alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Substituted Testamentary Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of James B. Danforth, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Reginald Henshaw Ward, as Ancillary Executor, and Lydia A. Booth, as Testamentary Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Alice T. Lancey (Formerly Alice T. Bemis), Deceased, Defendants, Impleaded with John McAlister Howden and Susan Gertrude Bemis, as Executors and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Henry T. Bemis, Deceased; Carl A. Hansmann, as Ancillary Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Said Henry T. Bemis, Deceased, Respondents; Henry B. Singer, as Administrator, etc., of Joseph Avinski, Deceased, and Martha Rosenthal, Appellants, and Others.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 12th day of April, 1913, granting a motion for a bill of particulars and for a separate trial of issues.

Per Curiam:

The order should be modified by inserting the following in place of the last clause of the order: “ And it is further ordered that after the trial of the action, and the issues presented by the complaint and the answers of the various defendants are tried and determined, if it should appear that the issues presented as between the defendant Henry B. Singer, as administrator of the estate of Joseph Avinski, deceased, and Martha Rosenthal, on the one hand, and the defendants John McA. Howden and Susan G. Bemis, as executors, etc., of Henry T. Bemis, deceased, and Carl A. Hansmann, as ancillary executor, etc., of Henry T. Bemis, deceased, on the other, present a question for determination, such issues be tried separately, and that entry of final judgment in the action be suspended until such issues are tried.” As so modified, the order is affirmed,- with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents as against the appellants. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondents. Order to be settled on notice.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Central Repositories Non-Renewable Sample Access (X01)-Hepatitis C.                    

*Date:*                         April 26, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Najma Begum, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 749, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894,                         *begumn@niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 24, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-7500 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### §565a–2. Federal employee status of cooperators

In any agreement authorized by section 565a–1 of this title, cooperators and their employees may perform cooperative work under supervision of the Forest Service in emergencies or otherwise as mutually agreed to, but shall not be deemed to be Federal employees other than for the purposes of chapter 171 of title 28 and chapter 81 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 94–148, §2, Dec. 12, 1975, 89 Stat. 804.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RUSSELL BERNER AND DONNA 

BERNER, KENDALL DOBBINS, ROBERT 

D. CLARK AND ROBERT W. WEBBER

v.

MONTOUR TOWNSHIP ZONING 

HEARING BOARD AND SCOTT 

SPONENBERG

PETITION OF: SCOTT SPONENBERG

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 84 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED to Petitioner’s first issue is stated as follows: 

(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred by holding that the Nutrient 

Management Act (“NMA”), 3 P.S., §519, only preempts local ordinances as 

applied to farms that have an approved nutrient management plan and that 

small farms that are not required to submit nutrient management plans can 

be subjected to more stringent regulation than larger more intensive 

agricultural operations that are required to obtain approval of a nutrient 

management plan under the Nutrient Management Act.

Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues.

The ancillary applications for Leave to File Amicus Briefs filed by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, the Pennsylvania Farm 

Bureau and the PennAg Industries Association are DENIED.
(No. 73-CC-462

#### Danny N. Michel, Sheriff Fayette County Illinois, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 23, 1973.*

Danny N. Michel, Sheriff Fayette County Illinois, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
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

DAY HIGH

 652

 620

 625

 625

 622

 608

 609

 620

 636

 653

 648

 667

 685

 640

 678

 666

 650

 660

 665

 695

 713

 702

 705

 726

 731

 737

 730

 700

 699

 699

 611

 587

 560

 564

 578

 578

 579

 568

 569

 555

 562

 591

 583

 577

 570

 586

 580

 596

 627

 649

 653

 662

 661

 667

 664

 673

 669

 651

 645

 650

 636

 600

 584

 585

 596

 589

 590

 599

 596

 599

 599

 613

 611

 592

 602

 611

 608

 627

 645

 673

 682

 677

 681

 696

 692

 691

 688

 671

 666

 666

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 10, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 409

 387

 377

 378

 384

 380

 381

 386

 384

 386

 386

 395

 394

 382

 388

 394

 392

 403

 415

 432

 437

 434

 437

 446

 444

 443

 441

 431

 428

 428

TOTAL 18,965

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
§ 637.14 What are special projects? There are two types of special projects grants— ( a ) Special project grants for which minority institutions are eligible which support activities that— ( 1 ) Improve quality training in science and engineering at minority institutions; or
( 2 ) Enhance the minority institutions' general scientific research capabilities.
( b ) Special project grants for which all applicants are eligible which support activities that— ( 1 ) Provide a needed service to a group of eligible minority institutions; or
( 2 ) Provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from eligible minority institutions.
( c ) Activities that the Secretary may assist under a special project include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Advanced science seminars;
( 2 ) Science faculty workshops and conferences;
( 3 ) Faculty training to develop specific science research or education skills;
( 4 ) Research in science education;
( 5 ) Programs for visiting scientists;
( 6 ) Preparation of films or audio-visual materials in science;
( 7 ) Development of learning experiences in science beyond those normally available to minority undergraduate students, particularly minority women;
( 8 ) Development of pre-college enrichment activities in science; and
( 9 ) Any other activities designed to address specific barriers to the entry of minorities, particularly minority women, into science.
( d ) Minority institutions are eligible to apply for special projects of the type listed in paragraph (a) of this section. All applicants eligible for assistance under this program may apply for special projects of the type listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1067-1067c, 1067g-1067k, 1068, and 1068b)
[46 FR 51204, Oct. 16, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 43545, Nov. 12, 1987; 57 FR 54302, Nov. 18, 1992]
**Exhibit32**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in hiscapacity as an officer of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. (the “company”), forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

·                  TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·                  Theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

Date: November 9, 2006
| /s/ John J. Haley                          |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| John J. Haley                              |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer      |   |   |
|                                       |   |   |
|                                       |   |   |
| /s/ Carl D. Mautz                          |   |   |
| Carl D. Mautz                              |   |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Watson WyattWorldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6919
LEONARD EARL WINSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. J. HAYES, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-317-5-H) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Earl Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as frivolous his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Winston v. Hayes , No. CA-96-317-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 6, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 21, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00088

- CV

Jeffrey William Larson, Appellant

v.

