alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1342. Limitation on voluntary services

An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. This section does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government. As used in this section, the term "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property" does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 923; Pub. L. 101–508, title XIII, §13213(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–621; Pub. L. 104–92, title III, §310(a), Jan. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 20.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1342 | 31:665(b). | R.S. §3679(b), (d)(2)(last sentence related to voluntary services); Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1484, §4(1st par.), 33 Stat. 1257; Feb. 27, 1906, ch. 510, §3, 34 Stat. 48; restated Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, §1211, 64 Stat. 765. |
| | 31:665(d)(2)(last sentence related to voluntary services). | |

The words "District of Columbia government" are added because of section 47–105 of the D.C. Code.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–92 temporarily amended section by inserting "All officers and employees of the United States Government or the District of Columbia government shall be deemed to be performing services relating to emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." after first sentence and by striking out at end "As used in this section, the term 'emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property' does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property". See Effective and Termination Dates of 1996 Amendment note below.

1990—Pub. L. 101–508 inserted at end "As used in this section, the term 'emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property' does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–92, title III, §310(a), Jan. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 20, provided that the amendment made by that section is for the period Dec. 15, 1995, through Jan. 26, 1996.
#### § 145.23 Time limits.

A mail entry made before December 18, 2004 may be amended under section 520(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(c)), only if the addressee requests such amendment within the time limits prescribed therein (see §§ 173.4 and 173.5 of this chapter), and the claim is allowable under section 520(c). Requests for adjustment in the amount of duty assessed under mail entries made under § 145.22(a) must be made in such time that the request can be acted upon by the port director within 90 days after receipt of the mail article and payment of the duties by the addressee. For a mail entry made before December 18, 2004, protests under § 145.22(c) of this chapter must be filed no later than 90 days after payment of the duties by the addressee, but may be acted upon by CBP after expiration of that 90-day period. For a mail entry made on or after December 18, 2004, protests under § 145.22(c) of this chapter must be filed no later than 180 days after payment of the duties by the addressee, but may be acted upon by CBP after expiration of that 180-day period.

[T.D. 73-135, 38 FR 13369, May 21, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-102, 43 FR 14454, Apr. 6, 1978; CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2576, Jan. 14, 2011]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24194]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Mississippi River Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 1 p.m., November 22, 2004.

PLACE: Mississippi River Commission Headquarters Building, 1400 Walnut 
Street, Vicksburg, MS.

STATUS: Open to the public for observation, but not for participation.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider the Upper 
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility 
Study, Final Integrated Feasibility Report, and Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Gambrell, telephone (601) 
634-5766.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-24194 Filed 10-26-04; 11:49 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-GX-M
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 03-144 November 6, 2003

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

TO HOLD NOVEMBER MEETING IN LAS VEGAS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will

hold a meeting November 19 - 20 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The agenda includes meeting with

Department of Energy, State and local officials, as well as other interested parties, to discuss various

aspects of the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The meeting is open to the public, and will be held in Dallas Ballroom B of the Texas Station

Hotel, 2101 Texas Star Lane, Las Vegas. The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. on November 19, and

at 8:30 a.m. on November 20.

A complete agenda will be available on the NRC web site at this address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2003/ . For additional information or

schedule changes, please contact Howard Larson at 301/415-6805.

###
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent-Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel Plaza from Van Brunt to Hicks Street, for Streets Adjacent Thereto and for Additional Lands, Proposed to Be Acquired in Connection Therewith, in the Borough of Brooklyn. William Rich, Appellant-Respondent.

Appeal by claimant and cross appeal by the City of New York from so much of a final decree in a condemnation proceeding as affects certain damage parcels. Decree, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See *post,*p. 867.]
J-A13008-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE 

FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE 

SECURITIES CORP., HOME EQUITY 

ASSET TRUST 2006-1, HOME EQUITY 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, 

SERIES 2006-1

v.

JILL MCAFEE A/K/A JILL MCAFEE 

AND JOHN MCAFEE 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1102 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at 

No(s): G.D. No. 16-006717

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY OLSON, J.: FILED: August 2, 2018

I agree with the learned Majority that summary judgment in favor of 

National Bank Association (“U.S. Bank”) is not proper in this quiet title action. 

U.S. Bank asserts in its brief that “[t]hrough an inadvertent error or mutual 

mistake of the parties, not discovered until recently, record owner John 

McAfee did not sign the Mortgage.” (Emphasis added.) Appellee’s Brief at 2. 

In reviewing the record before us, I would conclude that there is no genuine 

issue of material fact regarding whether there was a mutual mistake that 

would support reformation of the mortgage. I also note that there is no 
J-A13008-18

- 2 -

evidence of record that would support a finding that a unilateral mistake or 

“inadvertent error” occurred. 

Unilateral mistakes may serve as the basis for reformation. Regions 

Mortgage, Inc. v. Muthler, 889 A.2d 39, 41 (Pa. 2005), citing Dudash v. 

Dudash, 460 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 1983). As noted by our Supreme Court, 

a party seeking reformation on the basis of a unilateral mistake 

may be granted relief if the party against whom reformation is 

sought has such knowledge of the mistake as to justify an 

inference of fraud or bad faith.

