alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### World Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Harry R. Fisher, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,154.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § *1691*
      ***
      *—when defendant by offering evidence accepts ruling that burden of proof is upon him to establish set-off.*In an action to recover on a contract, where defendant pleads set-off, a ruling that under the pleadings in the case and the court rules applicable thereto plaintiff’s claim was admitted, and that the affirmative of the issue was with defendant on his set-off, is accepted by defendant by offering evidence to prove the set-off.

'2. Appeal and error, § *461*
      ***
      *—when question whether finding against weight of evidence and law not preserved for review.*In an action to recover on a written contract, the question that the finding in a case tried without a jury is against the law is not preserved for review where no objection is pointed out, no motion made, the denial of which would preserve a question for review, *642and no propositions of law submitted calling for a construction of the contract or any other holding, there being in such case no ruling of the trial court on which to predicate error.

*641Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 1, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the World Publishing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Harry B. Fisher, defendant, to recover on a contract for advertising. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $537.07, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

L. H. Craig, for plaintiff in error.

John A. McKeown, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tonic and section number.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*6423. Appeal and error, § *594*
      ***
      *—when motion for new trial preserves no question for review.*In an action tried without a jury, a motion for a new trial preserves no question for review.

4. Assumpsit, action of, § *41*
      ***
      *—when money voluntarily paid not recoverable.*Money voluntarily paid with full knowledge of all the facts and without fraud, duress or extortion cannot be recovered back although paid under a mistake of law.

5. Pleading, § *117*
      ***
      *—when offering evidence of set-off constitutes admission of terms of contract.*In an action to recover on a written contract, where defendant pleads set-off, the act of defendant in offering evidence tending to prove his set-off involves a recognition of the terms of the contract.

6. Appeal and error, § *578*
      ***
      *—when lack of exception to judgment does not prevent consideration of sufficiency of evidence.*The absence of an exception to a judgment, in a trial without a jury, does not preclude consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain it.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 20 10 - 0 490 Directorate ID: 20 10 - SW - 037 -AD Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S - 70A and S - 70C Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 5 Airworthiness Directive to require 

### ultrasoni c test (UT) inspection of the tail gearbox output bevel gear (gear) for a crack. If you find a crack, replacing the gear with an airworthy gear is required. Costs : 

### The actions will take about 4 work hours per helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 p er work hour. Required parts will cost about $20,000 for each gear. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $101,700, assuming the gear is replaced on the entire fleet. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Terry Fahr
132 STAT. 5522 PUBLIC LAW 115–432—JAN. 10, 2019 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3456: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–432 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge as the Nathaniel P. Reed 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, 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. REDESIGNATION OF THE HOBE SOUND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, 

located in the State of Florida, is redesignated as the ‘‘Nathaniel 

P. Reed Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any statute, rule, regulation, Executive order, publication, map, paper, or other document 

of the United States to the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge 

is deemed to refer to the Nathaniel P. Reed Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Approved January 10, 2019. 

Florida. 

16 USC 668dd 

note. 

Jan. 10, 2019 

[S. 3456] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71085-71086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26856]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for a Revised 
Information Collection: OPM Form 1644

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for a revised information collection. OPM 
Form 1644, Child Care Tuition Assistance Program for Federal Employees, 
is used to verify that child care providers are licensed and/or 
regulated by State and/or local authorities. Therefore, agencies need 
to verify that child care providers to whom they make disbursements in 
the form of child care subsidies meet the statutory requirement.
    Approximately 2000 OPM 1644 forms will be processed annually. The 
OPM Form 1644 takes approximately 10 minutes to complete by each 
provider. The annual estimated burden is 333.3 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e131c0a1111131b073e110e1350191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fe2edfbe0e0e2eaf6cfe0ffe2a1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Francis T. Cavanaugh, Acting Manager, Work Life Group, Employee and 
Family Support Center, Division of Strategic Human Resources Policy, 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street, NW., Room 7315, 
Washington, DC 20415;
     and
Joseph F. Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory

[[Page 71086]]

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kay Coles James,
Director.
[FR Doc. 04-26856 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
exv10w1



 






Amendment No. 2 To Employment Agreement




     THIS AMENDMENT No. 2 is made as of January 9, 2006 by and between Animas Corporation (the
“Company”) and Richard A. Baron (the “Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement relating to the
Executive’s employment dated as of February 20, 2004 (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, Section 11.2 of the Agreement provides that the parties may agree to amend the
Agreement in writing;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive amended the Agreement regarding the timing of the
payments under the Agreement to the extent that such payments may be subject to the penalties and
additional tax provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(“Section 409A”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to further amend the Agreement to clarify the
language regarding the timing of the payments under the Agreement to the extent that such payments
may be subject to the penalties and additional tax provisions of Section 409A; and



     NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement effective as of the date hereof as
follows:



     1. The Agreement shall be, and it hereby is, amended by deleting Section 18 in its entirety
and adding a new Section 18 as follows:


“18. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this Agreement, to the extent required to comply with Section
409A of the Code, if the Executive is deemed to be a “specified employee”
for purposes of Section 409A(a)(2)(B) of the Code, the Executive agrees
that the payments and benefits due to the Executive under this Agreement in
connection with a termination of the Executive’s employment hereunder that
would otherwise have been payable at any time during the six-month period
immediately following such termination of employment shall not be paid
prior to, and shall instead be payable in a lump sum as soon as practicable
following, the expiration of such six-month period. In light of the
uncertainty surrounding the application of Section 409A of the Code, the
Company cannot make any guarantee as to the treatment under Section 409A of
the Code of any payments made or benefits provided under this Agreement.”




 









 







     2. The Agreement, as amended by the foregoing changes, is ratified and confirmed in all
respects.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative, and the Executive has executed this Agreement, in each case on the date
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ANIMAS CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Eric Schwartz
 	 
	 	 	Name & Title:   Vice President and General Counsel 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	RICHARD A. BARON

 	 
	 	/s/ Richard A. Baron
 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 




-2-
§ 12.202 Disqualification of Administrative Judge. ( a ) *At their own request.* An Administrative Judge may withdraw from a summary decisional proceeding when they consider themselves to be disqualified on the grounds of personal bias, conflict of interest, or similar bases. In such event, the Administrative Judge shall immediately notify the Commission and each of the parties of the withdrawal and of the basis for such action.
( b ) *Upon the request of a party.* Any party may request an Administrative Judge to disqualify themselves on the grounds of personal bias, conflict of interest, or similar bases. Interlocutory review of an order denying such a request may be sought without certification of the matter by the Administrative Judge only in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 12.309.
[86 FR 64356, Nov. 18, 2021]
Name of Subsidiary
    
    OwnershipAARD LECA LSS Lonestar, LLC
    
    
    100
    %AARD LECA VL1, LLC
    
    
    100
    %AARD-Charmar Greeley Firestone, LLC
    
    
    100
    %AARD-Econo Lube Stonegate, LLC
    
    
    100
    %AARD Esterra Mesa 1, LLC
    
    
    100
    %AARD-Cypress Sound, LLC
    
    
    100
    %CapTerra Fund I, LLC
    
    
    100
    %South Glen Eagles Drive, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Hwy 46 and Bluffton Pkwy, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Buckeye AZ, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Cypress Sound, LLC
    
    
    51
    %
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Earl P. Van Wie and Howard E. Robinson v. The Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs.
Filed 12 / 6 / 21 P. v. Stegall CA2 /6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEVIN PA TRICK STEGALL,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B312474

(Super. Ct. No. 2020030207)

(Ventura County)

Kevin Patrick Stegall (“ a ppellant”) appeals following a

guilty plea to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, §

21310) 1 , and commi tting vandalism of over $ 400 (§ 594, subd.

(b)(1)) after it was determined he scratched an “X” into the door

of one vehicle and puncture d the tire of another vehicle parked in

a car dealership parking lot

. Appellant requested and obtained a

certificate o f probable cause.

On March 16, 2021, a ppellant was sentenced to 16 months

, split between county jail and mandatory supervision

. Seven days

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

later, he was taken into custody for violating mandatory

supervision. Appellant admitted the violation, and the court

formally revoked and reinstated appellant’s mandatory

supervision with additional conditions.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.

After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that

raises no arguable issu es. On September 14, 2021, we attempted

to notify appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to

consider. That notice was returned as undeliverable. We are

unable to locate appellant be cause he has been transient since he

was released from custody.

Although appellant did not submit a supplemental letter on

appeal, his request for a certificate of probable cause challenged

whether the evidence at the preliminary hearing established tha t

the knife appellant carried was concealed.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

appellant’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities and

that no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 , 443 .)

