alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Smith *v.*Smith.

January 11, 1911.

Exceptions to 'auditor’s report. Before Judge Park. Decatur superior court.. November *25,*1909.

*J. P. Pelham*and *L. W. Nelson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Perry D. Rich,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. A petition by one partner against his copartner, praying for a dissolution of the partnership, an accounting, and an injunction, is an equitable proceeding *(Fowler*v. *Davis,*120 *Ga.*442 (47 S. E. 951)), and the judge may refer all or any part of the facts to an auditor to investigate and report the result to the court.

2. “If the auditor failed to report with' sufficient fullness on any issue, a motion for a rereference, not an exception to the report, was the proper remedy.” *Fricker*v. *Americus Improvement Co.,*124 *Ga.*165 (7), 172 (52 S. E. 65). Civil Code, § 4593.

3. The motion to *recommit an*auditor’s report must *be*filed within twenty days after the report is filed, and written notice thereof given by the auditor to the parties. *Littleton*v. *Patton,*112 *Ga.*438 (37 S. E. 755).

4. An application for mandamus to the auditor, to compel certification of exceptions relating to matters not appearing on the face of the record, comes too late when made after the lapse of thirty days from the filing of the exceptions. Civil Code, § 4591.

5. It is within the discretion of the court, in an equitable action, to apportion the auditor’s fee against the parties.

6. The decree was in accordance with the report of the auditor.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*
### §6101. Period covered by returns or other documents

When not otherwise provided for by this title, the Secretary may by regulations prescribe the period for which, or the date as of which, any return, statement, or other document required by this title or by regulations, shall be made.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 753; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
#### § 3742.3-6 Service of copies; failure to comply.

If any applicant, offeror, permittee or lessee requesting publication of notice under these regulations shall fail to comply with the requirements of section 7(a) of the Act as to personal delivery or mailing of a copy of the published notice to any person, the publication of such notice shall be deemed wholly ineffectual as to that person or as to the rights asserted by that person and the failure of that person to file a verified statement, as provided in such notice shall in no manner affect, diminish, prejudice or bar any rights of that person.
#### Gust Anderson, Respondent, v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Forty-six Other Actions against Same Defendants-Appellants.

Present-—• Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.
#### Pete DILL, also known as Darryl Tucker, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Robert Tapia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-30817.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Pete Dill, U.S. Penitentiary Pollock, Pollock, LA, for pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pete Dill, federal prisoner # 50934-066, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction and sentence for bank robbery for lack of jurisdiction. Dill argues that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is inadequate to raise his jurisdictional challenge.

Dill’s jurisdictional argument, however, challenges his conviction and is therefore the type of claim reserved for § 2255 proceedings. *See Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000). Dill has not shown that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). He therefore cannot proceed under § 2241, and the district court, which was not Dill’s sentencing court, did not err in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-21843

GINETTE LUXAMA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a

municipality governed under

the laws of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

____________________________/

MEDIATOR’S REPORT

Comes now the undersigned JAMS mediator/neutral who reports to the Court that the parties 

mediated the above-captioned case. The mediator/neutral reports that: 

 x . The parties entered into an agreement and settled the matter. 

____ The parties were unable to reach an agreement and the case is at an impasse.

____ Other: _______________________________________________________.

/s/ Richard Suarez __

Richard Suarez

JAMS Mediator/Neutral

Tuesday, February 9th, 2021

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record, Clerk of Court, Presiding Judge

Case 1:20-cv-21843-MGC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/11/2021 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3502.20 Will BLM issue a lease to me if I am not complying with the diligence requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act?

BLM will not issue you a lease or renew your lease, or approve a transfer of any lease or interest in a lease for you unless you are complying with section 2(a)(2)(A) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 201(2)(A)) for any of your existing leases that are subject to that provision. For Federal coal leases, BLM will determine compliance under § 3472.1-2(e) of this title. If BLM issues you a lease when you are in violation of section 2(a)2(A), BLM must void your lease under § 3514.30(b).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF BARRY SOMERVAIL


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M45 Mining
Resources, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.





Date:
              February,
      25, 2010





/s/ Barry SomervailBarry
      SomervailChief
      Executive Officer
#### § 3481.4-3 Does a temporary interruption in coal severance affect the diligence requirements applicable to my lease or LMU?

No, a temporary interruption in coal severance covered by §§ 3481.4-1 to 3481.4-4 does not change the diligence requirements of subpart 3483 applicable to your lease or LMU.

[62 FR 44370, Aug. 20, 1997]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAssessment of Uncertainty in the Determination of Kinetic Reaction Parameters for Polymeric MaterialsThe use of thermogravimetric analysis to obtain data describing the thermal response of a polymeric resin with temperature. This data can then be used to obtain activation energy and pre-exponential factor used in an Arrhenius representation of material ablation. The methods which allow to assess the uncertainties associated with the experimental determination of activation energy and pre-exponential factor are employed.Document ID19970001896Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDarby, Stephanie P.*(Alabama Univ. Huntsville, AL United States)*Landrum, D. Brian*(Alabama Univ. Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 10, 1996Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-111788NAS 1.15:11178Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: San Diego, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 10, 1995End Date: July 12, 1995Sponsors:American Society for Engineering Education,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Accession Number97N11644Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001896.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
§ 4.326 What happens to the record after disposition? ( a ) After the Board makes a decision other than a remand, it must forward to the designated LTRO: ( 1 ) The record filed with the Board under § 4.324(d) or (f); and
( 2 ) All documents added during the appeal proceedings, including any transcripts and the Board's decision.
( b ) The LTRO must conform the duplicate record retained under § 4.324(b) to the original sent under paragraph (a) of this section and forward the duplicate record to the agency concerned.
[73 FR 67288, Nov. 13, 2008]
§ 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans. Allotment management plans or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans may be developed by permittees or lessees, other Federal or State resource management agencies, interested citizens, and the Bureau of Land Management. When such plans affecting the administration of grazing allotments are developed, the following provisions apply: ( a ) An allotment management plan or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans shall be prepared in careful and considered consultation, cooperation, and coordination with affected permittees or lessees, landowners involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by such a plan, and the interested public. The plan shall become effective upon approval by the authorized officer. The plans shall— ( 1 ) Include terms and conditions under §§ 4130.3, 4130.3-1, 4130.3-2 4130.3-3, and subpart 4180 of this part;
( 2 ) Prescribe the livestock grazing practices necessary to meet specific resource objectives;
( 3 ) Specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted on the basis of the operator's demonstrated stewardship, within which the permittee(s) or lessee(s) may adjust operations without prior approval of the authorized officer; and
( 4 ) Provide for monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in achieving the specific resource objectives of the plan.
( b ) Private and State lands may be included in allotment management plans or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans dealing with rangeland management with the consent or at the request of the parties who own or control those lands.
( c ) The authorized officer shall provide opportunity for public participation in the planning and environmental analysis of proposed plans affecting the administration of grazing and shall give public notice concerning the availability of environmental documents prepared as a part of the development of such plans, prior to implementing the plans. The decision document following the environmental analysis will be issued in accordance with § 4160.1.
( d ) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management plans or other applicable activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans shall be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease for the allotment.
( e ) Allotment management plans or other applicable activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the authorized officer after consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittees or lessees, landowners involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by the plan, and the interested public.
[60 FR 9964, Feb. 22, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 4227, Feb. 5, 1996; 71 FR 39505, July 12, 2006]
Exhibit 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bioethics, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark J. Cowan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted
pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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 result of operations of
the Company.


  /s/ Mark Cowan
  Mark J. Cowan
  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  August 8, 2003
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSimplified Analytical Model of a Six-Degree-of-Freedom Large-Gap Magnetic Suspension SystemA simplified analytical model of a six-degree-of-freedom large-gap magnetic suspension system is presented. The suspended element is a cylindrical permanent magnet that is magnetized in a direction which is perpendicular to its axis of symmetry. The actuators are air core electromagnets mounted in a planar array. The analytical model consists of an open-loop representation of the magnetic suspension system with electromagnet currents as inputs.Document ID19970025166Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGroom, Nelson J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1997Subject CategoryEngineering (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA-TM-112868NAS 1.15:112868Accession Number97N24789Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 522-24-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970025166.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
§ 4.1204 Determination by administrative law judge. Upon a finding of a violation of section 703 of the act or 30 CFR 865.11, the administrative law judge shall order the appropriate affirmative relief, including but not limited to— ( a ) The rehiring or reinstatement of the applicant to his former position with full rights and privileges, full backpay, and any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination; and
( b ) All other relief which the administrative law judge deems appropriate to abate the violation or to prevent recurrence of discrimination.
[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 61510, Oct. 1, 2002]
§ 47.45 How does the exchange process work? ( a ) The Secretary recommends the parties prepare a land exchange proposal in accordance with § 47.50. The Secretary also recommends the Chairman and the non-Chairman party in the exchange meet with the Secretary before finalizing a land exchange proposal and signing an agreement to initiate the land exchange to informally discuss: ( 1 ) The review and processing procedures for Hawaiian home lands exchanges;
( 2 ) Potential issues involved that may require more consideration; or
( 3 ) Any other matter that may make the proposal more complete before submission.
( b ) Whether or not a land exchange proposal is completed, the Chairman initiates the exchange by preparing the documentation, conducting appropriate studies, and submitting them to the Secretary in accordance with § 47.60.
( c ) Upon completing the review of the final land exchange packet under § 47.60, the Secretary will issue a Notice of Decision announcing the approval or disapproval of the exchange.
( d ) If the Secretary approves an exchange, title will transfer in accordance with State law.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE01756

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### § 418.30 Provisions required in future contracts.

The Bureau must provide in new, amended, or replacement contracts for the operation and maintenance of Project works, for the reservation by the Secretary of rights and options to enforce this part.
#### Davis, administrator, *v.*Davis.

Atkinson, J.

1. Where a conveyance of land.was made from a father to his son on consideration of $10 and love for the son, and further that the son should support and maintain the father • for and during his natural life, and the support and maintenance were made a charge upon the land, the conveyance would not be defeated by mere failure of the son to support the father. *Jones*v. Williams, 132 *Ga.*782 (64 S. E. 1081) ; *Thompson v. Lanfair,*127 *Ga.*557 (56 S. E. 770).

*(а)*If there were a failure to support the father, ordinarily an action would' lie for the value of the support. *Kytle*v. *Kytle,*128 *Ga.*387 (57 S. E. 748) ; *Lindsey*v. *Lindsey,*62 *Ga.*546. Or, if the special facts authorized it, an equitable action for rescission might lie. *McCardle*v. *Kennedy,*92 *Ga.*198 (17 S. E. 1001, 44 Am. St. R. 85). But where the support was made a charge upon the land conveyed, the mere fact that the son was a non-resident of the State would not constitute ground for cancellation in equity.

(б) In view of the foregoing, it was not erroneous on demurrer to strike so much of the petition as alleged failure of the defendant to support his father.

*117September 21, 1910.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Lewis. Greene superior court. January 5, 1909.

*Brown & Shipp,*for plaintiff. *Park & Park,*for defendant.

2. Other allegations as to contribution by other children to the support of defendant’s father, and as to reimbursing him for such amount as he had expended for the support of his father, were irrelevant to the ease as pleaded, and there was no error in striking them on demurrer. '

3. It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to postpone the- hearing of the case, or to refuse to continue it for the term, in order that a stenographer might be procured to report it.

4. There was no error in any of the rulings of the judge on the admissibility of evidence, or in the charge to the jury, or in refusals .to charge, or on matters of practice pending the trial.

5. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 4600.0-2 Objectives.

When it is determined by the authorized officer that any State, county, or privately owned lands located within grazing districts are chiefly valuable for grazing, and are necessary to promote the orderly use, improvement, and development of grazing districts, steps should be taken to secure offers of leases of such lands from the owners thereof.
#### § 4.1393 Status of decision pending administrative review.

43 CFR 4.21(a) applies to determinations of the Office of Surface Mining under 30 U.S.C. 1272(e).
#### § 423.10 What areas are open to public use?

All Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies are open to lawful use by the public unless they are closed to public use under this subpart B of this part 423, or as provided by 43 CFR part 420, Off-Road Vehicle Use.
§ 3925.10 Award of lease. ( a ) The lease will be awarded to the highest qualified bidder whose bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of FMV, except as provided in § 3924.10. The BLM will provide the successful bidder 3 copies of the oil shale lease form for execution.
( b ) Within 60 calendar days after receipt of the lease forms, the successful bidder must sign all copies and return them to the proper BLM office. The successful bidder must also submit the necessary lease bond (see subpart 3904 of this chapter), the first year's rental, any unpaid cost recovery fees, including costs associated with the NEPA analysis, and the bidder's proportionate share of the cost of publication of the sale notice. The BLM may, upon written request, grant an extension of time to submit the items under this paragraph.
( c ) If the successful bidder does not comply with this section, the BLM will not issue the lease and the bidder forfeits the one-fifth bonus payment submitted with the bid.
( d ) If the lease cannot be awarded for reasons determined by the BLM to be beyond the control of the successful bidder, the BLM will refund the deposit submitted with the bid.
( e ) If the successful bidder was not an applicant under § 3922.20, the successful bidder must submit an application and the BLM may require additional NEPA analysis of the successful bidder's proposed operations.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge RABADAN-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51028.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Rabadan-Estrada raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.