alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilson *v.*Park View Sanitarium.

Atkinson, J..

1. Recitals in an affidavit to obtain an attaebment, that tbe defendant (naming him) “of the City of New York,” is indebted to plaintiff in a specified sum, “and that said defendant is a resident of and domiciled in the State of New York,” amount to sufficient averments of non-residence in this State to authorize the issuance of a writ of attachment under the Civil Code, § 4510.

*472December 14, 1910.

Attachment. Before Judge Charlton. Chatham superior court. August 29, 1909.

*W. R. Lealcen,*for plaintiff in error. *A. L.*Alexander, contra.

2. This case related to the same subject-matter that was involved in the case of *Wilson*v. *Lattimore & White,*ante, 469 (69 S. E. 740), and the original declaration and amendment thereto, and grounds of the motion to strike the amendment, were similar to those which were made in the case cited; and therefore, as decided in that ease, there was no error in overruling the motion to strike the amendment.

3. The action was by the Park View Sanitarium, a corporation, against the defendant for board', nursing, and lodging, and for use of its operating rooms furnished at the alleged instance and request and upon the credit and account of the defendant for treatment of his employee. By amendment to the answer the defendant sought to set up that the contract included the furnishing by the plaintiff of proper and skillful attention, treatment, and nursing, that the plaintiff failed to comply with such agreement, and that the treatment furnished by the physicians in charge was unskillful and injurious to the patient, and there was a failure of consideration. *Held,*that it was error to strike- so much of the amendment as set up such defense.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
January 25, 2011 

By Email

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: Spirit Airlines Application for Exemption, 

 Fort Lauderdale (FLL) – Toluca, Mexico (TLC) (DOT-OST-2011-0011) 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg, 

 We have completed the poll of the carriers served with Spirit Airlines’ application 

of January 18, 2011 for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 to institute service 

between Fort Lauderdale, Florida (FLL) and Toluca, Mexico (TLC). 

 Spirit received non-objections from each of the carrier parties served. We request 

expedited approval of Spirit’s application. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 David M. Kirstein 

cc: Docket OST 2011-0011 

 Service List 
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the 

following persons: 

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

nssparks@fedex.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com 

bkeiner@crowell.com 

hershel.kamen@coair.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

jeff.morgan@delta.com 

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com 

msinick@ssd.com 

cdonley@ssd.com 

anbird@fedex.com 

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com 

howard_kass@usairways.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

jhill@dlalaw.com 

mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com 

Barbara.russel@virginamerica.com 

Robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com 

mchopra@jamhoff.com 

russell.bailey@alpa.org 

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

john.allen@faa.gov 

urskr@state.gov 

gmeyer@broward.org 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

brian.hedberg@dot.gov 

Linda.lundell@dot.gov 

Sophy.chen@hklaw.com 

 

 

 _______________________ 

 Lyndsey Grunewald 

January 25, 2011
#### § 3601.9 Information collection.

The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in part 3600 under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance number 1004-0103. BLM is collecting the information to allow us to determine if you are qualified to purchase or have free use of mineral materials on the public lands. You must respond to obtain a benefit.
# NOx Formation/CEMs

**Avoidance Team**

**Project Leader: John**  **Hausman February** **2 8, 2008** 1

# VOC / VOB

Voice of the Agency

 Regional Haze Rule from EPA.  Known NOx emissions levels to determine major contributors to NOx formation. Key Agency Issues

 NOx emissions on Iron Range  EP A restrictions on MPCA  No continuous data to determine Critical Agency Reqs

Way to continuously monitor NOx formation in indurating process.  Install CEMs
on all 12 stacks.  Reduce Critical Business Reqs

 Product Quality  Maintenance Costs  Installation Costs Key Business Issues

 Increased maintenance costs ($/ton) spent to repair the CEMs. Availability of CEMs and effect on MPCA reporting if installed. Vo ice of the Business

 Tomaintain the availability of the CEMs would be difficult.  Increased electrical manpower to install CEMs.

2 NOx formation.  Known NOx emissions levels to impose an operating limit. to determine major contributors to NOx formation in indurating process.  Reduce overall NOx emissions on the Iron Range.  RVI < 0.20  STD (resid) / Mean (data) < 0.09 for regression. installed.  Manpower to install CEMs is limited.  Cost of CEMs ($1.65M up front costs)  Decreased (decreased product quality) gas flow to reduce NOx emissions if NOx emissions limit is required of HTC. install CEMs.  Ta ke employees from working on other project to maintain CEMs  $1.65M to install CEMs would increase operating costs by a significant amount and CEMs have no proven effectivness in dirty conditions.

# Explanation **of Agency Requirements**

 RVI < 0.20  “...will be quantified by a RVI defined by the MPCA as the ratio of the width of a 95% prediction interval to the center of the interval.”
 STD (resid) / Mean (actual data) < 0.09

3 

#  “...the residual standard deviation of the random differences between the actual measured concentration and the regression equation predicted value divided by the average NOx concentration is less than or equal to 0.09 at the midpoint of the predicted concentration.”

* Taken from the Administrative Order given to HTC from the MPCA.

# SIPOC

**Customers**

Transfer House  PLO  MPCA

Process **Outputs**

 Fired Pellets  Stack Exhaust Gasses (1,2,3,4) **Inputs**

 Green Balls  Moisture  Natural Gas  Reaction Heat  Cooling Air **Suppliers**

 Concentrator  Balling Drums

4 Balling Down Draft Drying Preheat/Prefiring Firing Drying Zone Cooling

# Initial Financial Impact

 Cost Avoidance for not Installing CEMs  $1.65 Million  Cost Avoidance for Mechanical/Electrical Reliability of CEMs  No estimate  DCS Tie

-in Cost Avoidance

5 

#  No estimate6

# Quick Win Opportunities

 Regression Quick Win was denied by MPCA for the reason of not enough data to prove NOx formation equation.  MPCA determined that we would at least need a 7 day stack test (on all stacks) with varying furnace conditions to have enough data.  Have data from 7 day stack test performed from

7 

# October 25th



# – November 3 rd 

# , 2007.  Regulations set by MPCA

» RVI < 0.20 means that no continuous data is needed

» RVI > 0.20 means that continuous data is required.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000449 18-MAY-2018 09:23 AM
### **Subchapter F—Exempt Organizations**

Part
I.
General rule.
II.
Private foundations.
III.
Taxation of business income of certain exempt organizations.
IV.
Farmers' cooperatives.
V.
Shipowners' protection and indemnity associations.
VI.
Political organizations.
VII.
Certain homeowners associations.
VIII.
Certain Savings Entities  1

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(121), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1190, substituted "Certain Savings Entities" for "Certain Savings Entities." in part VIII heading.

**2014**—Pub. L. 113–295, div. B, title I, §102(e)(5), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4062, substituted "Certain Savings Entities" for "Higher education savings entities" in part VIII heading.

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–34, title II, §211(e)(1)(B), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 812, substituted "Higher education savings entities" for "Qualified State tuition programs" in part VIII heading.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §1806(b)(2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1898, added part VIII heading.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2101(d), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1899, added part VII heading.

**1975**—Pub. L. 93–625, §10(d), Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2119, added part VI heading.

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §101(j)(58), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 532, added part II heading, and redesignated former parts II, III and IV as parts III, IV and V, respectively.

1  So in original. Probably should be "Certain savings entities."
### §693. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 733, §3, 68 Stat. 724, which related to preparation and publication of membership roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
[Cite as State ex rel. Onunwor v. Fuerst , 2012-Ohio-1205.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97682



## STATE EX REL., CLIFTON C. ONUNWOR

RELATOR

vs.


## HONORABLE NANCY A. FUERST

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion Nos. 451075 and 450248 Order No. 452962

RELEASE DATE: March 20, 2012FOR RELATOR

Clifton C. Onunwor, pro se Inmate No. 572-374 Lebanon Correctional Instit. P. O. Box 56 Lebanon, OH 45036

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8 th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.

{¶1} On December 9, 2011, the relator, Clifton Onunwor, commenced this

mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Nancy Fuerst, to compel the judge to rule

on a petition for postconviction relief which he filed on April 26, 2010, in the underlying

case, State v. Clifton Onunwor , Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court Case No.

CR-517054. On January 6, 2012, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County

Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural

defect. Onunwor never filed a reply. For the following reasons, this court grants the

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of

mandamus.

{¶2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a signed, file-stamped

January 6, 2012 judgment entry denying Onunwor’s petition for postconviction relief and

further providing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This judgment entry

establishes that the respondent judge has fulfilled her duty to rule on the subject petition

and that Onunwor has received the relief to which he is entitled.

{¶3} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his

private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to

deny the mandamus, deny indigency status and assess costs against the relator. State ex

rel. Pamer v. Collier , 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842. Hisattempt to cure this defect was ineffective. Hazel v. Knab , 120 Ohio St.2d 22,

2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378.

{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the judge’s motion for summary judgment and

denies the application for a writ of mandamus.

{¶5} Writ denied.

{¶6} This court directs the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to serve

upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R.

58(B).

{¶7} Relator to pay costs.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., AND KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
### §639. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(u), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2175

Section, acts Apr. 19, 1950, ch. 92, §9, 64 Stat. 47; Oct. 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92–603, title III, §303(c), 86 Stat. 1484; Dec. 31, 1973, Pub. L. 93–233, §19(a), 87 Stat. 974, related to additional Social Security contributions to States for State expenditures for aid to dependent children to Navajo and Hopi Indians.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
(No. 704

Claim denied.)

#### William Dawson, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1924.*

Municipal *corporation*— not *liable for negligence of employees thereof.*The State is not liable for injuries sustained by claimant caused' by the negligence of an employee of a municipal corporation, even though such corporation may be a sub-agency of the State.

A. L. Williams, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; Floyd E. Britton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by William Dawson, who operated a delivery wagon, and while driving said -wagon at Thirty-third and State streets, Chicago, was struck by a motor truck alleged to be the property and operated by the South Park Commissioners of Chicago.

The State of Illinois, appearing and filing their demurrer, "which, according to previous decisions in cases of this character filed in this court heretofore, is sustained, as the court has repeated in former opinions there is no legal liability in this class of cases. One of the chief reasons heretofore assigned, that in opening the gates for obligation in such remote subdivisions of the State on the ground of equity or social justice, would impose a burden upon the taxpayers of the State of Illinois that was not contemplated, in the opinion of this court, when the act creating the court was made a law by the legislature.

This court therefore disallows the claim.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPreparation of Ion Exchange Films for Solid-Phase Spectrophotometry and Solid-Phase FluorometryAtomic spectroscopy has dominated the field of trace inorganic analysis because of its high sensitivity and selectivity. The advantages gained by the atomic spectroscopies come with the disadvantage of expensive and often complicated instrumentation. Solid-phase spectroscopy, in which the analyte is preconcentrated on a solid medium followed by conventional spectrophotometry or fluorometry, requires less expensive instrumentation and has considerable sensitivity and selectivity. The sensitivity gains come from preconcentration and the use of chromophore (or fluorophore) developers and the selectivity is achieved by use of ion exchange conditions that favor the analyte in combination with speciative chromophores. Little work has been done to optimize the ion exchange medium (IEM) associated with these techniques. In this report we present a method for making ion exchange polymer films, which considerably simplify the solid-phase spectroscopic techniques. The polymer consists of formaldehyde-crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol with polyacrylic acid entrapped therein. The films are a carboxylate weak cation exchanger in the calcium form. They are mechanically sturdy and optically transparent in the ultraviolet and visible portion of the spectrum, which makes them suitable for spectrophotometry and fluorometry.Document ID20000037755Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHill, Carol M.*(Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Topeka, KS United States)*Street, Kenneth W.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Tanner, Stephen P.*(University of West Florida Pensacola, FL United States)*Philipp, Warren H.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 2000Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-209291E-11763NAS 1.15:209291Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 910-30-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000037755.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

                  The undersigned executive officer of PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

                                      /s/ Mel E. Green
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Name: Mel E. Green
                                      Title: President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer

Date: March 29, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PFS Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by PFS Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDeformation analysis of rotary combustion engine housingsThis analysis of the deformation of rotary combustion engine housings targeted the following objectives: (1) the development and verification of a finite element model of the trochoid housing, (2) the prediction of the stress and deformation fields present within the trochoid housing during operating conditions, and (3) the development of a specialized preprocessor which would shorten the time necessary for mesh generation of a trochoid housing's FEM model from roughly one month to approximately two man hours. Executable finite element models were developed for both the Mazda and the Outboard Marine Corporation trochoid housings. It was also demonstrated that a preprocessor which would hasten the generation of finite element models of a rotary engine was possible to develop. The above objectives are treated in detail in the attached appendices. The first deals with finite element modeling of a Wankel engine center housing, and the second with the development of a preprocessor that generates finite element models of rotary combustion engine center housings. A computer program, designed to generate finite element models of user defined rotary combustion engine center housing geometries, is also included.Document ID19910017844Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsVilmann, Carl*(Michigan Technological Univ. Houghton, MI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188187NAS 1.26:188187Accession Number91N27158Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-456Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910017844.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 3834.13 Will BLM prorate annual maintenance or oil shale fees?

BLM will not prorate annual maintenance or oil shale fees if you hold a mining claim or site for only part of a year. You must pay the full annual fee even if you hold the claim or site for just one day in an assessment year.
#### Bertha Michael, Respondent, v. Albert Brothers et al., Defendants. Mabel Albert, Appellant.

Orders affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. (The order entered February 15, 1947, amends a judgment *mine pro tuna*and dismisses the motion; the order entered April 18, 1947, resettles the previous order.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 22, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 22, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0090. EDWARD MONARCHIK, JR. v. COLLEEN MONARCHIK.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV319238
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter H. Koch, Appellant.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.