Colleen Larson, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA K ER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final divorce decree the tr i a l court signed on February 17, 2016.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the decree . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s final divorce decree

.

Because appellant is indigen t and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 14, 2020

p0811

Order 

Clerk

August 14, 2020

161568 & (45)

In re G. K. KADOGUCHI, Minor. SC: 161568

COA: 351656

Wayne CC Family Division:

19-000910-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 28, 2020 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to add issues is 

GRANTED.
#### Charles Shiverick & Company v. R. J. Gunning Company.

Filed October 5, 1899.

No. 8,701.

Instructions: Damages: Evidence. Instructions should not submit to the jury elements oí damages not embraced within the evidence adduced on the trial.

*74Rehearing of case reported in 58 Nebr., 29.

*-Hall & McCulloch,,*for plaintiffs in error.

*N. H. Tunnicliff*and *Elmer E. Thomas, contra.*

Norval, J.

This cause is on rehearing. The former opinion is reported in 58 Nebr., 29, which contains a sufficient statement of the facts as well as the questions involved. Relative to the measure of damages the trial court charged the jury: “The plaintiff is entitled to recover as its measure of damages in this action such amount as will compensate it for the loss it sustained in consequence of defendants’ wrongful act in erasing and marking out the sign in question, the costs of replacing said sign, including railroad fare of workmen from Chicago or elsewhere, if sent specially for that purpose, together with hotel bills to plaintiff. The actual cost of repairing, replacing and maintaining said sign under its contract to the Durham tobacco people is plaintiff’s full measure of dámages, and this you will ascertain and allow in such sums as from a preponderance of the evidence you find to be such cost; but you cannot allow exemplary damages— that is, you must not assess damages for the purpose of punishing the defendant.” This instruction, although vigorously assailed upon the former hearing by counsel for defendant below, was approved by this court, and the giving thereof sustained. After an investigation of the subject anew we are convinced that we committed a grave error in so holding. While hotel bills and railroad fare may be proper elements of damages under certain contingencies or state of facts, they were improperly allowed or directed to be taken into consideration, because it was not shown upon the trial that it was necessary to send workmen from Chicago to replace the sign in dispute. While it was developed that no one living in Omaha was capable of restoring the sign, it was not es*75tablished by any evidence that it was essential that painters should be sent from Chicago to do the work. It may be that sufficiently competent persons could have been obtained in Council Bluffs, Burlington or Des Moines to repair this sign. It was therefore error to direct the jury to allow plaintiff railroad transportation from Chicago or elsewhere. And this error was not waived by the defendant tendering an instruction upon the measure of damages, since the request tendered expressly stated evidence of railroad fare was not to be considered in the estimation of damages, unless, in replacing the sign, it was necessary to bring workmen from another city. There is not a particle of proof in the record to justify the giving of the instruction quoted above. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Cornelius G. Hayes, Relator, v. Rhinelander Waldo, Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York and Another, Respondents.

Writ dismissed and proceedings affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7854]

Certification Pursuant to Section 7041(A) of The Department of 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
2012 (DIV. I, Pub. L. 112-74)

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State 
pursuant to section 7041(a) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. 
L. 112-74), I hereby certify that the Government of Egypt is meeting 
its obligations under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register and, 
along with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, shall be 
reported to Congress.

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9867 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
```
### **CHAPTER 10—BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS**

Sec.
175.
Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons.
175a.
Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.
175b.
Select agents; certain other agents. 1

175c.
Variola virus.
176.
Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction.
177.
Injunctions.
178.
Definitions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2004**—Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, §6911(b), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3775, added item 175c.

**2002**—Pub. L. 107–188, title II, §231(b)(2), June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 661, substituted "Select agents; certain other agents" for "Possession by restricted persons" in item 175b.

**2001**—Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §817(3), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 386, added item 175b.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XIV, §1416(c)(1)(B), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2723, added item 175a.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
### §1911. Receiver mismanaging property

Whoever, being a receiver, trustee, or manager in possession of any property in any cause pending in any court of the United States, willfully fails to manage and operate such property according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property shall be situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 792; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based upon section 124 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §65, 36 Stat. 1104).

Word "trustee" was inserted after "receiver" so as to make it clear that persons holding such office are included in the enumeration of court officers who are subject to the provisions of this section.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement, but without change of substance or meaning.

Other provisions of section 124 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were retained in that title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $3,000".
### §79p. Community services and employment opportunities of Redwoods United, Inc. to be maintained at present rate of employment

The Secretary is further authorized, and the Congress specifically directs that it shall be a purpose of this Act, that the community services and employment opportunities provided by Redwoods United, Incorporated, a nonprofit corporation located in Manila, California, shall be maintained at the present rate of employment to the greatest degree practicable.

(Pub. L. 95–250, title I, §107, Mar. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 171.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 95–250, Mar. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 163, which, insofar as classified to the Code, enacted sections 79c–1 and 79k to 79q of this title, amended former section 1a–1 and sections 79b and 79c of this title, and enacted provisions set out and formerly set out as notes under section 79k of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of Pub. L. 90–545, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 931, which comprises this subchapter.

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

#### Reference to Secretary as Reference to Secretary of Department of the Interior; Exception

Reference to Secretary, unless otherwise indicated, as reference to Secretary of Department of the Interior, see section 109 of Pub. L. 95–250, set out as a note under section 79k of this title.