alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter J. Karbach et al. v. Kate Clark.

Filed November 9, 1899.

No. 9,016.

Replevin: Verdict eor Defendant:. Excessive Damages. Amount of damages assessed, and for which judgment was rendered, *held*excessive and not warranted by the evidence.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Fawcett, J.

*Affirmed upon filing of remittitur.*

*E. W. Simeral*and *William Simeral,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Parke Godwin, contra.*

*202Harrison, C. J.

In an action of replevin commenced in the district court of Douglas county the defendant in error sought the recovery of the possession of one carriage and a set of harness. The property was not taken under the writ and the action proceeded “as one for damages only.” There was a trial of the issues to a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant in error in the sum of $182.49. On hearing of the plaintiff in error’s motion for a new trial, the trial court ordered a remittitur of $82.49, and upon compliance therewith overruled’ the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment on the verdict for the sum of $100. The defeated party has removed the case to this court for review.

The argument for plaintiff in error is that the evidence will not sustain a finding of damages in the amount for which judgment was rendered, and this is the sole contention. There was no very competent evidence of the market value, at the time taken, of the property involved. A witness called on behalf of the defendant in error testified on the subject, and if his testimony is to be taken as proof of such value, and it is not questioned, or is conceded for plaintiff in error that it was, then the judgment was for a sum in excess of that proven, and it may be added that there was no other evidence upon which an estimate could be based. There Was some testimony in regard to the condition of the property when possession of it was taken by plaintiff in error, but none of its market value, or upon which, in connection with other evidence, a calculation of its market value could be predicated. The damages shown by the evidence, adopting the theory of the trial court, and upon which the cause was tried, and of which there is no complaint here, or the market value at time of conversion, and interest thereon to the first day of the term of court at which the trial occurred is $26.83. The defendant in error may file within forty days a remittitur of $73.17 as of the date of *203judgment, and the judgment as thus reduced stand affirmed. If the remittitur is not filed, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment accordingly.
### §557b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 16, 1955, ch. 147, title II, §202, 69 Stat. 156, which related to employment of aliens in the Forest Service, was enacted as part of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1956, and was not repeated in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1957 (approved June 13, 1956, ch. 380, 70 Stat. 257), or subsequent appropriation acts.
Exhibit 10.34

 

2015 Compensation Information for Registrant’s Executive Officers

 

The table below provides information regarding (i) the base salary of each executive officer of GTx, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of January 1, 2015, with the exception of Dr. Wills, which is effective as of March 2, 2015, and Dr. Young, which is effective July 13, 2015, and (ii) the restricted stock units granted to each executive in 2015:

 

	
Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
Title
    	
 
    	
2015 Annual
   Base Salary
   ($)
    	
 
    	
2015 Restricted
   Stock Unit
   Award
   (in shares)
    	
 
    
	
Marc S. Hanover
    	
 
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
393,317
    	
 
    	
750,000
    	
 
    
	
Robert J. Wills
    	
 
    	
Executive Chairman of the Board
    	
 
    	
200,000
    	
 
    	
1,000,000
    	
 
    
	
Henry P.   Doggrell
    	
 
    	
Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
    	
 
    	
363,576
    	
 
    	
500,000
    	
 
    
	
Diane C. Young
    	
 
    	
Vice President, Chief Medical Officer
    	
 
    	
175,000
    	
 
    	
500,000
    	
 
    
	
Jason T.   Shackelford
    	
 
    	
Sr. Director, Accounting & Corporate   Controller and principal financing and accounting officer
    	
 
    	
210,000
    	
 
    	
300,000
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Tatiana Golovina, certify that: 

- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.; 
- Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
- The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:
 a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); andc)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
- The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
- The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2004.

 
/s/ Tatiana GolovinaTatiana GolovinaPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 05529\05529_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05529\05529_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

05529\05529_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05529\05529_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05529\05529_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05529\05529_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05529\05529_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05529\05529_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05529\Certification Statement Plant ID 05529.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05529\Supplemental Documents\05529_Pictorial View.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05529\Supplemental Documents\05529_Plan View.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05529\Supplemental Documents\05529_Topographical View.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05529\Supplemental Documents\05529_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Benny Pearlman, Appellant, against Philip Greenberger et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
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

 8,890

 10,459

 12,032

 13,283

 13,211

 12,668

 10,442

 7,396

 4,437

 2,536

 1,825

 1,257

 1,813

 5,262

 5,377

 4,004

 1,349

 839

 695

 217

 144

 153

 154

 157

 163

 164

 164

 176

 179

 175

 194

 920

 899

 625

 791

 879

 656

 335

 287

 198

 198

 189

 176

 171

 181

 188

 173

 159

 132

 127

 120

 114

 104

 109

 118

 141

 136

 137

 148

 140

 136

 149

 3,956

 4,867

 5,488

 6,004

 5,893

 5,700

 4,319

 3,311

 2,142

 1,418

 871

 553

 521

 1,074

 1,178

 863

 390

 271

 225

 137

 130

 123

 124

 135

 151

 150

 150

 163

 157

 151

 171

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2232
MISRAK AYALEW, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order for the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-881-300) Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mikre-Michael Ayelle, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Misrak Ayalew, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying her motion to reconsider and reconsider en banc. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayalew’s motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. SeeIn re: Ayalew , No. A77-881-300 (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### §460uu–14. Markers

The trail shall be marked with appropriate markers to guide the public. With the concurrence and assistance of the State or local entity having jurisdiction over the roads designated as part of the trail, the Secretary may erect thereon and maintain signs and other informational devices displaying the Masau Trail Marker. The Secretary is authorized to accept the donation of suitable signs and other informational devices for placement at appropriate locations.

(Pub. L. 100–225, title II, §204, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1541.)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER/PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A)

I, Howard L. Ehler, Jr. certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Imperial Industries, Inc. (the Company);

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;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 15, 2007

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | /s/HOWARDL. EHLER, JR.     
| | Howard L. Ehler, Jr.       
| | Chief Operating Officer/   
| | Principal Executive Officer
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

**FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:** 85 FR 12633, March 3, 2020

**PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:** Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

**CHANGES IN THE MEETING:** The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., has been cancelled.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:** For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–011 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–170 

NOTIFICATION OF MISSILE STRIKES ON RADAR FACILITIES IN HOUTHI-CONTROLLED TERRITORY IN 

YEMEN 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF MISSILE STRIKES ON RADAR FACILITIES IN 

HOUTHI-CONTROLLED TERRITORY IN YEMEN IN RESPONSE TO 

ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE LAUNCHES PERPETRATED BY 

HOUTHI INSURGENTS THAT THREATENED U.S. NAVY WARSHIPS 

IN THE INTERNATIONAL WATERS OF THE RED SEA ON OCTOBER 9 AND OCTOBER 12, 2016, PURSUANT TO THE WAR POWERS 

RESOLUTION (PUBLIC LAW 93–148) 

NOVEMBER 14, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, October 14, 2016. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On October 12, 2016, at my direction, U.S. 

Armed Forces conducted missile strikes on radar facilities in 

Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen. Initial assessments show 

that the radar facilities were destroyed by the strikes. 

I directed these strikes in response to anti-ship cruise missile 

launches perpetrated by Houthi insurgents that threatened U.S. 

Navy warships in the international waters of the Red Sea on October 9 and October 12. The targeted radar facilities were involved 

in the October 9 launches and other recent attacks. These limited 

and proportionate strikes were conducted to protect our personnel 

and our ships and will preserve our freedom of navigation in this 

important maritime passageway. The United States stands ready 

to take action in self-defense, as necessary and appropriate, to address further threats. 

I directed these strikes pursuant to my constitutional authority 

to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and 

Chief Executive. I am providing this report as part of my efforts 

to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148). I appreciate the support of the 

Congress in this action. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOC
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 3 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 Wednesday, May 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-
423-7977.

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 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, May 4, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern 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 Donna Powers. 
For more information, please contact Ms. Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 
340, Plantation, FL 33324, 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. 2011-7546 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Sol Siegel et al., Defendants in Error, v. Julius Moses et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 15,279.

1. *Garnishment—when cause not at issue.*If the answer of the garnishee sets up a claim to the fund in his possession in favor of a third person, it is error to render judgment without notifying such third person of the pendency of the proceeding and afford him opportunity to make claim.

2. *Garnishment—what proof essential to maintenance.*Proof must be made in a garnishment proceeding of the judgment, on which it is based in order to show a right to maintain the proceeding.

Garnishment. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank P. Sadler, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 14, 1911.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1911.

Walter Bachrach, for plaintiffs in error.

Albert G. Rosenbaum and Francis H. Clark, for defendants in error.

*625Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Siegel *&*Borge, defendants in error, for the use of J. Doppelt instituted a garnishment proceeding in the Municipal Court of Chicago against Julius Moses and his firm of Moses, Bosenthal & Kennedy, upon an alleged judgment for $200 recovered by Doppelt against the firm of Siegel *&*Borge. Service of the garnishment was had on Julius Moses only. He answered orally that a portion of the fund alleged to be in his possession was subject to a claim in favor of the Knoxville Woolen Mills, a creditor of Siegel *&*Borge amounting to $61.24, which he had promised to pay out of the fund in his hands if Siegel & Borge had received the goods.

The Knoxville Woolen Mills did not appear in the action, nor was any notice of the proceeding given it.

The trial court without taking any notice of the claim of the Woolen Mills or the obligation of Moses to pay it entered into prior to the garnishment, entered judgment for $90 against the garnishees, Moses, Bosenthal & Kennedy, and Julius Moses.

In our opinion notice should have been given the Knoxville Woolen Mills of the pendency of the proceedings in order that it might have an opportunity to assert and protect its rights, and until that was done the cause was not at issue and in a condition to be heard. Hamberg-Bremen F. I. Co. v. Kennedy, 57 Ill. App. 136; Chott v. Tivoli A. Co., 82 *id.*244.

Another fatal objection to the judgment, and for which it must be reversed, is that no proof was made, as shown by the record, of the judgment originally obtained by Doppelt against Siegel *&*Borge upon which the garnishment proceeding was based. Proof must be made in a garnishment proceeding of the judgment on which it is based in order to show a right to maintain the proceeding. Pease v. Underwriters Union, 1 Ill. App. 287.

*626Service on Julius Moses alone is not service on the other members of the firm.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the decision of this case.