DISPO SITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT

, P. J. PERREN , J.Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Suzan E. Hier , under appointment by the Court of Appeal

, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearanc e for Respondent.
Part 5345 – Government Property

DAFFARS PART 5345 Knowledge Center

Revised: June 2023

Subpart 5345.1 – GENERAL

5345.102 Policy

5345.103 General

5345.103-72 Government Furnished Property Attachments to Solicitations and Awards

Subpart 5345.3 – PROVIDING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TO CONTRACTORS

5345.301 Use and Rental

5345.302 Contracts with Foreign Governments or International Organizations

Subpart 5345.1 – GENERAL

5345.102 Policy

(e) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

(4)(ii)(B) See MP5301.601(a)(i)

(4)(ii)(C)(1)(i) See MP5301.601(a)(i)

(ii) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

5345.103 General

5345.103-72 Government Furnished Property Attachments to Solicitations

and Awards

See DAFMAN 23-119, Exchange, Sale, or Temporary Custody of Nonexcess Personal Property.

Subpart 5345.3 – PROVIDING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TO

CONTRACTORS
5345.301 Use and Rental

(f) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

5345.302 Contracts with Foreign Governments or International Organizations

See AFI 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management.
Subpart 5319.2 — POLICIES

Parent topic: Part 5319 - Small Business Programs

5319.201 General Policy

(b) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

(c)(8) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

(c)(10)(A) SB specialists review all acquisitions IAW DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) to include task orders

and delivery orders (excluding awards under Phase I and Phase II of the Small Business Innovation

Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Programs). SB specialists shall review actions over

$10,000,but under the simplified acquisition threshold, when required by the Director, SAF/SB or by

written, joint agreement of the SCO and the MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU/DAFRCO Director of Small

Business in accordance with DFARS PGI 219.201(c)(10)(1).

(B) Document review on the DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record. Except for AFMC,

forward a copy of all completed DD Forms 2579 in excess of $1,000,000 to the applicable

MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU Director of Small Business prior to convening an Acquisition Strategy Panel

or prior to finalizing the Acquisition Strategy if an ASP is not convened. In those instances where the

SB specialist and the SBA/PCR are precluded from the review process due to security classification,

the contracting officer must complete a DD Form 2579, and the COCO must review and coordinate

on the form.

(d)(1) The contracting office shall coordinate with the SB specialist as early in the acquisition

planning process as practicable to enable early engagement on Air Force Small Business Program

requirements. Refer to AFI 90-1801, Small Business Programs.

(d)(2) The SB specialist shall coordinate with SAF/SB when an acquisition strategy or plan involves

substantial bundling.

(d)(3) The SB specialist shall coordinate with SAF/SB on all determinations and findings that involve

substantial bundling.

5319.202 Specific Policy

Contracting officers shall provide for review by the Director, SAF/SB, or the Director’s designee, any

acquisition the Director, SAF/SB, deems necessary to fulfill the Director’s authorities and

responsibilities in AFI 90-1801 to provide advice and make recommendations. The contracting

officer shall document the contract file with the recommendations of the Director, or the Director’s

designee, and whether the recommendations were accepted or rejected.
Exhibit 99(b)

Independent Accountants

The Board of Directors
HSBC Finance Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of credit card receivables owned by

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting that the servicing of receivables has been conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in

In our opinion,

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the addressee and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than this specified party.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2006





Management Assertion





As of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, the servicing of credit card receivables owned by Household Credit Card Master Note Trust I has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles III and Section 5.08 of the Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated November 16, 2000, as supplemented by the Series 2001-1 Series Supplement.









/s/ Joyce BevacquaJoyce Bevacqua	
Servicing Officer
HSBC Finance Corporation





March 1, 2006
Date







/s/ Mike Reeves





March 1, 2006Date
Order entered September 26 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00690
- CV
BRYAN A. STEMPOWSKI , Appellant

V. REACH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC , Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 01624

O RDER Appellant appeals from the trial court’s June 16, 2022 judgment. Although the judgment recites that it disposes of all parties and claims, it specificall y reserved the amount of appellee’s attorney’s fees for later determination. A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) . Because of that pending claim for attorney’s fees , the parties have filed a joint motion for stay and brief in support
thereof. The parties ask that we stay the appeal pending the trial court’s resolutionof the attorney’s fees issue. We GRANT the motion as follows. The parties shall

have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to obtain an order from the trial court on the issue of attorney’s fees. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, WITHIN THIRTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a ny order awarding attorney’s fees or written verification that no such order has been signed. Also before the Court are appellee’s August 31, 2022 motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and brief in support. In light of the parties’ joint motion to stay, we DENY the motion as moot

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Bridgett Whitmore, Presiding Judge of the 193rd Judicial District Court; Ms. Pitre; and, all parties.
We ABATE this appeal. I t will be reinstated in forty days of the date of this order or when the requested supplemental clerk’s record is filed, whichever occurs

sooner. /s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 24, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A0220. JESUS GARIBAY v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On September 13, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than September 23, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 24, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
### §17613. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 17613 was editorially reclassified as section 21113 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.