Regions Mortgage, 889 A.2d at 41 (internal citation omitted). Thus, in 

order for reformation to be available due to a unilateral mistake, U.S. Bank 

must show that Appellants had “such knowledge of the mistake as to justify 

an inference of fraud or bad faith.” Id. Such evidence is not currently in the 

record.

As the Regions Mortgage Court held,

the equitable remedy of reformation is unavailable unless bad 

faith, accident, or mutual mistake can be shown, and in the case 

of unilateral mistake, the party against whom reformation is 

sought must be shown to have knowledge of the mistake sufficient 

to justify an inference of fraud or bad faith.

Id. at 42. In my view, the record before us fails to support a finding of either 

mutual mistake or inadvertent mistake. Thus, I concur with my learned 
J-A13008-18

- 3 -

colleagues that summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank is not appropriate in 

this case. 1

____________________________________________

1

In reviewing the facts and law presented in this case, I would conclude that 

summary judgment in favor of the Appellants is warranted. However, the 

Appellants did not file a cross motion for summary judgment. Thus, we are 

precluded at this stage from entering summary judgment in favor of the 

Appellants.
# . . 0 ia * “

.., .*

**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN



### gononblr F. 8. Oaodlo county 

### At*mby rrallltlin

county 

### Mt.Vernon,Tour Dear **SirI**

ad under thr dll o ourt,is a to theoourt **ro** 

### hi8 offlolal fee8 8am time llablr 

### the **rubstltute re**  pfnion or thirDepartub8titute 8tenographor 18 U8Od under e Court, **18** a COOnty liablr t0 the for hi8 otfloial iSo8, and at 

### tho 0 for fero **to** the rubetitutr 

### Reporter? of explanation ror the above question, er hr0mfai0n. 

### The judldal DirtriOt18 oompored of more than one County. Tou unbrrtand that the fee ir didad tor monthly paynmt8 in pro rata ror oaoh oounty. The ofilolal Court Reporter ha8 been unable to attend the lart ternuof the Di8triotHonorable F. 8. Caudle, Page Z

Court, and a rubatltute Raporter used. Both Sfle alai08 for the time. Thecounty objeota to paying both olalms." Art1010 Z3.23,

Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, reads a8 follows:

*In oa8e OS Illnerr, **pre88** of offlolal **mrk,** or rrnavOI4able

**ai8Sbiiity** or the orrI0Ial 8hortA hand reporter **to** psriom~ bI8 dutlea In reporting prooea4lnga la **court,** the **judge of**  

### the oourt**may,** In 

### hlralroretlon, authorlze a deputy 

### 8hOrtbaDd reporter to **aot** during the **absenoe** of raid oificlal shorthand reporterand 8afa deputy 8bOrthaM reporter rball raoelve,Uurlng the tIae belot8 tar 8Sia offlolal shorthand reportar, the salaryand fee8 a8 the oftIola1 rhorthand reporter of 

### raidoourt, to be paid In themanner provided for the oitlolal rhorthant?rbporter; but the raid ofiIoIal 

### rhorthand reporter shall also 

### reetdre hi8 relary 

### in full during raid temporary 4IrabllIty to aOt. The **oeoesalty** for a deputy OffIoIal rhorthand reporter shall be left entirelywithin 

### the41eoretIon of 

### the Judge of the **oourt**

**. .**  Under the abort quote4 8tatute, the neoessfty for a deputy 0rrf0m 8borthand reporter I8 hit eutlraly rt?tbln the UI8oretIon oi the

### judge o? the **oourt.** :?hen a deputy oourt reporter 18 appointed by the oourt **8aid** depaty reporter 8hall reoelre during the time ha aotr ror 8ald ofilolal **shorthand** reporter thm 8emeralary en4 fee8 a8 the OfrlOIti 8horthan4 reporter of the ooart to ba pal4 In the manner provided **for** the orri0i0i rhorthand reporter. Al80 the orrf0fai rhorthand reporter rhallreoelre hi8 rralaryIn ruii during hi8 temporam alaablllty to aot.



### Tharerore, you are raa?sotfully adrlaed that it Is the OpInIon Oi thI8Dewrtmnt that your question 

### 8bOdd be **answered** 

### in the afrlznatIre end Is 80 anlrwerad. The salary of the doguty rhorthand reporter **must** be paid in the manner pmrlded for the ottlola 8hbrthan4 reporter. Both tha OHIolal shorthand reporter and the deputy shorthand 

### reporterare entitled to the oompennatlon provided by law.

## 371

Honorable F. 8. Caudle, Page 3

Trusting that the foregoing tally enmera your Inquiry, we remain Your8 very truly ATTCRlV3YOFNERAL OF TEXAS

By -u& Ardell WIllla~~



### A88f 8tCat AiT:BBB



### Gl’4d

ATTORNEYGEl?E3AL

OFTEXAS
Exhibit 32.1
 AMSURG CORP.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Christopher A. Holden

Christopher A. HoldenPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the CompanyMay 8, 2009/s/ Claire M. Gulmi

Claire M. GulmiExecutive Vice Presidentand Chief FinancialOfficer of the CompanyMay 8, 2009
#### NATIONAL CASING CO., Appellant, v. SCHMECHEL, Respondent.

