alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STREVELL v. JONES’ ESTATE. In re JONES.

(Surrogate’s Court, Albany County.

January 17, 1905.)

Contracts—Consideration—Natural Love and Affection.

An executory contract, the only consideration tor which Is natural love and affection, is unenforceable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 11, Cent Dig. Contracts, §§ 286-290.]

*720Judicial settlement of the accounts of Alvin Jones as administrator of the estate of Catherine Jones, deceased, in which Emma L. Strevell presented a claim. Claim disallowed.

Alva Seybolt, for claimant.

H. S. McCall, for administrator.

Lester T. Hubbard, for contestant Martha Jones Ireland.

FITTS, S.

Mrs. Jones at the time of her death left, her surviving, six children. Prior to her death she had distributed a good portion of her estate to her sons and daughters. To the claimant she had executed and delivered a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:

> “Delmar, N. Y., April 15th, 1900.

> “One year after date for value received I promise to pay to Mrs. Emma L. Strevell Six hundred dollars with interest from date [$600].

> “[Signed] Catherine Jones.”

The note, not having been paid in the lifetime of the deceased, was presented to the executor for payment; and, he having refused ■payment thereof, and rejected the same, a stipulation was entered into, referring the matter to me for consideration and determination upon the final accounting herein. It appears from the testimony that the moving consideration for the execution and delivery of this instrument was natural love and affection, and that at the time of the execution of the same the payee parted with no money ■or property therefor. Consequently the consideration, while meritorious, was not pecuniary or valuable, and, being a contract ex-ecutory in its character, is not enforceable either by action of law ■or by appeal to a court of equity. Whitaker v. Whitaker, 52 N. Y. 368, 11 Am. Rep. 711. To the same effect, in the matter of Wilbur v. Warren, 104 N. Y. 192, 10 N. E. 263, where, citing with approval Whitaker v. Whitaker, above referred to, the court laid down the ■following rule:

> “It seems to be the general doctrine that an executory agreement, supported only by a meritorious, as distinguished from a valuable or pecuniary, consideration, cannot be enforced either at law or in equity, and an executory ■covenant falls within the operation of the rule.”

This claim is therefore disallowed, and a decree may be entered to that effect.

Claim disallowed, with costs to contestant.
#### John E. Collins, Appellant, v. Carver Federal Savings and Loan Association, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ. [28 Misc 2d 969.]
### §1114. Annual reports: number of copies for Congress

One thousand copies of the annual reports of the departments to Congress shall be printed for the Senate, and two thousand for the House of Representatives.

The usual number only of the reports of the Chief of Engineers of the Army, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the report of the Chief Signal Officer of the Department of the Army, and the Chief of Ordnance shall be printed.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(b)(23)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–585.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §212 (part) (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §73, 28 Stat. 615).

This section incorporates only the second sentence of former section 212. The balance will be found in section 1115 of this revision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–113 struck out "the Commissioner of Patents," after "Engineers of the Army," in second par.

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

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.

#### Abolition of Offices

Positions of Chief Signal Officer and Chief of Ordinance of Army Department abolished, see note set out under section 3036 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 09-02737 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

EXPERT COMPENSATION

The undersigned has received the parties’ joint report confirming that Dr. Chang Choo has

been appropriately compensated for his time. Since this issue has been resolved, there are no

outstanding matters requiring the Court’s attention. The file is CLOSED. The Court thanks

Expert Chang Choo and Attorney John Cooper for their assistance in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02737-WHA Document 117 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 1
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

(Adopted May 2, 2008)(Amended July 11, 2014) 

RULE 2449. CONTROL OF OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS FROM OFF-ROAD 

DIESEL VEHICLES 

The provisions of Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), 

Section 2449.3, in effect June 15, 2008, were adopted in full by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District on May 2, 2008 through the “opt-in” provision provided in the regulation 

and were made part of the Rules and Regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District. 

Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Title 13 of the CCR, Section 2449.3 was amended in December 14, 2011 

by the California Air Resources Board and renumbered to section 2449.2. Effective December 14, 

2011 Section 2449.2 shall apply to the owner of any off-road diesel vehicle as described. 

The provisions of this Regulation apply to the owner of any off-road diesel vehicle as described in 

Section 2449.2(b) operating in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Upon the 

District’s issuance of a solicitation for applications for funding, fleet owners subject to Section 

2449.2 shall submit applications for funding, in accordance with the Rule 2449 Administrative 

Guidelines developed to implement Section 2449.2. 

Title 13, 

Chapter 9 

Motor Vehicles – Off-Road Vehicles and Engines Pollution Control Devices 

Section 2449.3 Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (SOON) Program 

(13 CCR 2449.3, June 15, 2008) (SCAQMD Adopted May 2, 2008) 

Section 2449.2 Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (SOON) Program 

(13 CCR 2449.2, December 14, 2011) (SCAQMD Amended July, 11, 2014) 

2449 – 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a) The Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   February 17, 2011 | /s/ Kenneth E. Cruse                  |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                           | Kenneth E. Cruse                      |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer               |
|                           |                                  |
| Date:   February 17, 2011 | /s/ Kenneth E. Cruse                  |
|                           | Kenneth E. Cruse                      |
|                           | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Jacob C. Punch and Samuel C. Punch, trading as Punch & Company, appellees, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company et al., on appeal of T. J. Houston, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,338.

Injunction to restrain State Superintendent of Insurance from threatening revocation of complainant’s license. Motion for dissolution of temporary injunction denied. See Burton v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 229 Ill. App. 517. Interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Fred Rush, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed.

Opinion filed May 31, 1923.

Rehearing denied June 11, 1923.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, and Robert N. Holt, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Myer H. Gladstone, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3118 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music boxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music boxes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MUSIC BOXES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.52 Music boxes, whether or not 

put up in sets, put up for 

mail order retail sale, and 

each weighing not over 6 kg 

together with their retail 

packaging (provided for in 

subheading 9208.10.00) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 3118 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §620d–1. Reimbursement of Fund from Colorado River Development Fund; operation of Hoover Dam

The Upper Colorado River Basin Fund established under section 620d of this title shall be reimbursed from the Colorado River Development Fund established by section 618a of this title for the money expended heretofore or hereafter from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund to meet deficiencies in generation at Hoover Dam during the filling period of storage units of the Colorado River storage project pursuant to the criteria for the filling of Glen Canyon Reservoir (27 Fed. Reg. 6851, July 19, 1962). For this purpose, $500,000 for each year of operation of Hoover Dam and powerplant, commencing with fiscal year 1970, shall be transferred from the Colorado River Development Fund to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, in lieu of application of said amounts to the purposes stated in section 618a(d) of this title, until such reimbursement is accomplished. To the extent that any deficiency in such reimbursement remains as of June 1, 1987, the amount of the remaining deficiency shall then be transferred to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, as provided in section 1543(g) of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–537, title V, §502, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 898.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, and not as part of act Apr. 11, 1956, popularly known as the Colorado River Storage Project Act, which comprises this chapter.
#### § 350.11 Notice of Attachment for Ginnie Mae Securities in Book-entry System.

The interest of a debtor in a Security Entitlement may be reached by a creditor only by legal process upon the Securities Intermediary with whom the debtor's securities account is maintained, except where a Security Entitlement is maintained in the name of a secured party, in which case the debtor's interest may be reached by legal process upon the secured party. These regulations do not purport to establish whether a Federal Reserve Bank as Depository is required to honor an order or other notice of attachment in any particular case or class of cases.
**Exhibit 32**

 

Section 1350 Certifications

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CommunitySouth FinancialCorporation (the “Company”), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date ofthis certification:

 

1.               The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | February 26, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ C. Allan  Ducker, III |
|--------|------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                   |   |   | C. Allan  Ducker, III     |
|   |                   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |                   |   |   |                           |
| Date:  | February 26, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ John W. Hobbs              |
|   |                   |   |   | John W. Hobbs                  |
|   |                   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer        |

 

----
Dog Rules 

Fort Ord 

National Monument 

Dog Use on the National Monument 

To help reduce conflicts, protect wildlife and 

livestock on Fort Ord, and ensure public safety, 

please follow these rules while recreating with 

your dog. 

All dogs must: 

	 Be leashed (6’ leash) or physically restrained 

at all times at developed sites such as 

trailheads 

	 Be leashed (6’ leash) or physically restrained 

at all times on routes not designated as Off 

Leash Opportunity Routes (OLOR’s) 

	 Stay on signed open roads and trails at all 

times 

	 Stay out of ponds and vernal pools 

	 Wear a license tag with or without a chip 

implant at all times 

On OLOR’s all dogs must: 

	 Be leashed (6’ leash) or physically restrained 

within 100’ of other people if they are not part 

of your party 

	 Be within 50’ of owner 

	 Stay on the road at all times 

	 Stay out of ponds and vernal pools 

Dog owners must: 

	 Carry a leash for each dog you bring with 

you during your visit 

	 Pick up and dispose of your dogs’ feces 

(trash receptacles are available at many 

trail areas) 

	 Keep dogs under the age of 4 months 

leashed or physically restrained at all times, 

even on OLOR’s 

	 Never leave a pet unattended (even in a 

crate or in vehicle) 

Questions? Call Bureau of Land Management 

at (831) 582-2200 

We appreciate your attention to these 

important rules. The BLM manages the 

Fort Ord National Monument in a manner that 

protects natural values, honors the military and 

cultural heritage of the landscape, and offers 

high-quality, non-motorized outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Your cooperation will help ensure 

that 35 species of rare and endangered animals 

and plants that make this place their home are 

protected for generations to come. 
BLM/CA/GI-2016/016+6210+8365 

Off-Leash Opportunity Routes 

Fort Ord 

National Monument
Gormas. Michael (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Jeff Dean <jeffdeanjdc@gorge.net>

Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:58 PM

Gormas, Michael (OST)

paul@flyalaskaseaplanes.com

Air Service to Kake

Michael,

We have been operating a construction company in Kake for approximately 3 years. We fly over $20,OOO/year of

parts/materials and people to/from Kake. Alaska Seaplanes has been providing quality service at reasonable prices. We

would like to recommend Alaska Seaplanes for the essential air service to Kake for the following reasoT.

Personnel: The pilots seem to be prbfessional, knowledgeable and skillful at their professional. The groundstaff in Kake

are very helpful and go beyond a paycheck to get the materials we need.

Aircraft: The aircraft rate 9/10 interior and 9/10 exterior. The addition of IFR/Deicing capable aircraft 1the fleet was

essential in gaining my recommendation.

Business: The owners understand the struggles of small businesses and understand our success is their success.

Timeliness: When not restricted by weather Alaska Seaplanes departures and arrivals are on time. They seem to have

the right number of planes, pilots, and people for the workload.

1

Alaska Office

P.O. Box 191

Kake, AK 99830

5 t. Adams Highway

Glenwood, WA 98619
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn investigation of selected on-orbit satellite servicing issuesThe results of three separate investigations performed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) between August 1985 and October 1986 as the second phase of the two-phase Satellite Services System Program Plan contract for the Engineering Directorate of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center are discussed. The objectives of the first phase of this contract (reported in SAIC-85/1762) were to determine the potential for servicing a diverse range of spacecraft from the Space Shuttle Orbiter and to assess NASA's role as the catalyst in enabling routine on-orbit servicing. The second area of investigation was prompted by the need to understand satellite servicing requirements in the far term (1995 to 2010) and how results from the first phase of this contract could support these requirements. The mission model developed during the first phase was extended using new data and information from studies which address the later time period. The third area of investigation looked at a new servicing mode which had not been studied previously. This mode involves the on-orbit exchange of very large modules with masses greater than approximately 9,000 kilograms and/or lengths greater than approximately nine meters. The viewgraphs used for the final briefing for each of the three investigations, as presented to NASA are given.Document ID19870009149Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHoffman, Stephen J.*(Science Applications International Corp. Schaumburg, IL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1986Subject CategoryAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberSAIC-1-120-778-S22NAS 1.26:171968SAIC-86/1942NASA-CR-171968Accession Number87N18582Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17207Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870009149.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Tatum, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 217]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered July 24, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Frazier,*171 AD2d 809 [1991]). In any event, the contention is without merit since the complainant’s general description of the perpetrator, which matched the defendant, combined with the defendant’s temporal and spatial proximity to the robbery, provided the police with *572reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him *(see People v Hunt,*306 AD2d 497 [2003]; *People v Lynch,*285 AD2d 518 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1081 [2002]).

“Showup procedures are permissible when, as here, they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of a crime” *(People v Abdelghany,*14 AD3d 711, 711-712 [2005]; *People v Ortiz,*90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]). The defendant’s contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive is without merit *(see People v Abdelghany, supra*at 711-712).

The defendant’s argument that the Supreme Court did not comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10 and CPL 400.20 in adjudicating him a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see*Penal Law § 70.10 [1] [a]; CPL 400.15 [2], [3], [4]; 400.16 [2]; 400.20 [1] [a]; *People v Cooper,*241 AD2d 553, 554 [1997]; *People v Martin,*167 AD2d 428, 429 [1990]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s summation comments were either responsive to the defense counsel’s summation or fair comment upon the evidence *(see People v McHarris,*297 AD2d 824 [2002]; *People v Stover,*254 AD2d 377, 377-378 [1998]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112 [1985]; Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.