alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §959. Enforcement

For enforcement of this chapter, see section 1826g of this title.

(Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 907, §10, 64 Stat. 779; Pub. L. 87–814, §5, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 925; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 4, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 114–81, title II, §208, Nov. 5, 2015, 129 Stat. 663.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–81 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to procedures to enforce this chapter.

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–814 substituted provisions for issuance of process for provisions respecting arrest and execution of process, incorporated in subsecs. (c) and (d)(1) of this section.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 87–814 substituted provisions respecting Federal law enforcement agents for provisions relating to inspections, incorporated in section 956 of this title.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 87–814 substituted provisions for execution of process, formerly incorporated in subsec. (a), for provisions respecting the functioning of officers and law enforcement officers, incorporated in subsec. (b) of this section.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 87–814 incorporated provisions of former subsec. (a) in par. (1) and added par. (2).

Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 87–814 added subsecs. (e) and (f).
#### LOVELY, County Constable, Appellant, v. WANGSNESS, et al, Respondents.

(264 N. W. 195.)

(File No. 7822.

Opinion filed December 21, 1935.)

*A. J. Keith,*of Sioux Falls, for Appellant.

*G. J. Danforth, Jr.,*and *Danforth & Davenport,*all of Sioux Falls, for Respondents.

POLLEY, J.

In this action the defendant recovered a judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of $2, and' costs in the sum of $21 on a counterclaim in an action then pending in the municipal court of Sioux Falls. Thereafter, plaintiff went to defendant and paid defendant the sum of $2, the amount of said judgment exclusive of costs. Upon the payment of said sum, defendant executed and acknowledged' a satisfaction in full of the said judgment, which satisfaction was filed with the clerk of the said court.

*44Thereafter, upon an affidavit made by one of the defendants, the court issued an order to show cause why the said satisfaction should not be set aside and the judgment reinstated. Upon the hearing of said order, the court made an order setting aside the satisfaction and reinstating the judgment in full force, except that the $2 that had been paid by plaintiff when the judgment was satisfied was allowed as a credit on the amount of the judgment. From this order plaintiff appeals.

The proceeding on the part of the defendants to reinstate the judgment was an attempt to rescind the satisfaction of the judgment by them; and it is the contention of the plaintiff, that before they were entitled to rescind, even though the satisfaction were obtained by fraud, they must restore to plaintiff the amount he had paid to obtain the satisfaction. This, they did not do., nor did they claim any excuse whatever for not doing.

The subject of rescission is provided for by our statute. Section 906, R. 'C. 1919, so far as applicable, reads as follows: “He must rescind promptly, upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind. * * * He must restore to the party everything of value which he has received from him under the contract; or must offer to restore the same, upon condition that such party shall do likewise, unless the latter is unable or positively refuses to do so.”

In Lee v. Vacuum Oil Co., 126 N. Y. 579, 27 N. E. 1018, 1019, the New York Court of Appeals, in a case directly in point, say: “The rule is elementary that a party cannot rescind a contract for fraud without acting promptly on 'discovery of the fraud, and restoring whatever has been received upon it.” Gould v. Bank, 86 N. Y. 75. And see, also, Sullivan v. Bromley, 26 S. D. 147, 128 N. W. 586; Clapp v. Mines Co., 33 S. D. 123, 144 N. W. 721; Mankey v. Hoyt, 27 S. D. 561, 132 N. W. 230; Western Town Site Co. v. Lamro Town Site Co., 31 S. D. 47, 139 N. W. 777; Moline Plow Co. v. Bostwick, 15 N. D. 658, 109 N. W. 923. Respondent did- not comply with the law entitling him to rescind, and the court erred to appellant’s prejudice in making the order appealed from, and it is unnecessary to consider other assignments in the record.

The order appealed from is reversed.

All the Judges concur.
----

| Dated:                January 2, 2008 |   |  By: /s/Franklin                C. Fisher,                Jr.                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |  Name:                Franklin C. Fisher,                Jr.                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                  |   | Title:    President,                Chief Executive Officer and Chairman             (Principal                Executive                Officer) |

| Dated:                January 2, 2008 |   |  By: /s/  Larry                A. Hornbrook                                                                                                                                                                              |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Name:   Larry                A. Hornbrook                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                  |   | Title:     Vice                President and Chief Financial Officer              (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |
## APPENDIX A: REQUIRED SUMMARY INFORMATION

A. Applicant Information

Not a Consortium

Interstate Consortium

I ntrastate Consortium

Community now receives EAS subsidy

Community (or Consortium member) previously receive d a Small Community Grant

If previous recipient:

