alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. O. Harrison v. James H. Beard, *et al.*

Sebvice *by Publication; Defective Affidavit; Amendment.*An affidavit for service by publication, made by the authorized agent of the plaintiff, which is otherwise correct, but closes with the words, “ to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief,” and thereby qualifies the prior declarations contained therein, is defective and insufficient, but not void; and the plaintiff, after judgment, is entitled, with the leave of the trial court, to make the affidavit positive and sufficient by amendment.

*Error from Cloud District Court.*

The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. The plaintiff *Harrison*brings to this court certain rulings and orders made at the August Term, 1883, of the district court.

*E. W. Sturges,*and *Thos. Kennett,*for plaintiff in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This was an action on certain notes secured by a mortgage upon real estate. Service of summons *533was made on certain of the defendants by publication only. The affidavit upon which service was obtained was made by one C. W. McDonald, the authorized agent of the plaintiff, and concluded with the words, *“to*the best of his knowledge, information and belief.” Judgment was rendered as prayed for in the petition, and the mortgaged premises sold thereunder. A motion was afterward filed by the plaintiff to confirm the sale. One of the defendants filed a motion to set aside the judgment, on the grounds that no affidavit was filed before service was attempted to be made, and that the court had no jurisdiction over the persons of the makers of the uotes and mortgage. Thereupon the plaintiff interposed his motion for leave to amend the affidavit upon which the service of summons was made. Upon the hearing of these motions, the .court decided that the affidavit for publication could not be amended, and therefore refused to permit the plaintiff to amend the same, and set aside the judgment, sale, and all proceedings against the makers of the notes and mortgage, subsequent to the filing of the petition.

■' We think that the words, “to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief,” at the end of the affidavit, qualified and restricted the prior declarations contained therein; and therefore that the affidavit was defective and insufficient. *(Atchison v. Bartholow,*4 Kas. 124.) While the affidavit was thus defective and insufficient, it was not wholly void; therefore as the amended affidavit was positive and sufficient, the court erred in not permitting the affidavit for publication to be amended. (Code, §139; *Burton v. Robinson,*5 Kas. 287; *Pierce v. Butters,*21 id. 124.)

The order and judgment of the district court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

All the Justiees concurring.
Cobbler II Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-7: Forest Service Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

149

117

108

162

40

235

24

44

18

160

96

3

94

78

132

Map displays potentila wilderness areas and

other undeveloped lands.

Legend

Cobbler II Project Planning Area

District Boundary

Grande Ronde IRA

Forest Roads

Potential Wilderness Areas

Other Undeveloped Lands

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

H-7

2 1 0 2 Miles

 ́
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4004 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the suspension of 

eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance for drug-related offenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2015 

Ms. BASS (for herself, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal 

the suspension of eligibility for grants, loans, and work 

assistance for drug-related offenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Unfair Col5 lateral Consequences from Ending Student Success Act’’ 

6 or ‘‘SUCCESS Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4004 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER 

2 THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 FOR 

3 GRANTS, LOANS, AND WORK ASSISTANCE FOR 

4 DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES. 

5 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (r) of section 484 of the 

6 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is re7 pealed. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Higher Edu9 cation Act of 1965 is amended— 

10 (1) in section 428(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 

11 1078(b)(3))— 

12 (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

13 ‘‘485(l)’’ and inserting ‘‘485(k)’’; and 

14 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

15 ‘‘485(l)’’ and inserting ‘‘485(k)’’; 

16 (2) in section 435(d)(5) (20 U.S.C. 

17 1085(d)(5))— 

18 (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

19 ‘‘485(l)’’ and inserting ‘‘485(k)’’; and 

20 (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking 

21 ‘‘485(l)’’ and inserting ‘‘485(k)’’; 

22 (3) in section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091), by redes23 ignating subsections (s) and (t) as subsections (r) 

24 and (s), respectively; and 

25 (4) in section 485 (20 U.S.C. 1092)— 

26 (A) by striking subsection (k); and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4004 IH

1 (B) by redesignating subsections (l) and 

2 (m) as subsections (k) and (l), respectively. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

73 

KA 10-01627 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

LAWRENCE L. BUGGS, ALSO KNOWN AS CONGO, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P.

Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered February 8, 2006. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 9, 2009

1202 

# Order

December 9, 2009

138883 & (51)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138883 COA: 281681 Saginaw CC: 07-028787-FH WILLIE LEON JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered. We DIRECT the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the defendant’s application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. In the answer, the prosecuting a ttorney shall address whether the defendant is entitled to jail credit under MCL 769.11b in light of People v
Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009). The answer shall also state whether the defendant was being held in jail on a Wisconsin parole deta iner and whether he has received or will receive credit against his Wisconsin sentence for the time he spen t in jail awaiting disposition of the charges in this case.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BLACK,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 204 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
# C_2012312EN.01002001.xml

| 16.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/20

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2012/634/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 944/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply

2012/C 312/08

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2012/634/CFSP (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 944/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/782/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C — Coordination Unit |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C — Coordination Unit

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 282, 16.10.2012, p. 50.

1

(2)  OJ L 282, 16.10.2012, p. 9.

2

---
§ 404.1312 World War II service included. Your service was in the active service of the United States during the World War II period if you were in the— ( a ) Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or any part of them;
( b ) Commissioned corps of the United States Public Health Service and were— ( 1 ) On active commissioned service during the period beginning September 16, 1940, through July 28, 1945, and the active service was done while on detail to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard; or
( 2 ) On active commissioned service during the period beginning July 29, 1945, through July 24, 1947, regardless of whether on detail to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard;
( c ) Commissioned corps of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey and were— ( 1 ) During the World War II period— ( i ) Transferred to active service with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard; or
( ii ) Assigned to active service on military projects in areas determined by the Secretary of Defense to be areas of immediate military hazard; or
( 2 ) On active service in the Philippine Islands on December 7, 1941; or
( 3 ) On active service during the period beginning July 29, 1945, through July 24, 1947;
( d ) Philippine Scouts and performed active service during the World War II period under the direct supervision of recognized military authority;
( e ) Active service of an allied country during the World War II period and— ( 1 ) Had entered into that active service before December 9, 1941;
( 2 ) Were a citizen of the United States throughout that period of active service or lost your United States citizenship solely because of your entrance into that service;
( 3 ) Had resided in the United States for a total of four years during the five-year period ending on the day you entered that active service; and
( 4 ) Were domiciled in the United States on that day; or
( f ) Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, during the period May 14, 1942, through September 29, 1943, and performed active service with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard after September 29, 1943.
### §2057. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated, to remain available until expended, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 86–472, ch. VII, §705, May 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 142.)
#### § 226.33 Spouse regular annuity rate.

The final tier I and tier II rates, from §§ 226.30 and 226.32, are added together to obtain the total spouse regular annuity rate.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-41133

Summary Calendar

JOEY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

versus

DELMAR OFFSHORE SERVICE, INC., Et al,

Defendants.

************************

DELMAR OPERATING, INC.

Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PRODUCERS ASSISTANCE CORPORATION,

Third Party Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-95-CV-283)

April 18, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
* The court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 See Union Texas Petroleum Corp. V. PLT Engineering, Inc.,

895 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 848 (1990).

2 See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v.

Transportation Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1992).

2

PER CURIAM:*

After de novo review, we hold that the district court

properly determined that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

requires that Louisiana law be applied to the Master Servant

Agreement.1 Under Louisiana Law, the district court properly

determined that the Master Servant Agreement “pertains to a well”

under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA), and that

the LOAIA voids the indemnification clause in the agreement.2

Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TAYQUINE DIGGS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 526 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Published Opinion and Order of 

the Superior Court at No. 3150 EDA 

2015, at 172 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 

2017) entered on October 19, 2017, 

vacating and remanding the Order 

of the Philadelphia County Court of 

Common Pleas at No. MC-51-CR0000390-2013 entered on October 2, 

2015

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The Order of the Superior Court and the Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County denying the motion to dismiss are VACATED. The matter 

is REMANDED to the common pleas court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth 

v. Perfetto, __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 1866653 (Pa. April 26, 2019).
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

JEREMY ARABIE AND ASHLEY ARABLE VERSUS NO. 

### 2024 CW 0785 

### MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY 

### OCTOBER 7, 

### 2024 INSURANCE COMPANY, BECARA, LLC D/ B/A " ROHM TECH" AND SMOKELOCKER, INC. In Re: 

# Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, applying

for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

## Tammany, No. 

### 2023- 11490. BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

1'K*41 EW SMM HG



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1180 General.

One of the objectives of the SSI program is to help blind or disabled persons become self-supporting. If you are blind or disabled, we will pay you SSI benefits and will not count the part of your income (for example, your or a family member's wages, title II benefits, or pension income) that you use or set aside to use for expenses that we determine to be reasonable and necessary to fulfill an approved plan to achieve self-support. (See §§ 416.1112(c)(9) and 1124(c)(13).) You may develop a plan to achieve self-support on your own or with our help. As appropriate, we will refer you to a State rehabilitation agency or agency for the blind for additional assistance in developing a plan.

[45 FR 65547, Oct. 3, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 10616, Mar. 28, 1986; 62 FR 59813, Nov. 5, 1997; 71 FR 28264, May 16, 2006]
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1856 Who is considered a child. We consider you to be a child if— ( a ) ( 1 ) You are under 18 years old; or
( 2 ) You are under 22 years old and you are a student regularly attending school or college or training that is designed to prepare you for a paying job;
( b ) You are not married; and
( c ) You are not the head of a household.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20463

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LONNIE LEE CLAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-668-1

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

January 22, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie Lee Clay appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank

robbery. Clay asserts, and the Government concedes, that the

written judgment, which states that Clay’s federal sentence is to

run consecutively with his undischarged state sentence, conflicts

with the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that the

federal sentence should run partially concurrent with Clay’s

undischarged state sentence. 
No. 02-20463

-2-

An oral pronouncement of judgment will control over the

written judgment if the two conflict. United States v. Martinez,

250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the judgment is

VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of

allowing the district court to amend its written judgment to

conform to its oral judgment at sentencing. See Martinez, 250 F.3d

at 942. 

JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT.
Exhibit 23.1     Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements on    Form S-3    (Nos. 333-139978 and 333-137562) and related prospectuses ofWilliams Partners L.P., and inthe registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-128881) of    Williams Partners L.P., of our reports dated February 25,    2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of    Williams Partners L.P., effectiveness of internal control over    financial reporting of Williams Partners L.P., the balance sheet    of Williams Partners GP LLC, and the consolidated financial    statements of Discovery Producer Services LLC, included in this    Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    for the year ended December 31, 2007. /s/  Ernst    & Young LLP     Tulsa, Oklahoma
(No. 74-CC-579

#### Scherrer Equipment Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 5, 1974.*

Scherrer Equipment Co., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 5.1
  
  Company Guarantors Notes Securities
Act Registration Statement Note Guarantees
  (a)
    
    the Indenture, dated as of December 21, 2009, among the
Company, the Guarantors and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (as
supplemented, the Indenture);(b)
    
    the Notes; and(c)
    
    the Notation of Guarantee.




---



##### 



- 2 -




---



##### 



- 3 -




---



##### 



- 4 -




---



##### 



Very truly yours,/s/ Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLPFRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
 
 - 5 -




---



##### 



- 6 -
### §2410a. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–113, title VII, §734(a)(15), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1560

Section, Pub. L. 91–672, §7, Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2054, restricted sale, grant, loan, or transfer of International Fighter aircraft to any foreign country, or agency thereof, other than South Vietnam.
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

 145

 129

 133

 134

 141

 151

 151

 156

 160

 163

 163

 164

 0

 0

 162

 169

 173

 170

 171

 169

 162

 161

 168

 169

 171

 174

 174

 172

 171

 170

 172

 123

 124

 125

 124

 128

 136

 149

 148

 150

 153

 155

 152

 0

 0

 155

 158

 158

 157

 158

 158

 156

 153

 153

 155

 159

 159

 159

 157

 155

 156

 157

 129

 126

 128

 128

 134

 147

 150

 150

 154

 156

 158

 157

 0

 0

 157

 161

 163

 161

 162

 162

 159

 156

 157

 160

 163

 163

 164

 162

 160

 160

 161

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 7, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
# C_2012363EN.01001501.xml

| 23.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/15

---

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC: extension of deadline

Request from a contracting entity

2012/C 363/07

On 3 October 2012, the Commission received a request under Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1).

1

The request, from Magyar Posta, concerns domestic parcel logistic services carried out in Hungary. The request was the subject of a notice published on page 14 of OJ C 313 on 17 October 2012. The initial deadline was 4 January 2013.

Given that the Commission needs to obtain and analyse additional information, and in accordance with the second sentence of Article 30(6), the period granted to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended by three months.

The final deadline is now 4 April 2013.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---