alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### First National Bank of Broken Bow v. James Stockham et al.

Filed November 23, 1899.

No. 9,035.

1. Review: Error: Presumptions. Error will not be presumed, but must be affirmatively revealed by the record.

2. New Trial: Time to File Motion. Except upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence, a motion for a new trial must be filed within three days after the verdict or decision was rendered, unless the filing in time was unavoidably prevented.

Error from the district court of Custer county. Tried below before Greene, J.

*Affirmed.*

*G. L. Gutterson,*for plaintiff in error.

*John 8. Kirkpatrick, L. E. Kirkpatrick*and *A. B. Humphrey, contra.*

Norval, J.

Frank Decious executed a promissory note in the sum of $150, and James Stockham and C. T. Halliday signed the note with him as sureties. The First National Bank of Broken Bow instituted an action on the note against all the makers. A trial to a jury terminated in a verdict against Decious in favor of the bank, and against it and in favor of the other defendants. The plaintiff prosecuted a petition in error against all the defendants below, but on the special appro vanee of Decious objecting to jurisdiction over his person, the proceeding in error was dismissed as to him. Numerous alleged errors are assigned in the petition in error, and argued in the brief, but they can not be now considered, because it does not appear that plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, presenting the questions now sought to be *reviewed,*to the trial court within three days after the verdict was returned. The trial was had and a verdict *305rendered on April -2, 1896. The record discloses that on May 1, following, there was filed a substituted motion for a new trial for one alleged to be lost. There is nothing in the record to indicate when the original motion was filed, if one was ever filed. We can not indulge the-presumption that it was filed within the time fixed by statute. On the other hand, the presumption is in favor of the judgment below. Errors are never presumed, but must be disclosed by the record. See *Wright v. State,*45 Nebr., 44; *American Investment Co. v. McGregor,*48 Nebr., 779; *Ætna Ins. Co. v. Simmons,*49 Nebr., 811. The district court may have refused plaintiff a new trial because his motion therefor was not in time. Except for newly-discovered evidence,' which is not the grounds relied upon herein for reversal, a motion for a new trial must be filed within three days after the verdict or decision, unless unavoidably prevented. See *Roggencamp v. Dobbs,*15 Nebr., 620; *Davis v. State,*31 Nebr., 240; *Fitzgerald v. Brandt,*36 Nebr., 683; *Brown v. Ritner,*41 Nebr., 52. The judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit32.3

 

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Idaho Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2008, (the "Report"), I, J. LaMont Keen, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

(1)              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/J. LaMont Keen*                   |
|---------------------------------------|
| J. LaMont Keen                        |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| February 26, 2009                     |
|                                  |
### SERVED: May 7, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH D. BARBERA FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 1083
AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Paragraphs #2 and#3 ofthe Procedural Order are amended as follows: WHEREFORE, theparties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. On orbefore August 29, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production requests and/or interrogatories. Ifthe parties cannotresolve a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 2. The parties shall beprepared to presentthis case at a hearing on or after August 29, 2014, subject to the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date and time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service List

1SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1
Joseph D. Barbera, Respondent 14706 N.E. Erickson Dr. La Center, WA 98629-4405 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOTPROVIDED David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel Northwest MountainRegion, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847. FAX: 425-227-1007 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
(No. 76-CC-3116

#### Cannal Randolph Corporation, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed October 25,1978.*

H. Burton Schatz, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Paul M. Sengpiehl, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

This claim comes on to be heard on the joint stipulation of the parties.

Claimant, Canal Randolph Corporation, seeks to recover $118,272.25 in damages allegedly resulting from the excessive use of certain realty by the State of Illinois, Department of Labor during the lease period May, 1972, through May, 1975. The parties agree that the lease in question contemplated that the Illinois Department of Labor would utilize Claimant’s building during normal business hours, but that Respondent’s use of the building greatly exceeded that expectation.

*653In *Canal Randolph Corporation v. State of Illinois, 31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 88,*the identical parties and issues were before the Court. The Court there ruled that an ambiguity in the lease here in question favored the Claimant landlord, and therefore entered an award of $10,-215.00 to Claimant based upon 681 hours of excessive use at $15.00 per hour.

