alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnson et al. v. Hall Hotel Co.

December 5, 1947.

Elvis J. Stahr, Judge.

Henry Jack Wilson for - appellants.

F. B. Martin for appellee.

*141Opinion op the Court by

Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

This is a forcible detainer action. It was originally filed in the Graves County Court, and appellants having been found guilty, the action was appealed to the Circuit Court. After a trial, that Court gave a peremptory instruction for appellee, and judgment was entered sustaining the writ.

No motion and grounds for a new trial was filed in that Court, and the appeal was granted here. Appellants filed a Bill of Exceptions in this Court, but upon motion, the Bill of Exceptions was stricken from the record.

The only question before us is the sufficiency of the pleadings to sustain the judgment. "Where appellant fails to file a motion for a new trial, no alleged errors except the sufficiency of the pleadings may be considered by this Court on appeal. Hickey v. Glass, 285 Ky. 848, 149 S. W. 2d 535. "Where the Bill of Exceptions or Transcript of Evidence is not a part of the record, it is presumed that the evidence would support the judgment. Chenault et al. v. State Bank *&*Trust Co. et al., 254 Ky. 390, 71 S. W. 2d 1015.

These proceedings may be initiated by a complaint. Section 454, Civil Code of Practice. Appellee actually filed a “petition for writ of forcible detainer.’’ This petition sets out appellee’s control and supervision of the building involved; alleges in substance that appellants were tenants occupying the building; that appellants maintained a nuisance; that written notice of the expiration of their tenancy was served on appellants; and that they refused to give possession although their term had expired and were detaining the property against the will and consent of appellee.

It is our conclusion that the pleadings sustain the judgment finding appellants guilty of forcible entry and detainer, and ordering the issuance of a writ of possession.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
#### § 1000.14 Office of the General Counsel.

The Office of the General Counsel provides advice and counsel to the Commissioners and organizational components of the Commission on matters of law arising from operations of the Commission. It prepares the legal analysis of Commission legislative proposals and comments on relevant legislative proposals originating elsewhere. The Office, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, is responsible for the conduct of all Federal court litigation to which the Commission is a party. The Office also advises the Commission on administrative litigation matters. The Office provides final legal review of and makes recommendations to the Commission on proposed product safety standards, rules, regulations, petition actions, and substantial hazard actions. It also provides legal review of certain procurement, personnel, and administrative actions and drafts documents for publication in the Federal Register.
CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTATION NEEDED FOR

STUDENT AGE 18-19 IN HOME SCHOOLING

The Railroad Retirement Board needs up-to-date information about the student's home

schooling to determine continued entitlement to benefits as a full-time student. This form 

is a checklist of the documentation needed in addition to the enclosed Form G-315 

Student Questionnaire.

Documentation Date Submitted

For School Year

Date Updated

Documentation

Submitted

Required - A copy of the written notice to the school

district of intent to home school for the school year

indicated on Form G-315 including:

 the name, age, and grade level of the student;

 the address at which the instruction is done;

 the source of instruction materials;

 the basic core curriculum;

 proposed schedules; and,

 credentials of the home school teacher.

This is only

required once for

each school year.

Required - A copy of the notice or letter from the school

district that approves the home schooling. The document

should be signed by the superintendent of the school

district in which the student resides.

This is only

required once for

each school year.

Required - A copy of current home school attendance

records for the school year. The documents should be

signed by the home school teacher.

When Available - A copy of current test results for any

nationally recognized, standardized achievement test

(including reading, mathematics, language arts, science

and social studies). The document should be signed by

the home school teacher.

When Available - A copy of the current evaluation

signed by the home school evaluator.

When Applicable - A copy of General Educational

Development (GED) test results for a high school

equivalency diploma.

RRB Form G-315H (04-02)
#### Donald Hutchings, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Columbia Gymnastic Association, d/b/a Turner Hall, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-183;

Fifth District

August 7, 1974.

Goldenhersh and Goldenhersh, of Belleville (Michael J. Katz, of counsel), for appeffant.

Crowder & Adams, Ltd., of Columbia, for appellee.

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was brought under the Illinois Dram Shop Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 43, par. 135) which at the time of the occurrence in question read:

> “Every person who is injured in person or property by any intoxicated person, has a right of action in his own name, severally or jointly, against any person who by selling or giving alcoholic *1092liquor, causes the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such person. Any person owning, renting, leasing or permitting the occupation of any building or premises with knowledge that alcoholic liquors are to be sold therein, or who have leased the same for other purposes, shall knowingly permit therein the sale of any alcoholic liquors that have caused, in whole or in part, the intoxication of any person, shall be liable, severally or jointly, with the person selling or giving the liquors. * * *” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 43, par. 135.)

The statute was amended in 1971 by deletion of the words “in whole or in part.”

Appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in giving an instruction based on the 1969 statute which was in effect at the time of the occurrence, rather than the 1971 statute which was in effect at the time the case was tried. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to give retroactive application to the 1971 amendment.

 This same contention was made and decided adversely to the appellants in *Edenburn v.*Riggins, 13 Ill.App.3d 830, 301 N.E.2d 132, which we adopt as our rationale in this case.

. We find no error of law appears, that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and that the judgment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

 We therefore affirm in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 23).

Judgment affirmed.

EBERSPACHER and CARTER, JJ., concur.
NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO AGENCY’S 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS POLICY STATEMENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on proposed changes to its 

policy statement on consumer products containing radioactive material. The proposed revisions 

would make minor changes that would bring the statement up to date, but would not represent a 

policy shift.

The Atomic Energy Commission issued the original Consumer Products Policy Statement in 

1965 because, although presenting very low risks of significant individual doses to members of the 

general public, consumer products containing radioactive material are a source of routine exposure 

to the public. For example, a substantial portion of the population uses, and enjoys benefits from, 

smoke detectors, and consequently receives a very small radiation exposure from this product. 

The policy statement incorporates the three fundamental principles of radiation protection: 

Justification of a practice; optimization of protection (the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” 

practice, or ALARA); and application of dose limits to individuals. For example, under the policy, 

approval of a proposed consumer product depends upon both associated exposures of persons to 

radiation and the apparent usefulness of the product. The policy calls for monitoring the amounts of 

radioactive materials being distributed for use by the general public and reconsidering the policy if 

there is any indication that materials in products reaching the public may result in a significant 

fraction of the permissible dose. Well-informed regulatory decisions in this area can have a 

significant effect on minimizing cumulative exposures to the public.

The proposed revisions would update terminology and reflect changes in the theory and 

practice of radiation protection as it has evolved since 1965.

The proposed revisions were published today in the Federal Register. Comments will be 

accepted through Dec. 28. Comments may be submitted through the federal government’s 

Rulemaking website at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID NRC-2010-0292; by e-mail to 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov; by fax to 301-415-1101; or by mail to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications 

Staff. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link 

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-198 October 14, 2011
### §3111. Approval of sufficiency of title prior to acquisition

(a) Approval of Attorney General Required.—Public money may not be expended to purchase land or any interest in land unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to the land for the purpose for which the Federal Government is acquiring the property.

(b) Delegation.—

(1) In general.—The Attorney General may delegate the responsibility under this section to other departments and agencies of the Government, subject to general supervision by the Attorney General and in accordance with regulations the Attorney General prescribes.

(2) Request for opinion of attorney general.—A department or agency of the Government that has been delegated the responsibility to approve land titles under this section may request the Attorney General to render an opinion as to the validity of the title to any real property or interest in the property, or may request the advice or assistance of the Attorney General in connection with determinations as to the sufficiency of titles.

(c) Payment of Expenses for Procuring Certificates of Title.—Except where otherwise authorized by law or provided by contract, the expenses of procuring certificates of titles or other evidences of title as the Attorney General may require may be paid out of the appropriations for the acquisition of land or out of the appropriations made for the contingencies of the acquiring department or agency of the Government.

(d) Nonapplication.—This section does not affect any provision of law in effect on September 1, 1970, that is applicable to the acquisition of land or interests in land by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1144.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3111(a) | 40:255 (1st par.). | R.S. §355 (1st–5th pars.); June 28, 1930, ch. 710, 46 Stat. 828; Feb. 1, 1940, ch. 18, 54 Stat. 19; Oct. 9, 1940, ch. 793, 54 Stat. 1083; Pub. L. 91–393, §1, Sept. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 835. |
| 3111(b) | 40:255 (2d, 3d pars.). | |
| 3111(c) | 40:255 (4th par.). | |
| 3111(d) | 40:255 (5th par.). | |

Section

In subsection (d), the words "in any manner" are omitted as unnecessary.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, David H. Fleischman, Chief
Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of TradeStation Group,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|               |  |                                                                 
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|March 13, 2006 |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                         
|Date           |  | David H. Fleischman                                             
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance
and Treasurer
### Part C—Improved Training and Technical Automation
### SUBCHAPTER IX—GENETIC DISEASES, HEMOPHILIA PROGRAMS, AND SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 94–278, title IV, §403(b)(3), Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 409, substituted "GENETIC DISEASES" for "GENETIC BLOOD DISORDERS" and inserted "HEMOPHILIA PROGRAMS" in subchapter heading.

Pub. L. 93–270, §3(b), Apr. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 92, inserted "AND SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME" at end of subchapter heading.

Pub. L. 92–414, §4(1), Aug. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 652, substituted "GENETIC BLOOD DISORDERS" for "SICKLE CELL ANEMIA PROGRAM" as subchapter heading and designated such former subchapter heading as part A heading, substituting "Programs" for "Program".
§ 1.141 Required submissions. The Authority must submit to the Commission any proposed rule, or proposed rule modification, of the Authority relating to— ( a ) The bylaws of the Authority;
( b ) A list of permitted and prohibited medications, substances, and methods, including allowable limits of permitted medications, substances, and methods;
( c ) Laboratory standards for accreditation and protocols;
( d ) Standards for racing surface quality maintenance;
( e ) Racetrack safety standards and protocols;
( f ) A program for injury and fatality data analysis;
( g ) A program of research and education on safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication control;
( h ) A description of safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication control rule violations applicable to covered horses and covered persons;
( i ) A schedule of civil sanctions for violations;
( j ) A process or procedures for disciplinary hearings;
( k ) A formula or methodology for determining assessments described in 15 U.S.C. 3052(f); and
( l ) Any other proposed rule or modification the Act requires the Authority to submit to the Commission for approval.
### Subpart I—General Reform

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §§1201(1), 1255, formerly §1253, title X, §10103(e), (f)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 154, 162, 895, substituted "subpart i—general reform" for "subpart 1—portability, access, and renewability requirements" in subpart heading, effective for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014.
No. II-12-035 May 14, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC TO INCREASE OVERSIGHT OF NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The North Anna nuclear plant faces increased oversight from the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission due to a violation of low to moderate safety significance linked to the maintenance of 

the plant’s emergency diesel generators.

North Anna, operated by Dominion, is on Lake Anna about 40 miles northwest of 

Richmond.

The NRC staff determined that a violation involving the failure of North Anna personnel to 

establish and maintain appropriate maintenance procedures for the plant’s emergency diesel 

generators is a “white” finding, meaning it has low to moderate safety significance.

The NRC uses a color-coded system to categorize inspection findings. They range from 

“green,” for an issue of very low safety significance, to “white,” “yellow” and “red,” which is 

assessed for the most safety significant violations.

The violation stems from the failure of one of the plant’s four emergency diesel generators

following the Aug. 23 earthquake that affected the area. The failure was not caused by the 

earthquake and repairs were completed a short time later. Ensuing inspections determined that the 

plant’s maintenance procedures did not provide adequate guidance for installing specific gaskets on 

the generators. Dominion has since revised its maintenance procedures. 

At Dominion’s request, NRC staff held a Regulatory Conference on April 20 to discuss the 

risk significance of the finding with the licensee. After reviewing the information developed during 

the inspection and the supplemental information provided by Dominion during the conference, the 

staff concluded that the inspection finding is appropriately characterized as “white.”

The finding puts North Anna into the Regulatory Response Column on the NRC Action 

Matrix, meaning the plant will be subject to additional NRC inspections beyond the baseline 

inspections that are conducted at all nuclear plants.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link 

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 21, 2020

No. 04-19-00626-CR

Vance Lee MASTERS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B1989

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

appellant's brief is due on March 6, 2020. No further extensions absent extenuating 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of February, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
### SUBCHAPTER III—PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES
§ 5.5 Vending machines. ( a ) The income from any vending machines which are located within reasonable proximity to and are in direct competition with a vending stand for which a permit has been issued under these regulations shall be assigned to the operator of such stand.
( b ) If a vending machine vends articles of a type authorized by the permit and is so located that it attracts customers who would otherwise patronize the vending stand, such machine shall be deemed to be in reasonable proximity to and direct competition with the stand.
### §5109A. Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and unmistakable error

(a) A decision by the Secretary under this chapter is subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error. If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision shall be reversed or revised.

(b) For the purposes of authorizing benefits, a rating or other adjudicative decision that constitutes a reversal or revision of a prior decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the decision had been made on the date of the prior decision.

(c) Review to determine whether clear and unmistakable error exists in a case may be instituted by the Secretary on the Secretary's own motion or upon request of the claimant.

(d) A request for revision of a decision of the Secretary based on clear and unmistakable error may be made at any time after that decision is made.

(e) Such a request shall be submitted to the Secretary and shall be decided in the same manner as any other claim.

(Added Pub. L. 105–111, §1(a)(1), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2271.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–111, §1(c)(1), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2272, provided that: "Sections 5109A and 7111 of title 38, United States Code, as added by this section, apply to any determination made before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 21, 1997]."
### Part D—Special Impact Programs
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Colombia
      Goldfields Ltd. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Colombia Goldfields Ltd. for the
              quarter ended September 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Colombia
              Goldfields Ltd.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Daniel HunterName:
            Daniel
                HunterTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer & DirectorDate:
            November
                14, 2005By:
            /s/
                Jerry GoldbergName:
            Jerry
                GoldbergTitle:
            Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            November
                14, 2005