alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 56.6201 Separation of transported explosive material. Detonators shall not be transported on the same vehicle or conveyance with other explosives except as follows: ( a ) Detonators in quantities of more than 1000 may be transported in a vehicle or conveyance with explosives or blasting agents provided the detonators are— ( 1 ) Maintained in the original packaging as shipped from the manufacturer; and
( 2 ) Separated from explosives or blasting agents by 4 inches of hardwood or equivalent, or a laminated partition. The hardwood or equivalent shall be fastened to the vehicle or conveyance. When a laminated partition is used, operators must follow the provisions of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) Safety Library Publication No.22, “Recommendations for the Safe Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with Other Explosive Materials” (May 1993), and the “Generic Loading Guide for the IME-22 Container” (October 1993). The IME is located at 1120 19th Street NW., Suite 310, Washington, DC 20036-3605; 202-429-9280; *https://www.ime.org .* This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available at MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452; 202-693-9440; and at all Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health District Offices, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) Detonators in quantities of 1000 or fewer may be transported with explosives or blasting agents provided the detonators are— ( 1 ) Kept in closed containers; and
( 2 ) Separated from explosives or blasting agents by 4 inches of hardwood or equivalent, or a laminated partition. The hardwood or equivalent shall be fastened to the vehicle or conveyance. When a laminated partition is used, operators must follow the provisions of IME Safety Library Publication No. 22, “Recommendations for the Safe Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with Other Explosive Materials” (May 1993), and the “Generic Loading Guide for the IME-22 Container” (October 1993). The IME is located at 1120 19th Street NW., Suite 310, Washington, DC 20036-3605; 202-429-9280; *https://www.ime.org .* This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available at MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452; 202-693-9440; and at all Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health District Offices, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
[50 FR 4054, Jan. 29, 1985, as amended at 67 FR 38385, June 4, 2002; 80 FR 52987, Sept. 2, 2015]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd P. Dodge et al., Appellants.

Motion by appellants to dispense with printing, granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and original exhibits (including the typed minutes) and on appellants’ typewritten briefs. The appellants are directed to file six copies of their brief or briefs and to serve one copy on the Attorney-General. Motion to enlarge time to perfect appeal granted; appellants’ time enlarged to the December Term, beginning November 28, 1960. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Appellants’ briefs shall be filed and served on or before November 14, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### § 556.807 What is the effect of an assignment of operating rights on an assignee's liability?

As assignee, you and any subsequent assignees are liable for all obligations that accrue after the effective date of your assignment. As assignee, you must comply with all the terms and conditions of the lease and regulations issued under OCSLA. In addition, you must remedy all existing environmental and operational problems on the lease, properly abandon all wells, and reclaim the site, as required under 30 CFR part 250.
§ 550.297 What information must a CID contain? ( a ) You must base the CID on wells drilled before your CID submittal that define the extent of the reservoirs. You must notify BOEM of any well that is drilled to total depth during the CID evaluation period and you may be required to update your CID.
( b ) You must include all of the following information if available. Information must be provided for each hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir that is penetrated by a well that would meet the producibility requirements of § 550.115 or § 550.116: ( 1 ) General discussion of the overall development of the reservoir;
( 2 ) Summary spreadsheets of well log data and reservoir parameters (*i.e.,* sand tops and bases, fluid contacts, net pay, porosity, water saturations, pressures, formation volume factor);
( 3 ) Appropriate well logs, including digital well log (*i.e.,* gamma ray, resistivity, neutron, density, sonic, caliper curves) curves in an acceptable digital format;
( 4 ) Sidewall core/whole core and pressure-volume-temperature analysis;
( 5 ) Structure maps, with the existing and proposed penetration points and subsea depths for all wells penetrating the reservoirs, fluid contacts (or the lowest or highest known levels in the absence of actual contacts), reservoir boundaries, and the scale of the map;
( 6 ) Interpreted structural cross sections and corresponding interpreted seismic lines or block diagrams, as necessary, that include all current wellbores and planned wellbores on the leases or units to be developed, the reservoir boundaries, fluid contacts, depth scale, stratigraphic positions, and relative biostratigraphic ages;
( 7 ) Isopach maps of each reservoir showing the net feet of pay for each well within the reservoir identified at the penetration point, along with the well name, labeled contours, and scale;
( 8 ) Estimates of original oil and gas in-place and anticipated recoverable oil and gas reserves, all reservoir parameters, and risk factors and assumptions;
( 9 ) Plat map at the same scale as the structure maps with existing and proposed well paths, as well as existing and proposed penetrations;
( 10 ) Wellbore schematics indicating proposed perforations;
( 11 ) Proposed wellbore utility chart showing all existing and proposed wells, with proposed completion intervals indicated for each borehole;
( 12 ) Appropriate pressure data, specified by date, and whether estimated or measured;
( 13 ) Description of reservoir development strategies;
( 14 ) Description of the enhanced recovery practices you will use or, if you do not plan to use such practices, an explanation of the methods you considered and reasons you do not intend to use them;
( 15 ) For each reservoir you do not intend to develop: ( i ) A statement explaining the reason(s) you will not develop the reservoir, and
( ii ) Economic justification, including costs, recoverable reserve estimate, production profiles, and pricing assumptions; and
( 16 ) Any other appropriate data you used in performing your reservoir evaluations and preparing your reservoir development strategies.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-111713, as amended, 333-120414, 333-120415, 333-120416, 333-120417 and 333-120418) previouslyfiled by Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2007 (March 14, 2008 withrespect to the effects of the restatements discussed in Notes 13 and 17) with respect to our auditsof the consolidated financial statements of Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2006 and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding the Company’s adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” and therestatements discussed in Notes 13 and 17), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2007./s/ J. H. COHN LLPSan Diego, California
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESSE VASQUEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 187

- C R

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 30D02392 )

O R D E R

On March 22, 2018, the Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine

whether a portion of the reporter’s record has been lost or destroyed. The trial court is required to

make several fact findings, and our order required the court to hold the hearing within thirty days.

The court currently has the matter set for a hearing on April 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. The State has

filed a moti on requesting an extension of time for the trial court to conduct the hearing because

the investigation into the status of the reporter’s notes is ongoing and there remains a possibility

that the reporter’s notes exist. The State has also filed a motion t o stay the hearing set for April

13 , 2018 . Appellant opposes both motions. The State’s motions are GRANTED.

Therefore, t he deadline for the trial court to conduct the hearing is extended to May 21

,

201 8

. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclus ions of law are due to be filed with the District

Clerk no later than June 5, 2018

. The District Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental2

clerk ’ s record containing the trial court ’ s orders and/or findings on or before June 20, 2018.

Further, the court reporter’s transcription of the hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with

this Court on or before June 20 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 th d ay of April , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136332 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136332 

 COA: 279939 

Newaygo CC: 03-007948-FC

DEAN ALLAN ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00017-CV

GLENN WINNINGHAM; HOUSE OF FEARN, Appellant

V.

SARAH J. FULLENWIDER; OFFICER C. PAGE; NINFA MARES; 

JAMES D. ROGERS; JEFFREY HALSTEAD; WILLIAM RUMULY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 67th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 067-263565-13

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Glenn Winningham; House of Fearn, appellant, filed his notice of appeal February 20, 

2013.1 The clerk’s and reporter’s records in this matter were due to be filed with this Court on or 

before April 16, 2013. When neither the clerk’s record nor the reporter’s record had been filed 

by April 16, our clerk’s office contacted the district clerk and the court reporter and was 

informed that no payment and no arrangement for payment for the records’ preparation had been 

made by Winningham.

Winningham is not indigent and is, therefore, responsible for payment of the fees related 

to preparation of both the clerk’s and reporter’s records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3(a)(2), 

(b)(3), 37.3(b). By letter dated May 16, 2013, and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure 37.3(b) and 42.3(b), we provided Winningham notice of and an opportunity to cure 

this defect. Further, we warned Winningham that, if we did not receive an adequate response to 

our defect letter within ten days, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

 1

Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 

2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on 

any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3

We have received no communication from Winningham responsive to our May 16 

correspondence. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b) and 42.3(b), we

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 16, 2013

Date Decided: July 17, 2013
#### Joan Stober, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bankole E. Stober, Appellant, v. City of Cohoes, New York, Respondent.

Judgment and order-affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
#### Frank Gielskie, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

Order settled and signed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.801 Safety and pollution prevention equipment (SPPE) certification. ( a ) *SPPE equipment.* You must install only safety and pollution prevention equipment (SPPE) considered certified under paragraph (b) of this section or accepted under paragraph (c) of this section. BSEE considers the following equipment to be types of SPPE: ( 1 ) Surface safety valves (SSV) and actuators, including those installed on injection wells capable of natural flow;
( 2 ) Boarding shutdown valves (BSDV) and their actuators. For subsea wells, the BSDV is the surface equivalent of an SSV on a surface well;
( 3 ) Underwater safety valves (USV) and actuators;
( 4 ) Subsurface safety valves (SSSV) and associated safety valve locks and landing nipples; and
( 5 ) Gas lift shutdown valves (GLSDV) and their actuators associated with subsea systems.
( b ) *Certification of SPPE.* SPPE that is manufactured and marked pursuant to ANSI/API Spec. Q1 (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198), is considered as certified SPPE under this part. All other SPPE is considered as not certified, unless approved in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Accepting SPPE manufactured under other quality assurance programs.* BSEE may exercise its discretion to accept SPPE manufactured under a quality assurance program other than ANSI/API Spec. Q1, provided that the alternative quality assurance program is verified as equivalent to API Spec. Q1 by an appropriately qualified entity and that the operator submits a request to BSEE containing relevant information about the alternative program and receives BSEE approval. In addition, an operator may request that BSEE accept SPPE that is marked with a third-party certification mark other than the API monogram. All requests under this paragraph should be submitted to the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; VAE-ORP; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
[81 FR 60918, Sept. 7, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 49256, Sept. 28, 2018]
File No. 33-14604

File No. 811-04963

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

FORM N-1A

REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933	[X]  

Pre-Effective Amendment No. 	[   ]
Post-Effective Amendment No. 18 	[X]

and/or

REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940	[X]  

Amendment No. 20 	  

(Check appropriate box or boxes.)

THE BERWYN FUNDS

	

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

1189 Lancaster Avenue, Berwyn, PA  19312

	

(Address of Principal Executive Office)  (Zip Code)

Registrants Telephone Number, including Area Code   (610) 296-7222

	

Kevin M. Ryan, Secretary and Treasurer

The Berwyn Funds

1189 Lancaster Avenue, Berwyn, PA  19312

	

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

Please send copies of all communications to:

Kevin M. Ryan

Approximate date of proposed public offering: May 1, 2002			
It is proposed that this filing will become effective (check appropriate box):

.. immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b).

..... on May 1, 2001 pursuant to paragraph (b)

..... 60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)

..... on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)

..X. 75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)

..... on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 485.

If appropriate, check the following box:

.....   This post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a 

        previously filed post-effective amendment

 
** 

 

 

 

THE BERWYN FUNDS

 

 

BERWYN FUND SERIES

BERWYN INCOME FUND SERIES

BERWYN CORNERSTONE FUND SERIES

 

 

 

 

PROSPECTUS

May 1, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
*The Securities and Exchange Commission has not approved or disapproved these securities or passed upon the adequacy of this prospectus.  Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.*
 
***TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Page****Berwyn Fund Series  **Risk/Return Summary **3**Performance **4**Fees and Expenses **5**Investment Objective, Principal Strategies and******************
#### Robert Burnside et al., Respondents, v Suburban Syracuse Airport, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and summary judgment granted defendant Suburban Air dismissing complaint. Memorandum: This action to foreclose plaintiffs Burn-sides’ mortgage given by defendant Suburban Syracuse Airport, Inc., was commenced on November 26, 1976 by the service of a summons and complaint. The affidavit of the process server, Robert Hulland, stated that he personally knew Suburban’s president, Robert N. Weichert, for five years and that during that period of time Weichert had maintained a business office at 46 Oswego Street, Village of Baldwinsville, and that this was also the office of Suburban, the defendant corporation. Several days prior to December 6, 1976 Hulland searched for Weichert at his office in Baldwins-ville, at the airport operated by Suburban and at Weichert’s residence. He was not successful in effecting service upon him. He therefore left a copy of the summons and complaint with Donna Seymour, employed by Weichert for approximately two years as his secretary at defendant’s place of business at 46 Oswego Street, Baldwinsville, and mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to 46 Oswego Street. He asked Donna Seymour to deliver the summons and complaint to Weichert. CPLR 311 provides with respect to service upon a domestic corporation: "Personal service upon a corporation or governmental subdivision shall be made by delivering the summons as follows: 1. upon any domestic or foreign corporation, to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service”. It is clear that the process server merely left the summons and complaint with the secretary to the president of defendant, for the purpose of effecting service pursuant to CPLR 308 which relates only to service upon a natural person. The secretary was not employed by the defendant. In his affidavit of service Hulland checked the box entitled "suitable age person,” apparently assuming that delivery to a person of suitable age would be permissible. (But see *McDonald v Ames Supply Co.,*22 NY2d 111.) Even were Donna Seymour an employee of defendant, service upon her would not have been service upon the corporate defendant *(Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Singer Sewing Mach. Co.,*281 App Div *867),*she not being a person designated in CPLR 311. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted to defendant Suburban in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 3212 (subd [b]) upon the ground that in personam jurisdiction over the corporate defendant was not properly obtained by service of process pursuant to CPLR 311 (subd 1). (Appeal from order or Oswego Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer. JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Gayley Mill Corporation, Respondent, and Princeton Rayon Corporation, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 56.12011 High-potential electrical conductors.

High-potential electrical conductors shall be covered, insulated, or placed to prevent contact with low potential conductors.
#### Alfonso Pannone, Appellant, v. Lena Pannone, Individually and as Executrix of Ralph Pannone, Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an ejectment action to recover possession of certain real property, in which the defendant Lena Pannone asserted a counterclaim that plaintiff held the title for her under a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 28, 1962 upon the decision and opinion of the court, after a nonjury trial, in favor of said defendant upon her -counterclaim, -adjudging that plaintiff held the title to the property in trust for -her and directing its conveyance to her upon her -payment to plaintiff of the sums which he had paid for the property and for the taxes thereon. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The question presented was primarily factual and, in our opinion, the determination of the learned -Special Term was amply supported by the proof (of. *Pagano*v. *Pagano,*2 A D 2d 756, mot. for iv. to opp. den., 2 N Y 2d 708). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Goldfine, Appellant, v. Barsol (Parson) Cab Operating Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a Referee’s decision disallowing the claim on the ground the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Claimant, a cab driver, was injured in a scuffle with another motorist following a “near” accident. The board noted in its memorandum of decision: “ There is evidence in the record indicating that the claimant initiated the altercation and that the claimant took himself out of the emplojment when he got out of his cab and assaulted the motorist.” We agree that there is substantial evidence in the record justifying this comment. The memorandum of decision recites further: “ The Board finds on the evidence that the claimant in getting out of the cab and initiating the altercation removed himself from the employment.” The case is very closely analogous to *Matter of Adelstein*v. *Bellride Transp. Corp.*(15 A D 2d 690, motion for leave to ¡appeal denied 11 N Y 2d 643). The cases principally relied upon by the claimant are cases where there was an affirmance of a finding by the board the other way. Moreover, in this case the board found “ the injury was occasioned by the claimant’s - wilful intention to injure the motorist ” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 10). There is substantial evidence to support the factual determination of the board. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.