This Court has reviewed the settlement negotiations that have transpired between the Illinois Department of Labor and Claimant, based upon the Court’s opinion in *31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 88.*The Court feels that the agreed upon settlement in the amount of $26,040.00 for excessive use of the building is reasonable, and is hereby approved.

The Court further finds that the State breached the lease in failing to provide proper maintenance services and that the Claimant expended the sum of $9,225.00 to provide those services which were the responsibility of Respondent under the contract.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $35,265.00, in full satisfaction if its claim against the State of Illinois.
#### John F. Conway, Respondent, *v.*Farish-Stafford Company, Appellant.

Second Department,

June 20, 1913.

Pleading — amendment changing cause of action — when referee cannot grant amendment.

A referee has no power to amend a complaint seeking compensation due under a contract so as to change the action to one for damages for a breach of the contract or by adding a second cause of action for such damages. The plaintiff should apply to the Special Term for leave to amend.

*482Appeal by the defendant, Farish-Stafford Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Queens County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 24th day of April, 1913, denying a motion to vacate an order of reference.

*David Leventritt [Herman H. Oppenheimer*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Martin L. Stover [Edtuin Blumenstiel*with him on the brief] for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

In the form in which this action was originally brought it was for compensation under the contract, and was clearly referable. If the amendment to the complaint which the referee allowed had the effect of changing the cause of action to one for damages for breach of the contract, or of adding to the original cause of action for compensation a second cause of action for such damages, such amendment was not within the power of the referee to grant. *(Perry*v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y. 345.) If plaintiff is entitled thereto, as to which we express no opinion, application therefor must be made to the Special Term. "We may consider the complaint, therefore, as not effectively amended. If the amendment is made at the Special Term, either by entirely changing the form of the action or by adding an additional cause of action, the question whether, after such amendment, the entire action or either cause thereof is referable may be reviewed either by a renewal of the motion to vacate the order of reference or by an appeal from the order referring or refusing to refer said second cause of action, if the amendment takes that form.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and, disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Oarr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (148)
<INVENTORY>                                     12,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,529
<PP&E>                                          24,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,837)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,921
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,863
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,759
<SALES>                                        128,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,383
<CGS>                                           68,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,730)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,485
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,957
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
        

</TABLE>
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

 4,228

 4,280

 1,642

 1,103

 819

 583

 285

 305

 231

 233

 267

 277

 320

 315

 407

 333

 352

 280

 283

 291

 224

 257

 219

 211

 223

 194

 201

 274

 260

 263

 291

 645

 942

 412

 354

 340

 249

 198

 184

 189

 196

 214

 215

 227

 230

 244

 244

 237

 242

 236

 215

 198

 206

 191

 181

 171

 169

 172

 178

 183

 203

 220

 1,658

 1,856

 740

 477

 438

 313

 240

 222

 210

 212

 228

 238

 246

 267

 275

 281

 285

 263

 261

 250

 208

 224

 202

 192

 182

 177

 184

 194

 201

 219

 241

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 14, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 34,090

 32,431

 29,448

 26,208

 22,751

 19,159

 16,683

 13,430

 11,570

 10,483

 9,913

 9,191

 8,171

 7,345

 5,962

 4,387

 3,932

 3,718

 3,541

 3,478

 3,446

 3,448

 3,440

 3,420

 3,374

 3,313

 3,251

 3,178

 3,104

 3,042

 2,998

 2,435

 2,317

 2,103

 1,872

 1,625

 1,369

 1,192

 959

 826

 749

 708

 657

 584

 525

 426

 313

 281

 266

 253

 248

 246

 246

 246

 244

 241

 237

 232

 227

 222

 217

 214

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Bruce Beattie, Chief Executive Officer of Sub Surface Waste Management of
Delaware, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sub Surface Waste
Management of Delaware, Inc.,;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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-14 and 15d-14) 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"); and

         c) 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;

5. 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; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. 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.