Date of Grant: 09/24/2004

Expiration Date of Grant: 03/24/2007



## B. Public/Private Partnerships

Public

St. Joseph County Airport Authority

State of Indiana

City of South Bend, Indiana

Private

University of Notre Dame

American Electric Power

NIPSCO

Project Future



## C. Project Proposal

Marketing Upgrade Aircraft New Route

Personnel Increase Frequency L ow Fare Service

Travel Bank Service Restoration Subsidy

Surface Transport ation Regional Service Other (specify)

Revenue Guarantee Launch New Service

Start

- Up Cost Offset First Service

Study Secure Additional Carrier

## D. Existing Landing Aids at Local Airport

Full ILS Outer/Middle Marker Published Instrument

Approach

Localizer Other (specify)



## E. Project Cost

Line Description Sub Total Total Amount

1 Federal amount requested: $750,000

2 State cash financial contribution: $100,000

Local cash financial contribution:

3a . Airport cash funds: $

125,000

3b . Non

- airport cash funds: $

100,000

3 Total local cash funds (3a + 3b): $225,000

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING (1 + 2 + 3c): $1,075,000

In

- Kind Contribution

5a . Airport In

- Kind contribution $

200,000

5b . Other In

- Kind contribution $

50,000

5 TOTAL IN

- KIND CONTRIBUTION (5a+5b): $250,000

6 TOTAL Project COST $1,325,000



## F. In

- Kind Contributions

Airport in

- kind contributions include waived landing and lease fees for a start

- up period of 2 years.

Additional efforts by Airport staff will be made to develop community awareness and brand development

for the airline. These efforts will be ongoing and s upplement the marketing and advertising efforts that will

take place to market the new route. Local community in

- kind contributions will take place in the form of in

kind media and advertising placement by local media outlets.

## G. Is this application subje ct to review by state under Executive

Order 12372 Process?

a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for

review on (date):

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the State for review.

c. Program is not cove red by E.O. 12372



## H. Is this applicant delinquent on any federal debt?

No

Yes (explain)



## I. Enplanements

2000 432,643 2004 389,386 2008 354,015

2001 372,817 2005 347,509 2009 314,745

2002 408,151 2006 367,750 2010 315,081

2003 401,333 2007 389,562
MICHAEL WILSON PLC 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB No. 48927) 

12733 Storrow Road 

Henrico, Virginia 23233 

Telephone: (804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

In re: 

LECLAIRRYAN PLLC, 

Debtor. 

Chapter 7 

Civil Action No. 19-34574 

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILSON 

PLC PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 2019 

Michael Wilson PLC (the “Firm”) hereby submits this verified statement pursuant to Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 2019 and, in support, states and represents to the Court as follows: 

1. The Firm acts as counsel to Michele Craddock (“Craddock”) with respect to certain 

unsecured claims she holds against the above-captioned debtor. 

2. The Firm acts as counsel to R.F. Technologies, Inc. (“RFT”) and Robert Noorian 

(“Noorian”; together with RFT, the “Plaintiffs”) with respect to certain unsecured claims they hold 

against the above-captioned debtor. 

3. Each of Pillar and TIC separately requested that the Firm serve as their counsel in 

connection with these proceedings. Each of these parties has consented to the Firm’s simultaneous 

representation of each of the other parties in this chapter 7 case. 

4. The Firm may undertake additional representations of other parties in interest in 

this chapter 7 case, and the Firm reserves the right to supplement this verified statement as 

appropriate. 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 247 Filed 11/21/19 Entered 11/21/19 14:21:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2

I, Michael Wilson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statement is 

true and correct to the best of my information and belief. 

 /s/ Michael Wilson 

 MICHAEL WILSON PLC 

/s/ Michael Wilson 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB #48927) 

Michael Wilson PLC 

12733 Storrow Rd. 

Henrico, VA 23233 

(804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on November 21, 2019, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served 

by electronic mail upon all parties receiving notice through the Court’s CM/ECF Noticing System. 

 /s/ Michael Wilson 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 247 Filed 11/21/19 Entered 11/21/19 14:21:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 650.44 What records and reports are required from institutions? ( a ) An institution shall provide to the Secretary, prior to receiving funds for disbursement to a fellow, a certification from an appropriate official at the institution stating whether that fellow is making satisfactory progress in, and is devoting essentially full time to the program for which the fellowship was awarded.
( b ) An institution shall keep such records as are necessary to establish the timing and amount of all disbursements of stipends.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-0562) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1134c)
### [§§4161 to 4166. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §218(a)(4), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2027]

Section 4161, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 853; Sept. 14, 1959, Pub. L. 86–259, 73 Stat. 546, related to computation of reduction of time of sentence generally.

Section 4162, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 853, related to deduction from sentence for industrial good time.

Section 4163, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 853; Sept. 19, 1962, Pub. L. 87–665, 76 Stat. 552, related to discharge of prisoner.

