 630

 582

 576

 621

 657

 686

 706

 700

 410

 428

 391

 445

 432

 459

 445

 467

 415

 455

 427

 407

 454

 528

 452

 446

 530

 464

 512

 369

 517

 544

 431

 462

 457

 417

 403

 447

 483

 431

 400

 478

 478

 491

 521

 514

 525

 542

 539

 543

 536

 529

 526

 502

 607

 533

 495

 549

 540

 586

 538

 586

 610

 527

 559

 542

 526

 552

 554

 558

 559

 543

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 311

 311

 319

 338

 334

 340

 351

 349

 352

 347

 343

 341

 326

 391

 345

 322

 355

 350

 378

 348

 378

 393

 342

 361

 351

 341

 357

 358

 361

 361

 352

TOTAL 16,688

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
(No. 77-CC-1602

#### Charles Washington, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed September 28, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas u. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

*248The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-20 15-4866 Directorate Identifier: -AD 20 15-NE-33



### Add the work hours,parts cost, andnumber ofUS. registeredproducts to the table below. When you are finished , click on the "Update Fields " button to automatically fill in the totals. 

### Update Fields 

## j

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g. , Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Inspection, repair, etc.

Replace impeller with a serviceable impeller $4,404.50 4000 having a re-identified PN (see Note 1below)

The known number ofproducts in compliance: Total Costs ofcompliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 Costs covered under warranty_

### (if known) $

On-Condition Costs: • Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious

. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): Note 1: Serviceable part cost calculated as follows: 2hrs ($85. /hr) 4000 engines= 680 K; Pro-rated Part Cost= $12,500 based on 50% of impeller new part cost of $25 ,000 for 1200 engines (30% of4000 engines); Total Pro-rated part cost=$ 15 M.; plus Rework costs (with impeller re-grind) 16 hours labor ($85. per hr) for 1400 engines (50% of2800 engines)= $1.904 M; plus Rework costs (without impeller re-grind) 6 hours labor ($85. per hr) for 1400 engines (50% of2800 engines)= $0.714 M ; $15M+ $1.904 M + $0.714 M = Total parts cost= $17.618 M ; $17.618 M/ 4000 = $4,404/ engine; Total cost= $17.618 M + $680 K = $18,298,000.



### 7

### Executive Order 12866:
Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 

# G
YES* 

### D NO IZl *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the Ab significant? • YES* 

### D NO IZl *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G
YES 

### D NO IZl Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? 

# G
YES* 

### D NO IZl *Explanation:



### 8
§ 200.84 Responsibilities for evaluating the effectiveness of the MEP and using evaluations to improve services to migratory children. ( a ) Each SEA must determine the effectiveness of its MEP through a written evaluation that measures the implementation and results achieved by the program against the State's performance targets in § 200.83(a)(1), particularly for those students who have priority for service as defined in section 1304(d) of the ESEA.
( b ) SEAs and local operating agencies receiving MEP funds must use the results of the evaluation carried out by an SEA under paragraph (a) of this section to improve the services provided to migratory children.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6394)
[81 FR 28970, May 10, 2016]
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

 848

 851

 812

 848

 847

 894

 902

 890

 896

 851

 801

 840

 854

 853

 849

 856

 851

 832

 831

 838

 860

 853

 855

 848

 822

 849

 871

 921

 922

 945

 971

 791

 808

 770

 794

 808

 791

 854

 780

 794

 776

 699

 775

 822

 807

 803

 811

 816

 791

 771

 771

 807

 783

 740

 785

 800

 809

 819

 845

 852

 879

 916

 829

 825

 799

 821

 829

 847

 880

 872

 845

 815

 770

 795

 833

 828

 823

 841

 835

 810

 801

 806

 832

 828

 822

 816

 812

 821

 845

 879

 898

 914

 943

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 528

 526

 510

 523

 528

 539

 560

 555

 538

 520

 492

 507

 531

 528

 525

 536

 532

 517

 511

 514

 530

 528

 524

 520

 518

 523

 538

 559

 571

 581

 599

TOTAL 25,914

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
EXHIBIT 32.2

CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC

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 California Pizza Kitchen, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry S. Flax, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.

March 17, 2011



By:

/S/    LARRY S.
FLAXLarry S. Flax Co-Chief Executive Officer








|* | This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### **CHAPTER 117—TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES**

Sec.
2421.
Transportation generally.
2421A.
Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking.
2422.
Coercion and enticement.
2423.
Transportation of minors.
2424.
Filing factual statement about alien individual.
2425.
Use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor.
2426.
Repeat offenders.
2427.
Inclusion of offenses relating to child pornography in definition of sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.
2428.
Forfeitures.
2429.
Mandatory restitution.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–392, §3(b), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5251, added item 2429.

Pub. L. 115–164, §3(b), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254, added item 2421A.

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–164, title I, §103(d)(2), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3563, added item 2428.

**1998**—Pub. L. 105–314, title I, §§101(b), 104(b), 105(b), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2975–2977, added items 2425, 2426, and 2427.

**1988**—Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7071, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4405, substituted "individual" for "female" in item 2424.

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–628, §5(a)(1), (b)(2), Nov. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 3511, substituted "TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES" for "WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC" as chapter heading and substituted "and enticement" for "or enticement of female" in item 2422.

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–225, §3(b), Feb. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 9, substituted "Transportation of minors" for "Coercion or enticement of minor female" in item 2423.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: March 24, 2011.

Shawn Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2011-7541 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
§ 35.3 Administrative claim; who may file. ( a ) A claim for injury to or loss of property may be presented by the owner of the property interest which is the subject of the claim, his duly authorized agent, or his legal representative.
( b ) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person, his duly authorized agent, or his legal representative.
( c ) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate or by any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim under applicable state law.
( d ) A claim for loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer. A claim for loss partially compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer or the insured individually, as their respective interests appear, or jointly. Whenever an insurer presents a claim asserting the rights of a subrogee, he shall present with his claim appropriate evidence that he has the rights of a subrogee.
( e ) A claim presented by an agent or legal representative shall be presented in the name of the claimant, be signed by the agent or legal representative, show the title or legal capacity of the person signing, and be accompanied by evidence of his authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other representative.
§ 463.61 How does the eligible agency award funds to eligible providers under the program for Corrections Education and Education of other Institutionalized Individuals? ( a ) States may award up to 20 percent of the 82.5 percent of the funds made available by the Secretary for local grants and contracts under section 231 of the Act for programs for corrections education and the education of other institutionalized individuals.
( b ) The State must make awards to eligible providers in accordance with subpart C.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 3302, 3321)
§ 263.2 Who is eligible to apply under the Professional Development program? ( a ) In order to be eligible for either pre-service or in-service training programs, an applicant must be an eligible entity which means— ( 1 ) An institution of higher education, or a TCU;
( 2 ) A State educational agency in consortium with an institution of higher education or a TCU;
( 3 ) A local educational agency (LEA) in consortium with an institution of higher education or a TCU;
( 4 ) An Indian tribe or Indian organization in consortium with an institution of higher education or a TCU; or
( 5 ) A BIE-funded school in consortium with at least one TCU, where feasible.
( b ) BIE-funded schools are eligible applicants for— ( 1 ) An in-service training program; and
( 2 ) A pre-service training program when the BIE-funded school applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) Eligibility of an applicant that is an institution of higher education or a TCU, or an applicant requiring a consortium with any institution of higher education or TCU, requires that the institution of higher education or TCU be accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree or Native American language certificate required by the project.
[80 FR 22412, Apr. 22, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 41377, July 10, 2020]
#### People of the State of Illinois, Appellee v. Henry Rizer, Appellant.

Gen. No. 51,373. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

February 1, 1968.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Brian L. Crowe and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant;

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Eldridge Hersey, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by Not to be published in full.

PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY.
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

 1,923

 1,855

 1,819

 1,810

 1,800

 1,789

 1,792

 1,768

 1,764

 1,746

 1,708

 1,700

 1,657

 1,211

 1,011

 1,387

 854

 891

 849

 773

 611

 424

 380

 404

 540

 747

 792

 761

 785

 830

 714

 1,855

 1,808

 1,795

 1,776

 1,775

 1,753

 1,699

 1,631

 1,626

 1,541

 1,550

 1,648

 1,250

 1,003

 929

 567

 420

 402

 322

 381

 367

 361

 376

 379

 407

 547

 756

 444

 442

 494

 522

 1,892

 1,826

 1,808

 1,795

 1,791

 1,773

 1,772

 1,731

 1,706

 1,681

 1,632

 1,671

 1,498

 1,102

 970

 899

 586

 595

 589

 490

 476

 376

 378

 391

 460

 644

 775

 654

 609

 702

 648

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 27, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 1,185

 1,144

 1,133

 1,125

 1,123

 1,112

 1,111

 1,086

 1,070

 1,055

 1,025

 1,049

 942

 697

 615

 572

 378

 384

 380

 319

 310

 248

 250

 258

 300

 414

 495

 420

 392

 450

 416

TOTAL 33,920

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20