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

June, 1897.

#### Perkins *v.*Roberge.

To what extent evidence upon collateral issues should be admitted to dis-' parage the credibility of a witness, and how far a cross-examination may be carried for a like purpose, are questions of fact to be determined at the trial term.

Assumpsit, to recover a balance claimed by the plaintiff to be due on a written contract. Trial by the court. Verdict for the plaintiff

*Edgerly M.athews,*for the plaintiff

*172
      *W. S. D. JR. Pierce,*for the defendant.

"Wallace, J.

The plaintiff agreed in- writing with the defendant to build a baker’s oven and furnace in a workmanlike manner, in accordance with a plan and specifications furnished by the defendant. The oven was built by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract. It did not work in a satisfactory manner on account of the fault of the plans. The failure of the oven to work in a satisfactory manner being attributable to the defects in the plans furnished by the defendant, and not to the failure of the plaintiff to perform his contract, he is entitled to recover the contract price for the performance of his undertaking.

The defendant on cross-examination, and subject to his exception, testified that he had put his real estate out of his hands before he went into the bakery business and about two months before the contract was made, and also that he had conveyed certain personal property to his wife since the making of the contract. Upon rebuttal, the plaintiff, subject to the defendant’s exception, introduced a copy of the defendant’s deed conveying away his real estate for the purpose of showing the date. The object of introducing the deed was to show that the defendant, being mistaken or untruthful as to its date, would be more likely to be unreliable in other particulars. This was contradicting him on a collateral issue. To what extent this should be carried for the purpose of disparaging the credibility of a witness, or how far the cross-examination of a witness should be allowed to go for a like purpose, are questions of fact to be determined at the trial term. *Gutterson*v. *Morse,*58 N. H. 165; *Amoskeag Co.*v. *Head,*59 N. H.*332; Merrill*v. *Perkins,*59 N. H. 343; *Perkins*v. *Towle,*59 N. H. 583.

The plaintiff’s counsel, after inquiring particularly as to the condition of the oven at a certain time and after counsel for the defence had protested that his inquiry upon this point had been clearly answered, remarked, “ This is a pretty serious matter when a man testifies to what is not true in a matter of as great importance as this, and I don’t want him or his counsel either to-say that he did not understand the question,” to which the defendant’s counsel excepted. The remark of the plaintiff’s counsel, although reprehensible, affords no ground for setting aside the verdict.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Pike, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### § 302.19 Indemnification.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, a Recipient shall indemnify and hold EDA harmless from any liability that EDA may incur due to the actions or omissions of the Recipient.
#### Harold W. Ungerleider, Judgment-Creditor-Respondent, v. Robert F. Butler, Judgment-Debtor-Appellant, and William A. Butler, Third-Party Appellant.

On the facts disclosed there should be no summary turnover. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1598 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1598

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 16, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     participate in projects within the San Diego Creek Watershed, 
                  California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater 
Improvement Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1635 the following:

``SEC. 1636. IRVINE BASIN GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT 
              PROJECTS.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Irvine 
Ranch Water District, California, is authorized to participate in the 
design, planning, and construction of projects to naturally treat 
impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and 
provide brine disposal within the San Diego Creek Watershed.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the projects 
authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation or maintenance of a project authorized by this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1635 the 
following:

``1636. Irvine basin groundwater and surface water improvement 
                            projects.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-47 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, March 4, 1996)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson will hold her first annual

news conference from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p. m. Friday (March 8)

in the Commissioners' Conference Room at the One White Flint

North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, near the White Flint

station on the Washington Metro Red Line.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-016 April 6, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE AT VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff are scheduled to meet with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company officials April 12 to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the

Vogtle nuclear power plant, located near Waynesboro, Ga. The period covered is the calendar year

2004.

The 1:00 p.m. meeting at the Burke County Courthouse in Waynesboro is open to public

observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on the

plant’s safety performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Vogtle plant and all of the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This meeting

gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials and with residents

near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any questions

people may have about our oversight.”

Overall, the Vogtle plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded inspection

findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green”

and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues

involved. The Vogtle plant had nothing classified beyond “green” during 2004. Based on these results

and overall performance, Vogtle will receive the baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2005. 

The NRC also plans a non-routine inspection of pressurizer penetration nozzles at the plant.

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/vog_2004q4.pdf .

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

inspection specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville,

Md. 

Current information for the Vogtle plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG1/vog1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG2/vog2_chart.html .

###
### §1421. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–532, title I, §112, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1060; Pub. L. 94–326, §2, June 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 96–470, title II, §209(f), Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2245; Pub. L. 102–580, title V, §510, Oct. 31, 1992, 106 Stat. 4870, which required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to report annually to Congress on the administration of this subchapter, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 163 of House Document No. 103–7.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHAD W. LEONHART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 346 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

# FILED JUN 2 7 2016

CLE RI 

### TLA 1 it 7 

### '4 9) E K. LINDEMAN SLIPIREME.001

Hardesty ,J.
, J.

Pickering IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA CODY LEAVITT, No. 70509

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jennifer P. Togliatti, Judge.

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the district court entered its order denying appellant's petition on March 30, 2016. The district court served notice of entry of that order on appellant on April 4, 2016. Appellant did not file the notice of appeal, however, until May 18, 2016, nine days after the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period prescribed by NRS 34.575. "[A]n untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court." 

### Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

'In light of this order, we deny as moot the pro se motions filed on June 14, 2016.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

# - 2 

# a1 5 

# -1 01 1947 A 

### ecc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Cody Leavitt Attorney GenerallCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

### e 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1529 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 56
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1529

                          [Report No. 108-110]

    To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the 
                dismissal of certain involuntary cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2003

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 19, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the 
                dismissal of certain involuntary cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement 
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 303 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(l)(1) If--
            ``(A) the petition under this section is false or contains 
        any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement;
            ``(B) the debtor is an individual; and
            ``(C) the court dismisses such petition;
the court, upon motion of the debtor, shall expunge from the records of 
the court such petition, all the records relating to such petition in 
particular, and all references to such petition.
    ``(2) If the debtor is an individual and the court dismisses a 
petition under this section, the court may enter an order prohibiting 
all consumer reporting agencies (as defined in section 603 of the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act) from making any consumer report (as defined in 
section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) that contains any 
information relating to such petition or to the case commenced by the 
filing of such petition.''.

                                                  Union Calendar No. 56

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1529

                          [Report No. 108-110]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the 
                dismissal of certain involuntary cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 19, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 64081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of 
Authority

    Part N, National Institutes of Health, of the Statement of 
Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the 
Department of Health and Human Services (40 FR 22859, May 27, 1975, as 
amended most recently at 68 FR 10743, March 6, 2003, and redesignated 
from Part HN as Part N at 60 FR 56605, November 9, 1995), is amended as 
set forth below to reflect the elevation of the NIH Ethics Office from 
the Office of Management, Office of the Director, NIH, to the Office of 
the Director, NIH.
    Section N-B, Organization and Functions, under the heading Office 
of the Director (NA, formerly HNA) is amended as follows:
    Under the heading Office of the Director (NA, formerly HNA), insert 
the following:
    NIH Ethics Office (NAT, formerly HNAT). (1) Develops and 
administers the NIH policies for implementing the government-wide 
conflict of interest statutes and regulations, the HHS supplemental 
conflict of interest regulations, and HHS and NIH policies; (2) 
provides ethics policy guidance, training, and advice to: (a) The ICs' 
ethics staffs, (b) Office of the Director, NIH, staff, and (c) 
employees whose Deputy Ethics Counselor (DEC) is the NIH DEC; and (3) 
coordinates the NIH response to requests from Congress, the Inspector 
General, DHHS and/or the Office of Government Ethics.

Delegations of Authority Statement

    All delegations and redelegations of authority to officers and 
employees of NIH that were in effect immediately prior to the effective 
date of this establishment and are consistent with this amendment shall 
continue in effect, pending further redelegation.

    Dated: September 14, 2004.
Elias A. Zerhouni,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 04-24480 Filed 11-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
|  |  | CNET tech sites:Price comparisons|Product reviews|Tech news|Downloads|Site map |  |
|--|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|  |
|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|
|  |  |
| TelevisionsMusicDigital CamerasCamcordersHandheldsDesktopsNotebooksComponentsPeripheralsMore »  CNET : Shopper : Computer Systems : **SOHO Servers****** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury
 DATES: Written comments should be received on or before March 8, 2004 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) *OMB Number:*
                     1545-0429. *Form Number:*
                     IRS Form 4506. *Type of Review:*
                     Extension. *Title:*
                     Request for Copy or Transcript of Tax Form. *Description:*26 U.S.C. 7513 allows for taxpayers to request a copy of a tax return. Form 4506 is used by a taxpayer to request a copy of a Federal tax form. The information provided will be used for research to locate the tax form and to ensure that the requester is the taxpayer or someone authorized by the taxpayer. *Respondents:*
                     Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*
                     325,000. *Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/Recordkeeper:* Recordkeeping
0 min.Learning about the law or the form
10 min.Preparing the form
16 min.Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS
20 min.
 *Frequency of Response:*
                     On occasion. *Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*
                     260,000 hours. *Clearance Officer:*
                     Glenn P. Kirkland (202) 622-3428, Internal Revenue 
                    ( print page 5664)
                    Service, Room 6411-03, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:*
                     Joseph F. Lackey, Jr. (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Lois K. Holland, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 04-2459 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT
10.4


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


 


	
  Company:

  	
   

  	
  Gardenburger, Inc., formerly known as Wholesome
  & Hearty Foods, Inc., an Oregon corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Optionee:

  	
   

  	
  Paul F. Wenner

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Original Agreement:

  	
   

  	
  That Paul F. Wenner Stock Option Agreement dated
  effective as of January 20, 1992, as previously amended in June 2001

  



 


AGREEMENT


 


In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in
this Amendment No. 2, Company and Optionee mutually agree as follows:


 


1.             Section 3(a) of the
Original Agreement is amended to read as follows:


 


“The Option shall expire
January 31, 2007.”


 


2.             Section 4(d) of the
Original Agreement is amended to read as follows:


 


“In no event (including
death of Optionee) may this Option be exercised after January 31, 2007.”


 


3.             Except as expressly
provided in this Amendment, the Original Agreement will remain in full force
and effect.


 


Dated December 22, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  GARDENBURGER,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/Scott C. Wallace

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Scott C. Wallace

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  President and
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/Paul F. Wenner

  
	
   

  	
  Paul F. Wenner
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-05-021 May 12, 2005

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. TO DISCUSS

PERFORMANCE OF PALO VERDE NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Arizona Public

Service Co. on May 17 to discuss the results of the agency’s annual assessment of safety

performance at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The facility, operated by APS, is

located about 55 miles west of Phoenix, Ariz.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Centennial Room, Ruth Fisher

Elementary School, 38201 W. Indian School Road, Tonopah, Ariz. Before the session is

adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plant’s safety

performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the nation’s commercial

nuclear plants,” said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. “This meeting gives us a chance

to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents near the plant. We

want to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have

about the plant.”

Palo Verde operated safely during 2004. However, the NRC staff has identified a trend in

declining human performance at the plant, as well as weaknesses in problem identification and

resolution. NRC will focus attention on these areas as part of its baseline, or routine inspections

during 2005. 

Baseline inspections are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas, to plant officials will

serve as the basis for the meeting. It is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/palo_2004q4.pdf .
-2-

Current information for Unit 1 is available at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO1/palo1_chart.html . 

Current information for Unit 2 is available at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO2/palo2_chart.html .

Current information for Unit 3 is available at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO3/palo3_chart.html .

###
#### § 2421.17 Regular and substantially equivalent employment.

*Regular and substantially equivalent employment* means employment that entails substantially the same amount of work, rate of pay, hours, working conditions, location of work, kind of work, and seniority rights, if any, of an employee prior to the cessation of employment in an agency because of any unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. 7116.