Section 4164, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 853; June 29, 1951, ch. 176, 65 Stat. 98, related to released prisoner as parolee.

Section 4165, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 854, related to forfeiture of good time for offense.

Section 4166, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 854, related to restoration of forfeited commutation.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of such repeal, with sections to remain in effect for five years as to an individual who committed an offense or an act of juvenile delinquency before Nov. 1, 1987, and as to a term of imprisonment during the period described in section 235(a)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 98–473, see section 235(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of this title.
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

 616

 565

 546

 518

 506

 503

 496

 530

 555

 561

 544

 538

 588

 519

 516

 519

 488

 458

 393

 408

 413

 411

 409

 421

 456

 473

 458

 458

 452

 457

 408

 389

 386

 394

 405

 404

 401

 388

 391

 387

 383

 380

 408

 395

 370

 361

 357

 363

 365

 376

 383

 381

 380

 373

 367

 368

 373

 377

 373

 378

 378

 399

 447

 435

 437

 434

 434

 435

 423

 438

 435

 432

 426

 426

 446

 398

 386

 379

 382

 385

 384

 388

 389

 386

 383

 387

 394

 395

 397

 400

 405

 413

 404

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:June 2, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 292

 285

 286

 284

 284

 285

 277

 287

 285

 283

 279

 279

 292

 262

 255

 250

 252

 254

 253

 256

 256

 255

 253

 255

 259

 260

 261

 263

 266

 271

 266

TOTAL 12,703

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 64 Filed 04/24/20 Entered 04/30/20 15:58:02 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 64 Filed 04/24/20 Entered 04/30/20 15:58:02 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 64 Filed 04/24/20 Entered 04/30/20 15:58:02 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 64 Filed 04/24/20 Entered 04/30/20 15:58:02 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 4
---

Exhibit 32

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 Actionview International,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge:

| | 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 operation
      of the Company.

|Dated: March 19, 2004 | By: |                                                
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------
|                      |     | /s/ Christopher Stringer                       
|                      |     | Christopher Stringer                           
|                      |     | President, Chief Financial Officer and Director
|                      |     |                                                
|Dated: March 19, 2004 | By: |                                                
|                      |     | /s/ Rick Mari                                  
|                      |     | Rick Mari                                      
|                      |     | Chief Executive Officer, Secretary & Director  

---
(No. 74-CC-475

#### Andrew F. Guschwan, M.D., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 17, 1974.*

Martin Brozosky, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 663.1 What is the Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program? ( a ) The Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Program is designed to contribute to the development and improvement of modern foreign language and area studies in the United States by providing opportunities for scholars to conduct research abroad.
( b ) Under the program, the Secretary awards fellowships, through institutions of higher education, to faculty members who propose to conduct research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies to improve their skill in languages and knowledge of the culture of the people of these countries.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6))
#### Henry N. De Lisser, Appellant, v. William Nost, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ro opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
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

DAY HIGH

 645

 650

 647

 636

 622

 620

 522

 417

 413

 429

 437

 412

 437

 415

 447

 522

 494

 437

 416

 397

 408

 381

 420

 398

 362

 353

 365

 365

 635

 608

 635

 612

 556

 477

 433

 376

 367

 360

 357

 342

 321

 322

 331

 319

 319

 300

 304

 320

 339

 327

 318

 304

 274

 286

 282

 323

 643

 640

 639

 626

 589

 553

 501

 395

 389

 394

 390

 365

 370

 361

 363

 381

 379

 337

 346

 339

 364

 353

 358

 341

 317

 323

 327

 342

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 30, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 413

 412

 411

 403

 380

 358

 326

 260

 256

 259

 257

 242

 245

 239

 240

 251

 250

 224

 230

 226

 241

 234

 237

 227

 212

 216

 218

 227

TOTAL 11,725

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court’s General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/8/95 TENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES MICHAEL BYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 95-1300
v. D. Colorado ANTHONY BELASKI, PAUL GIRVAN, DEANNA AVILA, LOWELL GREEN, D. J. FITZGERALD, JOE SILVEY, GWEN TAYLOR, LEON HARRISON, CLIFF YOUNG, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D.C. No. 91-Z-1504)

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this- 2 -

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Charles Michael Byers filed suit in the district court alleging constitutional claims arising from his incarceration as a federal prisoner. Specifically, Byers alleges damages based on 1) transfer to a higher security facility and denial of transfer to a prison camp or halfway house, 2) denial of meritorious good time credits, 3) denial of necessary medical and dental care, 4) exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and 5) denial of $500 release gratuities. We have reviewed the record in this case and, substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed November 2, 1993, and the district court’s order of dismissal filed June 28, 1995, we agree with the district court that Byers’ complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state any constitutional claim. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge