alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11,709.

#### People for the Use of Klug *v.*Corder, et al.

Decided September 19, 1927.

Action against sheriff for damages for levying on exempt property. Judgment of dismissal.

*Reversed.*

1. *Exemptions*— Farm *Wagon*— Value. Limitation, of $50 on exempt property in section 5915, C. L., par. 9, qualifies the words “other farming implements,” and has no reference to what precedes them.

2. *Farm Wagon*— Motor *Vehicle.*“Farm wagon” as used in section 5915, O. L., par. 9, includes a farm wagon moved by mechanical, as well as one operated by animal, power.

3. *Pleading*— Demurrer—Facts. Allegation in a complaint that a five-passenger Buiek touring ear is a farm wagon, is one of ultimate fact admitted by demurrer, and if traversed by answer is a question for the jury.

*Error to the District Court of Weld County, Hon. Claude C. Coffin, Judge.*

Mr. S. Harrison White, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Walter E. Bliss, Mr. Frank J. Mannix, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Me. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint of the People ex rel. Klug, they stood by their complaint and bring error.

The action was for treble damages, under the statute, on account of a levy of execution by Corder, sheriff of *319Weld county, on exempt property, i. e., a five-passenger Buick touring car, alleged in the complaint to be a farm wagon and to be in use to carry on Klug’s farm business, and to be worth $1,200.

The statute (C. L. § 5915, par. 9) exempts from execution “one farm wagon. * * *”

The defendant in error claims that the farm wagon under said paragraph ninth cannot exceed $50 in value; the pertinent part of the statute is as follows: “The following property * * * shall be exempt from levy: * * * Ninth — One cow and calf, ten sheep, * * * one farm wagon, cart or dray, one plough, one harrow, and other farming implements, * * * not exceeding fifty dollars in value. ’ ’

It seems clear to us that the clause “not exceeding $50 in value” qualifies the words “other farming implements” and has no reference to what precedes them; but if we say it refers also to “farm wagon” we must say that it refers to the plow or harrow, which would be absurd.

We agree with plaintiff in error that the word “farm wagon” ought to be regarded as including a farm wagon moved by mechanical as well as by animal power. *Stichler v. Bank*(Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 223, holds that a Ford truck is exempt as a “wagon” under the Texas statute, and we see no reason why such a vehicle might not be a farm wagon if used as such, and since the complaint alleges that the automobile in question was a farm wagon, we think that that allegation is of an ultimate fact which must be taken as admitted by the demurrer. If the defendants traverse it, it is a question for the jury.

The result is that we must reverse the judgment with directions to overrule the demurrer and proceed with the case.
#### § 229.47 Child's benefit.

If a child is included in the computation of the overall minimum, a child's benefit of 50 percent times the Overall Minimum PIA is computed. This amount may be adjusted for the family maximum or other benefits.
#### § 233.3 Reduction of retroactive and other similar payments.

If a person is entitled to a retroactive payment for a month or months in an earlier fiscal year, the reduction factor as imposed with respect to the windfall component of the person's annuity, including that portion attributable to an earlier fiscal year, shall be the reduction factor applicable in the year of payment: *Provided, however,* That if the application of the payment year reduction factor would result in a larger payment than would the application of the earlier year reduction factor, the earlier year reduction factor shall be applied. The reduction factor imposed in the case of a replacement payment shall be that reduction factor which was applicable to the original payment. The term “replacement payment” means a payment made to a beneficiary to replace a check which was issued to the beneficiary in an earlier month, but which was not negotiated, and “replacement payment” also means a payment made to the beneficiary for an earlier month in which his or her annuity was not paid for some reason such as lack of a current address.
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