(182 N. W. 526.)

(File No. 4801.

Opinion filed April 2, 1921.)

Appeals — Order Excusiing' Default Before Judgment Granting Leave to Defendant, Whether Appealable.

An appeal from an order of county court excusing default before judgment and granting leave to answer and defend in an action, is not appealable, (following Paper Supply Co. v. ¡McDonald, 44 S. D. 100, 182 N. W. 526) hence, without motion to dismiss appeal, Supreme Court will take notice of a jurisdictional question, and appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

McCoy, J., not sitting.

Appeal from County Court, Spink County. . Hon. E. W. Coolidge, Judge.

Action by the National Casing Company, a corporation, against Julius Schmechel. From an order excusing defendant’s default before judgment, and granting leave to answer and defend in the suit, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*M. B. Culhane, B. H. Shaphorst*and *B. B. Austin,*for Appellant.

*102No appearance on behalf of respondent.

SMITH, J.

Appeal from an order of the county court of ■Spink county, excusing default before judgment, and granting leave to answer and defend in an action pending in said court. For the reasons stated in Paper Supply Co. v. MacDonald, 182 N. W. 526, the order sought to be reviewed is not appealable. In that case there was a m/otion to dismiss the appeal, while in the present case no such motion was made. The court, however, is required to take notice of jurisdictional questions, whether presented by the parties or not. Winner Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 181 N. W. 195; Odell v. Coquolette et al., 103 Iowa, 435, 72 N. W. 670.

As this court is without jurisdiction, the appeal will be dismissed.

McCOY, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Contract Review 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of an 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Technical Review 
Committee (TRC) meeting. This TRC's charge is to review contract 
proposals and provide recommendations to the Director, AHRQ, with 
respect to the technical merit of proposals submitted in response to a 
Request for Proposals (RFP) regarding ``Technical, Analytical and 
Logistical Support for the Office of Extramural Research, Education and 
Priority Populations''. The RFP was published in the Federal Business 
Opportunities on June 16, 2004.
    The upcoming TRC meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), section 10(d) of 5 
U.S.C., Appendix 2, FACA regulations 41 CFR 101-6.1023 and procurement 
regulations, 48 CFR 315.604(d). The discussions at this meeting of 
contract proposals submitted in response to the above-referenced RFP 
are likely to reveal proprietary information and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. Such information 
is exempt from disclosure under the above-cited FACA provision and 
procurement rules that protect the free exchange of candid views and 
facilitate Department and Committee operations.

    Name of TRC: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality--
``Technical, Analytical and Logistical Support for the Office of 
Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations''.
    Date: November 8, 2004 (Closed to the public).
    Place: Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, 540 Gaither 
Road, Conference Center, Rockville, Maryland, 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain information regarding 
this meeting should contact Bonnie Campbell, Office of Extramural 
Research, Education and Priority Populations, Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
301-427-1554.

    Dated: October 15, 2004.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 04-24091 Filed 10-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
1

09-0232-cv

Falso v. Sutherland Global Servs.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 29 day of April, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 Chief Judge,

8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,

9 ROBERT D. SACK,

10 Circuit Judges.

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

13 Anthony Falso, 

14 Plaintiff-Appellant,

15

16 -v.- 09-0232-cv

17

18 Sutherland Global Services, Kristine

19 Barlett, Maria Smith, Angela Sorrell, 

20 Defendants-Appellees,

21

22 Sheila Andelson, Rebecca Klimek,

23 Valerie Moschiano, James Nichols,

24 Pamela Sheets,

25 Defendants.

26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

27
2

1 FOR APPELLANT: Anthony Falso, pro se, Rochester,

2 NY.

3

4 FOR APPELLEE: Linda Prestegaard, Phillips Lytle

5 LLP, Rochester, NY.

6

7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

8 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.).

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

11 AFFIRMED.

12 Anthony Falso, pro se, appeals from a January 13, 2009

13 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western

14 District of New York (Larimer, J.). Falso claims, inter

15 alia, employment discrimination and a hostile work

16 environment violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act

17 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In the order relevant to

18 this appeal, the district court dismissed Falso’s claims,

19 directing summary judgment for the defendants. We otherwise

20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,

21 the case’s procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

22 The grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. 

23 E.g. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300

24 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate where,

25 drawing “all factual inferences . . . in favor of the

26 non-moving party[,] . . . there are no genuine issues of

27 material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to

28 judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). On

29 review, we find no error, and affirm for substantially the

30 reasons stated by the district court in its summary judgment

31 order. 

32 We have considered Falso’s remaining arguments and find

33 them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is

34 accordingly AFFIRMED.

35

36 FOR THE COURT:

37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

38
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community First  Bancorporation,  hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-KSB  for the year ended
December 31, 2004,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
the report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the issuer.

March 30, 2005

                             s/Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer