alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

 469

 404

 406

 343

 348

 398

 387

 471

 350

 373

 426

 398

 308

 388

 406

 338

 321

 317

 332

 390

 397

 394

 347

 357

 395

 429

 370

 394

 394

 450

 374

 234

 248

 245

 256

 271

 277

 242

 279

 244

 279

 277

 270

 244

 262

 235

 257

 257

 234

 258

 258

 202

 249

 235

 239

 245

 220

 243

 200

 246

 218

 243

 293

 286

 283

 285

 296

 304

 290

 309

 292

 303

 316

 303

 274

 291

 279

 277

 279

 260

 277

 280

 262

 273

 260

 269

 273

 268

 273

 270

 279

 286

 278

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 15, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
#### SCOTT, Respondent, v. HARGENS et al., Appellant.

(207 N. W. 65.)

(File No. 5557.

Opinion filed January 23, 1926.)

Bills and Notes — Conditional Delivery — Delivery of Note by Indorser Based on Condition Subsequent Held Absolute.

Where indorser on note signed and delivered it with understanding that maker should one year hence pay interest, such payment of interest was condition subsequefit, delivery was absolute, and Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 1720, relative to delivery of negotiable instruments, therefore, did not a pply.

*261Appeal from Circuit Court, Hanson County; Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Clarence Scott against Chris Hargens and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Claus Hargens appeals.

Affirmed.

*H. J.*Mohr, of Alexandria, for Appellant.

*D tom forth &Seacat,*of Alexandria, for Respondent.

GATES, P. J.

This is an action upon a promissory note! given by defendant Chris Hargens to' plaintiff, and indorsed by defendant Claus Hargens. The note was a renewal of *h*former note sent by plaintiff to R. B. MeCandless for collection. The note in suit was for $1,000 ,dated July 20, 1921, payable July 1, 1922, with interest at 8 per cent, from' July 1, 1921. The defendant Claus Hargens appeals from the judgm'ent rendered against him pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff.

Appellant contends that the delivery of the note was conditional, and relies upon Ricords v. Mead, 45 S. D. 617, 189 N. W. 703, and Dimock State Bank v. Boehnen, 46 S. D. 50, 190 N. W'. 485. He testified:

> “R. B. MeCandless asked me to sign the note for Chris Hargens, and I said I wouldn’t sign it, and I said I would sign it if Chris Hargens paid the interest on the note. ‘Well,’ Mc-Candless said, ‘sign it, and I will see that Chris pays the interest, and, if he don’t, the note don’t take effect!’ and I finally signed the note, and several weeks afterward I went to MeCandless and asked him, and he said that Chris hadn’t paid the interest yet. I demanded the note back, and he said he had delivered it to Mr. Scott, in California somewhere.”

By. its terms the interest was not due on the note until op-, proximately a year after it was indorsed by appellant. In the Ricords Case the delivery was conditional. Something was to happen in order to authorize the delivery. In the Dimoclc State Bank case there was a dispute as to whether the delivery was conditional, and hence that question was held to. be one for the jury.

In this case, even upon the showing made by appellant, the delivery must be held to ¡be absolute. It .was a delivery with the .understanding that the maker should one year hence pay the interest, and' therefore it was a condition subsequent. The case is, *262therefore, not one within the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Raw, Sec. 16 (Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 1720).

Note. — Reported in 207 N. W. 65. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Bills and notes, Key-No. 64, 8 C. J. Sec. 336.

On Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 1720, see annotations 5 B. L. A., Sec. 16, page 73.

The judgment is affirmed.
§ 3427.0-3 Authority. ( a ) These regulations are issued under the authority of the statutes cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
( b ) These regulations primarily implement section 714 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1304), as construed in Solicitor's Opinion M-36909, 86 I.D. 28 (1979).
#### § 3280.7 Can BLM require an owner or lessee of lands not under Federal administration to unitize their lands or leases?

BLM cannot require the commitment of lands or leases not under Federal administration or jurisdiction to a Federal unit.
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSPSP 601A−5Page1 of 2May 31/2011TR5−261ALLEFFECTIVITY:TEMPORARY REVISION NO.5−261INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−30FACING PAGE 16REASON FOR ISSUE:To introduce a visual check of the engine support beam.ACTION:Add the task that follows to the list of Chapter 53 tasks:NOTE:Recordthe incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY REVISIONSand the LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheets at the front of this publication.TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSPSP 601A−5Page2 of 2May 31/2011TR5−261ALLEFFECTIVITY:MAINTENANCEMANUAL − CH. 5REFERENCEZONEACCESSCHECKINTERVALCHAPTER 53 CHECKSDESCRIPTION53−10−00−198*Engine Support Beam.Visual Check. 7800 T(Ref. PSP 612, Part 9, VC−53−10−81) LANDINGS1100 RLANDINGSPHASE-IN:For aircraft with 7300 Landings or less at the dateof TR 5−261 (May 31/2011), do this check nolater than 7800 Landings.For aircraft with more than 7300 Landings butless than 8550 landings at the date of TR 5−261(May 31/2011), do this check within 500 Landingsor by Dec 31/2013 whichever occurs first.For aircraft with 8550 Landings or more at thedate of TR 5−261 (dated May 31/2011), do thischeck within 250 Landings or by Dec 31/2013whichever occurs first.310311312311−BB
§ 3715.3-1 At what point may I begin occupancy? You must not begin occupancy until— ( a ) You have complied with either 43 CFR part 3800, subpart 3802 or 3809 and this subpart, and BLM has completed its review and made the required determinations under the applicable subparts, and
( b ) You have obtained all federal, state and local mining, reclamation, and waste disposal permits, approvals, or other authorizations for the particular use or occupancy as required under this subpart.
### §1300e–7. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–557, §8, Oct. 25, 1972, 86 Stat. 1172, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to effect the provisions of this subchapter, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Urban von Euler, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 24Holdings Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
Quarterly Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date:  May 17, 2004

By: /s/ Urban von Euler
   ---------------------------------------------
   Name:   Urban von Euler
   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 3191.2 Terms of delegation. ( a ) Delegations shall be continuing, contingent upon available funding, providing that there is an annual finding by the Director that the provisions of the delegation and the mineral leasing laws are still being carried out and that the requirements of § 3191.1-3 (a), (b) and (c) of this title are still in effect.
( b ) Authority delegated to a State under this subpart shall not be redelegated.
( c ) The State regulatory authority shall maintain sufficient qualified, personnel to comply with the terms and purpose of the delegation.
( d ) Inspection identification cards shall be issued by the authorized officer to all certified State inspectors for the purpose of identifying the bearer as an authorized representative of the Secretary. Identification cards remain the property of the United States.
( e ) The delegation shall provide for coordination with designated offices of the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service, and, where appropriate, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Service, and other surface management agencies.
( f ) The delegation shall provide for annual program review.
( g ) The delegation shall provide for annual budget and program reporting in conjunction with the Federal Budget process.
( h ) The Director reserves the right to make inspections on Federal and Indian leases inspected by a State under this subpart for the purpose of evaluating the manner in which the delegation is being carried out.
( i ) The Director reserves the right to act independently to carry out his/her responsibilities under the law.
(No. 1049

Claimant awarded $680.63.)

#### Addie Graves, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Respondeat *superior*— State *not liable for injuries sustained by its employees.*The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty.

Social justice and *equity*— award *may be made.*The court may enter an award in favor of claimant who is injured while in the discharge of his' duty, and base its award upon the rules of the Workman's Compensation Act.

Carl Choisser, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant while in the course of employment by the defendant at the Kankakee State Hospital, on December 28, 1924, fell and injured her right arm and breaking it at the wrist.

The claimant makes demand in her statement of claim for damages to the extent of $3,000.00. In the argument of her counsel it is urged that the claimant should recover $5,000.00.

As it has been frequently announced by this court in cases of this kind, there is no legal liability. It has, however, been the practice of this court in cases of this kind to consider as a matter of equity and good conscience this class of cases under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From the evidence in this case, claimant suffered about 55% of the use of her hand, and following the rules laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act," the claimant would recover 55% of 165 weeks,’ salary at the rate of $7.50 per week, which would make a total as computed by the Attorney General, of $680.63. It is contended, however, by claimant that her arm and hand are stiff and useless as the result of such injuries. The claimant is a widow 55 years of age and it would appear that in the condition of her hand she would have a difficult task of earn*365ing a living, and it is alleged that she is dependent upon her own efforts or upon charity. However, the court is bound by precedent and must consider these cases on the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is a question in this case of the probability of a permanent disability in so far as claimant being able to follow her usual vocation. Therefore this court recommends taking into consideration all the facts in the case, that claimant be allowed the sum of $680.63.
#### Frances S. Levy, Appellant, *v.*Commercial Decal, Inc., Respondent, et al., Third Party Defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

There is nothing to suggest that plaintiff assignee assumed any of the obligations of his assignor under the contract sued upon. There is no basis, therefore, for the entry of an affirmative personal judgment against the assignee plaintiff in excess of the amount sued for, upon a counterclaim against the assignor. Moreover, there is no warrant for assessing against the plaintiff the costs recovered by third party defendants against the defendant. The third party defendants were impleaded at the instance of defendant; plaintiff asserted no claim of any kind against them. Where a defendant in an action at law brings in a third party defendant, he does not thereby convert that action into one in equity. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs to the appellant.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis .and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant. Settle order on notice.
#### A. Sanford Adler, Respondent, v. Charles S. Furst, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. So opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §1243. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–59, §3, July 29, 1971, 85 Stat. 158, which related to applications for enrollment in the band, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31012

Summary Calendar

 

O.D. VAN DUREN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLERK ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2189-C

- - - - - - - - - -

April 21, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

The motion of O.D. Van Duren, Texas prisoner #667233, to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. Because Van

Duren’s current balance in his prison account is $0.00, we assess

no initial partial filing fee. However, Van Duren henceforth

shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 
No. 96-31012

- 2 -

The agency having custody of Van Duren is directed to forward

payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district

court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the

appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. Id.

Concerning Van Duren’s contentions that various deputy

clerks of this court violated his right of access to the courts,

we have reviewed Van Duren’s brief and the record, and we find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing Van Duren’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). Van Duren’s appeal is without

arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Van Duren is

cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by

him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. 

Van Duren is further cautioned to review any pending suits and

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R.

42.2.
§ 3252.12 How deep may I drill a temperature gradient well? ( a ) You may drill a temperature gradient well to any depth that we approve in your exploration permit or sundry notice. In all cases, you may not flow test the well or perform injection tests of the well unless you follow the procedures for geothermal drilling operations in subparts 3260 through 3267.
( b ) BLM may modify your permitted depth at any time before or during drilling, if we determine that the bottom hole temperature or other information indicates that drilling to the original permitted depth could directly encounter the geothermal resource or create risks to public health, safety, property, the environment, or other resources.
### **Subchapter B—Effective Date and Related Provisions**

Sec.
7851.
Applicability of revenue laws.
7852.
Other applicable rules.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of General
Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures Inc.





|Date: March 31, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|-------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                     |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT “A”

EMAIL ADDRESSES:

• WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN:

dredfern@oakescapital.com

redfernwd2020@gmail.com

2016wdredfern@gmail.com

• ROBERT ASADULLIN:

rkaspranov@oakescapital.com

rarest@bk.ru

• ANDREY Y. STRIGIN:

admin@oakescap.com

WHATSAPP:

• WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN: +19177059197

P.O. BOXES:

• WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN:

7750 Okeechobee Blvd., #4571, West Palm Beach, FL 33411

• ANDREY Y. STRIGIN: 

170 NE 2ND Street, #294083, Boca Raton, FL 33429

LOCAL COUNSEL:

• WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN:

David Stuart Seltzer 

Seltzer Mayberg, LLC 

10750 NW 6th Court

Miami, FL 33168 

305-444-1565

Email: david@smfirm.com 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 7
Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 7
§ 3453.2-4 Bonds. ( a ) If a bond is required, it shall be furnished before a lease, preference right lease application or exploration license may be approved for transfer. If the original lease, preference right lease application or exploration license required the maintenance of a bond, the transferee shall submit either a written consent from the surety to the substitution of the transferee as principal or a new bond with the transferee as principal. Transfers of any part of the leased or licensed lands shall be described by legal subdivisions. Before any transfer of part of a lease or license is approved, the transferee shall submit: ( 1 ) A written statement from the surety that it agrees to the transfer and that it agrees to remain bound as to the interest retained by the lessee or licensee; and
( 2 ) a new bond with the tranferee as principal covering the portion transferred.
( b ) The transferor and the surety shall continue to be responsible for the performance of any obligation under the lease, preference right lease application or exploration license until the effective date of the approval of the transfer. If the transfer is not approved, the obligation to the United States shall continue as though no such transfer had been filed for approval. After the effective date of approval, the transferee, including any sublessee, applicant or licensee, and the transferee's surety shall be responsible for all lease, application or license obligations, notwithstanding any terms of the transfer to the contrary.
[47 FR 33147, July 30, 1982, as amended at 47 FR 38131, Aug. 30, 1982]
#### § 2091.9-3 Lands in Alaska under grazing lease.

The segregation and opening of lands covered by the Act of March 4, 1927 (43 U.S.C. 316, 316a-316o) are covered by part 4200 of this title.
### **Subchapter A—Civil Actions by the United States**

Sec.
7401.
Authorization.
7402.
Jurisdiction of district courts.
7403.
Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax.
7404.
Authority to bring civil action for estate taxes.
7405.
Action for recovery of erroneous refunds.
7406.
Disposition of judgments and moneys recovered.
7407.
Action to enjoin tax return preparers.
7408.
Actions to enjoin specified conduct related to tax shelters and reportable transactions.
7409.
Action to enjoin flagrant political expenditures of section 501(c)(3) organizations.
7410.
Cross references.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2007**—Pub. L. 110–28, title VIII, §8246(a)(2)(I)(ii), May 25, 2007, 121 Stat. 202, substituted "tax return preparers" for "income tax return preparers" in item 7407.

**2004**—Pub. L. 108–357, title VIII, §820(b)(2), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1585, added item 7408 and struck out former item 7408 "Action to enjoin promoters of abusive tax shelters, etc."

**1987**—Pub. L. 100–203, title X, §10713(a)(2), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–469, added item 7409 and redesignated former item 7409 as 7410.

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §321(b), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 612, added item 7408 and redesignated former item 7408 as 7409.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, §1203(i)(4), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1695, added item 7407 and redesignated former item 7407 as 7408.