 17,506

 20,106

 20,156

 20,402

 21,318

 19,997

 17,502

 15,473

 13,909

 15,129

 15,118

 17,186

 18,004

 18,997

 20,644

 22,824

 23,356

 22,155

 21,153

 19,685

 19,053

 19,405

 19,662

 18,334

 18,316

 19,569

 22,117

 22,822

 16,974

 25,340

 2,729

 3,286

 3,190

 3,381

 3,522

 3,099

 3,610

 3,548

 3,455

 4,355

 4,843

 5,163

 3,805

 5,262

 6,293

 6,436

 6,796

 6,034

 4,784

 5,461

 5,065

 6,372

 6,577

 6,894

 6,264

 6,848

 7,340

 20,083

 11,038

 6,655

 9,902

 10,853

 11,009

 11,313

 11,575

 10,957

 10,278

 10,114

 9,140

 8,753

 8,875

 9,701

 10,474

 12,042

 13,213

 14,085

 14,648

 13,556

 12,298

 12,258

 12,725

 13,320

 13,766

 12,445

 11,765

 11,991

 12,991

 21,453

 14,003

 15,386

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 12, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

#### § 41.272 Cross reference.

For other applicable provisions pertaining to forms prescribed, retention of records, interference with administration, alternate methods or procedures, emergency variations from requirements, penalties and forfeitures, and delegations of the Administrator, see subpart C of this part.
#### § 10.716 If the required refund is not paid within 30 days of the request for repayment, can it be collected from payments due under the FECA?

If the required refund is not paid within 30 days of the request for payment, OWCP can, in its discretion, collect the refund by withholding all or part of any payments currently payable to the beneficiary under the FECA with respect to any injury. The waiver provisions of §§ 10.432 through 10.440 do not apply to such determinations.
§ 10.438 Can OWCP require the individual who received the overpayment to submit additional financial information? ( a ) The individual who received the overpayment is responsible for providing information about income, expenses and assets as specified by OWCP. This information is needed to determine whether or not recovery of an overpayment would defeat the purpose of the FECA, or be against equity and good conscience. This information will also be used to determine the repayment schedule, if necessary.
( b ) Failure to submit the requested information within 30 days of the request shall result in denial of waiver, and no further request for waiver shall be considered until the requested information is furnished.
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

 4,050

 3,223

 3,520

 4,661

 6,079

 5,573

 3,901

 4,844

 4,931

 5,290

 7,170

 6,481

 8,184

 6,746

 6,446

 6,954

 5,098

 3,076

 1,119

 601

 484

 460

 460

 484

 470

 484

 587

 1,132

 547

 366

 765

 646

 575

 551

 608

 782

 958

 809

 892

 972

 1,094

 1,470

 1,251

 1,878

 1,772

 1,247

 1,326

 746

 504

 450

 409

 366

 332

 317

 302

 296

 296

 289

 284

 261

 276

 275

 1,516

 1,242

 1,281

 1,715

 2,408

 2,886

 1,876

 2,106

 2,138

 2,720

 3,347

 3,015

 3,883

 3,851

 3,334

 3,295

 2,666

 1,541

 679

 471

 413

 368

 342

 344

 332

 332

 348

 415

 330

 304

 361

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 18, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Archives /
              - 2012 Compendium Statistics /
              - 2012 Special Education /
              - 2012 11.3a Special Education—Students  Ages 6-21 Served under IDEA, Part B, by Select Diagnostic Categories

## Table 11.3a: Special Education—Students Ages Six to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B, by Select Diagnostic Categories: Fall 2010

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
OREGON

Source Data: USFWS Division of Realty, USGS, National Geographic

Map Info: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N

Transverse Mercator 1:19798

Software: ESRI ArcGIS 8.1

Date: May 1, 2003

Map Design: Khemarith So, Mariana Lincoln

Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex

2127 SE OSU Drive

Newport, OR 97365

541 867 4550

Land Acquisition Status

Refuge Lands

0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Authorized Refuge Boundary

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Neskowin Marsh Unit

Nestucca Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

Land Status
§ 30.800 What types of wage-loss are compensable under Part E of EEOICPA? Years of wage-loss occurring prior to normal retirement age that are the result of a covered illness contracted by a covered Part E employee through work-related exposure to a toxic substance at a Department of Energy facility or a RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate, may be compensable under Part E of the Act. Whether years of wage-loss are compensable depends on determinations with respect to: ( a ) The average annual wage of the employee as determined by OWCP in accordance with § 30.810;
( b ) The percentage of his or her average annual wage that the employee was able to earn during the calendar year(s) in question as determined by OWCP in accordance with § 30.811; and
( c ) Whether the employee's inability to earn at least as much as his or her average annual wage was due to a covered illness as defined in § 30.5(s).
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3059, Feb. 8, 2019]
§ 30.319 May a claimant request reconsideration of a final decision of the FAB? ( a ) A claimant may request reconsideration of a final decision of the FAB by filing a written request with the FAB within 30 days from the date of issuance of such decision. If a timely request for reconsideration is made, the decision in question will no longer be considered “final” under § 30.316(d).
( b ) For purposes of determining whether the written request referred to in paragraph (a) of this section has been timely filed with the FAB, the request will be considered to be “filed” on the date that the claimant mails it to the FAB, as determined by postmark or other carrier's date marking, or on the date that such written request is actually received, whichever is the earliest determinable date.
( c ) A hearing is not available as part of the reconsideration process. If the FAB grants the request for reconsideration, it will consider the written record of the claim again and issue a new final decision on the claim. A new final decision that is issued after the FAB grants a request for reconsideration will be “final” upon the date of issuance of such new decision. ( 1 ) Instead of issuing a new final decision after granting a request for reconsideration, the FAB may return the claim to the district office for further development as provided in § 30.317.
( 2 ) If the FAB denies the request for reconsideration, the FAB decision that formed the basis for the request will be considered “final” upon the date the request is denied, and no further requests for reconsideration of that particular final decision of the FAB will be entertained.
( d ) A claimant may not seek judicial review of a decision on his or her claim under EEOICPA until OWCP's decision on the claim is final pursuant to either § 30.316(d) (for claims in which no request for reconsideration was filed with the FAB) or paragraph (c) of this section (for claims in which a request for reconsideration was filed with the FAB).
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3051, Feb. 8, 2019]
§ 222.23 Relationship as surviving divorced spouse. A claimant will be considered to be the surviving divorced spouse of a deceased employee if the conditions in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section are met: ( a ) *Age or disability.* The claimant applied for an annuity on the basis of age or disability, and the conditions set forth in § 222.22 are met.
( b ) *Child in care.* The claimant applied for an annuity on the basis of having a child in care, and— ( 1 ) His or her marriage to the employee has been terminated by a final divorce; and
( 2 ) He or she is not married (if the claimant remarried after the divorce from the employee, the later marriage has been terminated by death, final divorce, or annulment); and
( 3 ) He or she either— ( i ) Was the natural parent of the employee's child; or
( ii ) Had been married to the employee when either the employee or the claimant legally adopted the other's child or when they both legally adopted a child who was then under 18 years of age.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3969 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Laughlin, Nevada, as the 

‘‘Master Chief Petty Officer Jesse Dean VA Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3969 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JESSE DEAN 

2 VA CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af4 fairs community-based outpatient clinic in Laughlin, Ne5 vada, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Master Chief Petty Officer 

7 Jesse Dean VA Clinic’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred 

11 to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to 

12 the ‘‘Master Chief Petty Officer Jesse Dean VA Clinic’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
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 ELEV

 976.52

 976.17

 975.94

 975.70

 975.47

 975.12

 974.74

 974.48

 974.37

 974.24

 974.24

 974.34

 974.43

 974.70

 974.80

 975.01

 975.13

 975.09

 975.03

 975.26

 975.54

 975.73

 976.14

 976.49

 976.66

 976.61

 976.97

 977.42

 977.66

 977.89

 1,265.2

 1,262.3

 1,260.4

 1,258.4

 1,256.5

 1,253.6

 1,250.4

 1,248.3

 1,247.3

 1,246.3

 1,246.3

 1,247.1

 1,247.8

 1,250.1

 1,250.9

 1,252.6

 1,253.6

 1,253.3

 1,252.8

 1,254.7

 1,257.1

 1,258.6

 1,262.1

 1,265.0

 1,266.4

 1,266.0

 1,269.0

 1,272.8

 1,274.8

 1,276.7

STORAGE

-2.2

-2.9

-1.9

-2.0

-1.9

-2.9

-3.2

-2.2

-0.9

-1.1

+0.0

+0.8

+0.7

+2.2

+0.8

+1.7

+1.0

-0.3

-0.5

+1.9

+2.3

+1.6

+3.4

+2.9

+1.4

-0.4

+3.0

+3.8

+2.0

+1.9

CHANGE

1,157

1,135

1,050

1,359

1,842

1,244

1,313

1,188

1,444

1,334

1,587

2,633

2,063

1,479

1,643

1,769

1,433

1,753

1,819

2,748

2,759

2,422

2,435

2,413

2,455

2,147

2,402

2,565

2,326

2,393

INFLOW

 2,231

 2,564

 1,983

 2,355

 2,788

 2,691

 2,864

 2,242

 1,872

 1,845

 1,563

 2,057

 1,641

 326

 1,158

 872

 889

 1,851

 2,033

 1,775

 1,562

 1,619

 698

 903

 1,657

 2,298

 812

 658

 1,310

 1,397

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 22

 46

 35

 11

 19

 22

 40

 32

 32

 32

 24

 158

 46

 24

 67

 19

 40

 70

 38

 8

 22

 5

 14

 35

 81

 60

 73

 3

 0

 22

C.F.S.

 .08

 .17

 .13

 .04

 .07

 .08

 .15

 .12

 .12

 .12

 .09

 .59

 .17

 .09

 .25

 .07

 .15

 .26

 .14

 .03

 .08

 .02

 .05

 .13

 .30

 .22

 .27

 .01

 .00

 .08

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .31

 .00

 1.22

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 1.50

 .72

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 1.11

 .06

 .42

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .06

 .41

 .32

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2010 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 1, 2010

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +9.0 56,310 50,514 0 0 1,100 4.08 6.16

ACRE-FEET +9,000 111,691 100,195 0 0 2,182

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 100,195

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 100,195

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 6.16

JULY 1, 2009 34.50

 1,267.4
#### Orlis J. BUSH, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2006-3173.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 1, 2006.

Orlis J. Bush, pro se.

ORDER

Petitioner having paid the required filing fee and having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is,

ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

Petitioner should compute the due date for filing its brief 21 days from the date of filing of this order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted Pursuant to
                 Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

In connection with the annual report of Feminique Corporation (the "COMPANY") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the SEC on the date
hereof (the  "REPORT"),  I hereby  certify,  in my capacity as an officer of the
Company,  for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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
                  operations of the Company.



                                  /s/ Max Khan
                            ------------------------
                                  By: Max Khan
                            Chief Executive Officer,
                             Chief Financial Officer
                              DATE: August 16, 2004

                                       25
Exhibit 32 SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION BY DWIGHT O. SEEGMILLER Pursuant to the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Dwight O.
Seegmiller hereby certifies that: 1. This report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2. The information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Hills Bancorporation. Date      8/5/04
  By
  /s/ Dwight O. SeegmillerDwight O. Seegmiller, President and Chief Executive Officer SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION BY JAMES G. PRATT Pursuant to the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, James G. Pratt
hereby certifies that: 1. This report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2. The information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Hills Bancorporation. Date      8/5/04
  By
  /s/ James G. PrattJames G. Pratt, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Page 26 of 26
#### Bryan Lamar BLANTON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Jeff WRIGLEY, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.

No. 05-56225.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

*239Bryan Lamar Blanton, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

William You, Esq., Leon W. Weidman, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bryan L. Blanton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the career offender enhancement of his sentence for armed bank robbery and other crimes. The district court correctly concluded that Blanton must challenge his sentence in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Lorentsen v. Hood,*223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000). As Blanton states, his § 2255 motion is pending in the district court. We therefore reject his contention that he may proceed under § 2241 pursuant to § 2255’s savings clause for cases in which the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. *See id.*

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.