Date: January 18, 2005

/S/ BRUCE BEATTIE
-------------------------------------
Bruce Beattie Chief Executive Officer
§ 606.30 What are allowable costs and what are the limitations on allowable costs? ( a ) *Allowable costs.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a grantee may expend grant funds for activities that are related to carrying out the allowable activities included in its approved application.
( b ) *Supplement and not supplant.* Grant funds shall be used so that they supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant those funds.
( c ) *Limitations on allowable costs.* A grantee may not use an indirect cost rate to determine allowable costs under its grant.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.*)
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42904) pertaining to theCalifornia Pizza Kitchen, Inc.  Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Stock-BasedIncentive Compensation Plan and 1990 Employee Stock Option Plan of our reportdated January 26, 2001, except for note 14, as to which the date isFebruary 13, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofCalifornia Pizza Kitchen, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Long Beach, CaliforniaMarch 20, 2001
§ 84.640 Employee. ( a ) *Employee* means the employee of a recipient directly engaged in the performance of work under the award, including— ( 1 ) All direct charge employees;
( 2 ) All indirect charge employees, unless their impact or involvement in the performance of work under the award is insignificant to the performance of the award; and
( 3 ) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the award and who are on the recipient's payroll.
( b ) This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the recipient (*e.g.,* volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
(Authority: E.O.s 12549 and 12689; 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3 and 3474; and Sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243 at 3327)
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert deRose, Chief Executive Officer of Education Lending Group, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and



2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: October 23, 2003 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert deRose
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Name:            
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Title:
§ 76.565 General management costs—restricted rate. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70338 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) As used in § 76.564, *general management costs* means the costs of activities that are for the direction and control of the grantee's affairs that are organization-wide. An activity is not organization-wide if it is limited to one activity, one component of the grantee, one subject, one phase of operations, or other single responsibility.
( b ) General management costs include the costs of performing a service function, such as accounting, payroll preparation, or personnel management, that is normally at the grantee's level even if the function is physically located elsewhere for convenience or better management. The term also includes certain occupancy and space maintenance costs as determined under § 76.568.
( c ) The term does not include expenditures for— ( 1 ) Divisional administration that is limited to one component of the grantee;
( 2 ) The governing body of the grantee;
( 3 ) Compensation of the chief executive officer of the grantee;
( 4 ) Compensation of the chief executive officer of any component of the grantee; and
( 5 ) Operation of the immediate offices of these officers.
( d ) For purposes of this section— ( 1 ) The chief executive officer of the grantee is the individual who is the head of the executive office of the grantee and exercises overall responsibility for the operation and management of the organization. The chief executive officer's immediate office includes any deputy chief executive officer or similar officer along with immediate support staff of these individuals. The term does not include the governing body of the grantee, such as a board or a similar elected or appointed governing body; and
( 2 ) Components of the grantee are those organizational units supervised directly or indirectly by the chief executive officer. These organizational units generally exist one management level below the executive office of the grantee. The term does not include the office of the chief executive officer or a deputy chief executive officer or similar position.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), 2831(a), 2974(b), and 3474)
[59 FR 59583, Nov. 17, 1994]
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

 520

 501

 481

 475

 452

 490

 474

 480

 463

 435

 424

 408

 498

 451

 456

 464

 460

 507

 504

 531

 543

 521

 547

 604

 564

 586

 578

 582

 571

 572

 421

 436

 402

 377

 380

 409

 416

 414

 412

 396

 379

 364

 367

 328

 335

 323

 327

 317

 314

 334

 339

 349

 348

 329

 351

 341

 335

 343

 354

 395

 471

 464

 442

 422

 430

 444

 439

 445

 437

 415

 401

 387

 418

 385

 378

 372

 367

 377

 380

 391

 400

 395

 418

 422

 417

 434

 432

 446

 428

 460

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:December 18, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 307

 303

 289

 277

 282

 290

 287

 291

 286

 272

 264

 255

 274

 254

 250

 246

 243

 249

 251

 258

 263

 260

 274

 277

 274

 284

 283

 292

 281

 300

TOTAL 12,517

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS