alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas D. Bieber, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen D. Bieber, Deceased, Respondent, v County of Wayne, Defendant, and Town of Ontario et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Mary A. R. Riker et al., Plaintiffs, v Estate of Kathleen D. Bieber et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Estate of Kathleen D. Bieber et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v County of Wayne, Third-Party Defendant, and Town of Ontario et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 3.)

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motions granted and complaints dismissed. Memorandum: The Town of Ontario and Ontario Pipeline, Inc., defendants and third-party defendants in these actions, appeal from an order denying their separate motions for summary judgment. The underlying causes of action arise out of an accident occurring April 14, 1975 on West Lake Road at a point east of its intersection with Knickerbocker Road. Both highways are county roads. The accident occurred when an eastbound van operated by decedent Kathleen Bieber left the paved portion of the highway on the south side, returned to the highway, and then crossed over to the north side of the pavement and collided with a westbound vehicle operated by plaintiff Mary Riker. In the fall of 1974 the appellant town had contracted with appellant Ontario Pipeline, Inc., to install sewer lines in the area. The work east of Knickerbocker Road was performed entirely outside of the bounds of the highway except for one lateral cut, perpendicular from the sewer trunk line, which crossed the shoulder and highway to serve a facility to the north of it. That lateral was installed and the cut filled by Ontario Pipeline in the fall of 1974 and defendant Wayne County resurfaced the cut before the accident. The contract of Ontario Pipeline, Inc., was completed and accepted in 1974 and the contractor was paid in full for the job prior to this accident. Under those circumstances there is no factual basis upon which appellants may be held liable for defects in the shoulder or pavement of the highway in the vicinity of the accident. The only other basis upon which appellants might be liable is that in late 1974 Ontario Pipeline gratuitously filled some holes in the shoulder of the highway at the request of the county after some trees had been removed. The evidence in the record establishes, however, that this work was east of the point of the collision and could not have been causally related to the accident. (Appeal from order of Wayne Supreme Court-summary judgment.) Present-Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.
### §3935. Duration and term of stays; codefendants not in service

#### (a) Period of stay

A stay of an action, proceeding, attachment, or execution made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter by a court may be ordered for the period of military service and 90 days thereafter, or for any part of that period. The court may set the terms and amounts for such installment payments as is considered reasonable by the court.

#### (b) Codefendants

If the servicemember is a codefendant with others who are not in military service and who are not entitled to the relief and protections provided under this chapter, the plaintiff may proceed against those other defendants with the approval of the court.

#### (c) Inapplicability of section

This section does not apply to sections 3932 and 4021 of this title.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title II, §205, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2844.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 525 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 205 of act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, art. II, 54 Stat. 1181; Oct. 6, 1942, ch. 581, §5, 56 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 102–12, §9(6), Mar. 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 39, related to statutes of limitations as affected by period of service, prior to the general amendment of this Act by Pub. L. 108–189. See section 3936 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.
#### Mary White *et al. v.*The Town of West Chicago.

*Filed at Ottawa November 23, 1896.*

The opinion in the case of *Culver*v. *People,*161 Ill. 89, is decisive of this case, as the record and questions presented are the same.

Writ of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding.

George W. Wilbur, for plaintiffs in error.

Per Curiam:

The same record presented in this case has been before us on three occasions: *Culver*v. *People,*161 Ill. 89, *Farrell*v. *Town of West Chicago,*162 id. 280, and *Connor*v. *Town of West Chicago,*id. 287. In the *Culver case*it was decided that the ordinance upon the validity of which the judgment depended was without authority of law, and void by reason of a provision for dividing the special assessment into installments, with interest. That decision was adopted in the other cases and is equally conclusive in this.

■The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Appendices 

Appendix A – Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

112
 
113
 
114
 
115
 
116
 
117
 
118
 
119
 
120
**Exhibit
      32**





CERTIFICATION
      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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diapulse Corporation
      of America (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned,
      being the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.
            The
                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





By:
            /s/
                David M. Ross
            
            May
                15, 2008David
                M. RossPresident,
                Chief Executive Officerand
                Principal Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Diapulse Corporation of America and will be retained by Diapulse Corporation
      of
      America and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
Map 2-10: Alternative B

Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Related to Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas

BLM and USFS Surface

Management

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified restrictions displayed on this map

are in addition to existing restrictions already

approved through previous planning efforts.
#### DRAISNER v. LISS REALTY CO., Inc.

No. 11799.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 15,1954.

Decided April 8, 1954.

Petition for Rehearing and/or Modification of Decision Denied May 11, 1954.

Mr. Everett M. Raffel, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Jacob N. Halper, Washington, D. C., with whom Samuel B. Block, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Before CLARK, FAHY and DANA-HER, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

The complaint in this action was filed May 31, 1949 seeking recovery of a deposit from the defendant Draisner, appellant here.1 On November 23, 1949, upon application of the plaintiff, the clerk entered a default against Draisner who, despite personal service of process, had entered no appearance and had caused no pleading to be filed. On January 19, 1953, upon request of the plaintiff and on affidavit of the amount of the deposit due from Draisner, judgment by default was entered by the clerk in the amount claimed. From that judgment Draisner has brought this appeal.

When the complaint first was served upon him, Draisner consulted counsel.* After the time for answering elapsed, plaintiff’s attorney communicated with Draisner’s counsel and offered to extend the time for the filing of an answer. Two weeks later plaintiff again requested an answer. Four months later plaintiff advised of his intention to apply for the entry of a default unless an appearance was promptly entered. Finally the default was entered, but plaintiff wrote again indicating his willingness to have the default set aside upon condition that an answer be filed within five days. Despite these numerous entreaties, appellant took no action until some three years later to set aside the entry of default or defend against the complaint. It is difficult to imagine what additional steps were possibly open to plaintiff to induce Draisner to appear and plead. *809We can only corclude that Draisner’s persistent default was willful and intentional and, therefore, that “good cause” for setting aside the entry of default could not be shown 2

The claim of the plaintiff was for a sum certain, and the defendant had been defaulted for failure to appear. Under such circumstances, Rule 55(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed, and the clerk was authorized to enter the judgment.

There is no error.

Affirmed.

1

. Originally the complaint declared against four defendants, but a voluntary non-suit was taken as to one, and in due course, and under circumstances not here perti.-nent, motions to dismiss with prejudice were granted as to two others, leaving the appellant as the only defendant.

*

 Not his present attorney.

2

. See Rule 55(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6384
JOHN H. TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-2687-JFM) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Taylor v. Corcoran , No. CA-96-2687-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 5, 1997) . We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

[LETTERHEAD OF MEADOWLARK SEARCH, 3045 MEADOWLARK DRIVE, EAST HELENA, MT 59635]

Peter C. Ellsworth
265 Benton Avenue
Missoula, Montana 59801

Dear Peter:

Township 16 North, Range 24 East
Section        19: Lots 1(40.47 ac), 2(40.62 ac), 3(40.78 ac), 4(40.93 ac);
               E1/2NW1/4; NE1/4; NE1/4SW1/4; NW 1/4SE1/4; 482.80 acres

SURFACE OWNERSHIP:

               William W. Lewis Equity Trust
               Bonnie D. Tuss, Trustee
               Dorothey M. Lewis, Trustee

MINERAL OWNERSHIP:

        1/2 interest                              1/2 interest
        William W. Lewis Equity Trust              David W. Lewis
        Bonnie D. Tuss, Trustee
        Dorothey M. Lewis, Trustee

William W. Lewis & David W. Lewis purchased the land in June of 1952 with the
Warranty Deed being filed on December 3, 1962 from Delbert & Hattie Buckler.

There are some out standing Royalty interests. One was reserved by Washington
National Insurance Company of 5% in 1942. Another one, was reserved by Delbert &
Hattie Buckler of 1/2 of all remaining royalty in and to oil and mineral rights.
Where these have gone to and who claims them will need further investigation.
These royalty interests do not need to be considered in the leasing of the
property. Only after production is about to start, sone one needs to find the
ownership of these outstanding royalty interests.

For your information:

When the Lewis' purchased the subject property from Buckler it also included the
following lands:

Township 16 North, Range 24 East
Section 17: SW1/4; S1/2SE1/4;
Section 20: NW1/4; N1/2NE1/4;
Section 21: N1/2NW1/4;

Thank you for the work.  Please call with any questions.

                             Sincerely,


                             /s/ Stephen R. Granzow

                             Stephen R. Granzow
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          86,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,966
<INVENTORY>                                    160,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               483,245
<PP&E>                                         701,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                 357,919
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 952,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,409
<BONDS>                                        168,459
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   952,037
<SALES>                                        852,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               861,688
<CGS>                                          545,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  545,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 701

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54929, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 701 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93319-93323, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 701.3 Authority.

The Secretary is required by section 501(b) of the Act to promulgate regulations which establish the permanent regulatory program; by section 523 of the Act to promulgate regulations which establish the Federal lands programs; and is authorized by section 710 of the Act to promulgate regulations which establish a Federal program for Indian lands.

[49 FR 38477, Sept. 28, 1984]
§ 77.1436 Drum end attachment. ( a ) For drum end attachment, wire rope shall be attached— ( 1 ) Securely by clips after making one full turn around the drum spoke;
( 2 ) Securely by clips after making one full turn around the shaft, if the drum is fixed to the shaft; or
( 3 ) By properly assembled anchor bolts, clamps, or wedges, provided that the attachment is a design feature of the hoist drum. Design feature means either the manufacturer's original design or a design approved by a registered professional engineer.
( b ) A minimum of three full turns of wire rope shall be on the drum when the rope is extended to its maximum working length.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Greene County Bancshares, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Greene County Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-08609) of our report
dated January 29, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each
of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1998, which report is
included in this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Knoxville, Tennessee
March 25, 1999
§ 736.24 Federal program effect on State funding. ( a ) After the withdrawal of a State program and the promulgation and implementation of a complete Federal program for a State and extending until approval of a new State program, the Director shall not— ( 1 ) Approve, fund or continue to fund a State abandoned mine reclamation program, under section 405(c) of the Act and 30 CFR 884.14, 884.15, 884.16 and 886.18; or,
( 2 ) Make any grants to assist the State in administering and enforcing State programs under the Act and 30 CFR 735.11 and 735.12.
( b ) After the withdrawal of a State program in part and the promulgation and implementation of a partial Federal program for a State and extending until the approval of a complete State program the Director shall not— ( 1 ) Approve, fund or continue to fund a State abandoned mine reclamation program, under section 405(c) of the Act and 30 CFR 884.14, 884.15, 884.16 and 886.18, unless the Director finds, in writing, that discontinuation of funding would not be consistent with achieving the purposes of the Act, and
( 2 ) Make any grants to assist the State in administering and enforcing State programs under the Act and 30 CFR 735.12, unless the Director finds in writing that discontinuation of funding would not be consistent with achieving the purposes of the Act.
Exhibit 32-48
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 5, 2009
    /s/ DAVID E. MEADORDavid E. MeadorExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
#### Sunya Rosenberg, Appellant, v. Michael Rosenberg, Respondent.

Order, entered on September 30, 3963, unanimously reversed, on the facts and on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and motion of plaintiff to punish defendant for contempt granted, with $10 costs. Defendant failed to properly explain his noncompliance with the directions contained in the judgment of separation for the payment of alimony and for support of the child of the marriage. There was no satisfactory prima facie showing of defendant’s financial inability to make the payments as directed. On the record here, the defendant should have been and is adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to make such payments. (See Judiciary Law, § 770; Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 1172, 1172-a; Domestic Relations Law, §§ 245, 246: 18 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, §§ 87, 88, pp. 538-542.) The defendant’s failure to pay as directed was calculated to and actually did defeat, impede, impair or prejudice the rights and remedies of the plaintiff herein. The defendant is fined the amount of the arrears still remaining unpaid, together with the costs of the appeal, and $10 costs of this motion, and in default of the payment of such fine within 10 days from date of service of copy of the order hereon with notice of entry, he shall be committed. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.; Stevens, J., concurs in the result but would grant defendant leave to renew the application for reduction upon proper papers. Settle order on notice.
### §3509. Repealed. Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208, title VI, §601(b), 68 Stat. 1115

Section, acts June 20, 1949, ch. 227, §9, 63 Stat. 212; Aug. 16, 1950, ch. 719, 64 Stat. 450, related to establishment of positions in the professional and scientific field.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 403i of this title and repealed prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
§ 585.215 What may BOEM do to assess whether competitive interest for a lease area still exists before the auction? ( a ) At any time BOEM has reason to believe that competitive interest in any lease area no longer exists before the area's auction, BOEM may issue a notice in the Federal Register, as described in § 585.116, requesting information regarding competitive interest in that area. BOEM will consider respondents' comments to determine whether competitive interest in that area remains. BOEM may decide to end the competitive process for any area if it determines that competitive interest no longer exists.
( b ) If BOEM determines after considering respondents' comments to such a notice that competitive interest remains, BOEM will continue with the competitive process set forth in §§ 585.210 through 585.226.
( c ) If BOEM determines at any time before the auction that only a single party remains interested in a lease area, BOEM may proceed either with the auction or with the noncompetitive process set forth in § 585.231(d) through (j) following payment by that party of the acquisition fee specified in § 585.502(a).