alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dendy *vs.*Gamble & Copeland.

An indigent sister and her children, though mainly dependent on the-applicant for support, do not constitute a family .for whose benefit he can take a homestead. To constitute one head of a family within the meaning of the homestead clause of the constitution of 1868, there must be some legal obligation on him to support its members.

Homestead. Before Judge Cjrawford. Harris Superior-Court. October Term, 1879.

Reported in the decision.

Blanford & Garrard, for plaintiff in error.

Blount & Cameron ; John Peabody, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the court below on an appeal from, the ordinary of Harris county, allowing to the applicant a-homestead exemption under the constitution of 1863. The-applicant in his petition alleged that he was the head of a, family consisting of his sister, a widow about thirty-eight-years old, and her three children, aged seventeen, fifteen, and seven years old, respectively, who are indigent and1 mainly dependent upon petitioner for support. The creditors of the applicant demurred to his petition for a homestead' on the ground that it did nob show him to be such-a “ head of a family ” as the law contemplates, to entitle him, to a homestead. The court sustained the demurrer andi dismissed the application, whereupon the applicant excepted.

. The applicant was under no legal obligation to support the persons whom he claimed to be his family, and therefore he was not entitled to a homestead as the head of such family. 40 *Ga.,*173; 41 *Ga.,*153; 42 *Ga.,*405. If the applicant could obtain a homestead as the head of a family *529of persons whom he was not legally bound to support, then he might enjoy it for his own benefit exclusively, and refuse, with impunity, to support those for whose benefit ■ he claimed to have obtained it.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
Appeal No. 77-42.

#### State *v.*Gerard T. Ouimette.

Motion that this court render an opinion in this case is denied as moot.

*961
      *Peter DiBiase,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Nancy Marks Rahmes,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for defendant.

Bevilacqua, C. J., *not*participating.
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN                                  
|Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2008
§ 74.17 Changes after certification. ( a ) If the applicant desires to change any feature of a certified CMDPSU or a certified CPDM, the applicant shall first obtain the approval of NIOSH pursuant to the following procedures: ( 1 ) Application shall be made as for an original certificate of approval, requesting that the existing certification be extended to encompass the proposed change. The application shall be accompanied by drawings, specifications, and related material.
( 2 ) The application and accompanying material will be examined by NIOSH to determine whether testing of the modified CMDPSU or CPDM or components will be required. Testing will be necessary if there is a possibility that the modification may adversely affect the performance of the CMDPSU or CPDM. NIOSH will inform the applicant whether such testing is required.
( 3 ) If the proposed modification meets the pertinent requirements of these regulations, a formal extension of certification will be issued, accompanied by a list of new and revised drawings and specifications to be added to those already on file as the basis for the extension of certification.
( b ) If a change is proposed in a pump unit of a certified CMDPSU or in electrical components of a CPDM, the approval of MSHA with respect to intrinsic safety shall be obtained in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 74.11(d).
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Sullivan, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

—On the call of the calendar, on motion by respondent, appeal dismissed. Appellant failed to comply with an order of this court, dated December 27, 1961, requiring him to perfect his appeal for the April 1962 Term. Ughetta, Acting, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., not voting.
#### Joyce Research and Development Corporation, Appellant, v. Equi-Flow Division of Vibro Mfg. Co., Inc., Respondent.

Motions by appellant for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
# C_2008209EN.01004302.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/43

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2008 — Trubowest Handel GmbH and Makarov v Council and Commission

(Case T-429/04) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Anti-dumping duties - Anti-dumping Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Lawyers' fees incurred in domestic proceedings - Inadmissibility - Material and non-material damage - Causal link)

(2008/C 209/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (Cologne, Germany) and Viktor Makarov, (Cologne), (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Application for compensation under Article 288 EC, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Victor Makarov to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Victor Makarov to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

1

---
### §20115. International cooperation

The Administration, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this chapter, and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3337.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20115 | 42 U.S.C. 2475. | Pub. L. 85–568, title II, §205, July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 432. |

Section

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Authority

Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 10, 1995, 60 F.R. 53251, provided:

Memorandum for the Administrator of the National and Aeronautics and Space Administration

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to facilitate the efficient operations of the aeronautical and space programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), it is hereby ordered as follows:

The authority conferred upon the President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America to executive mutual waivers of claims of liability on behalf of the United States for damages arising out of cooperative activities is hereby delegated to the Administrator of NASA for agreements with foreign governments and their agents regarding aeronautical, science, and space activities that are executed pursuant to the authority granted NASA by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law 85–568, as amended [see 51 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.]. All such agreements shall be subject to coordination with and the concurrence of the Department of State to the extent provided by applicable law, regulations, and procedures. All such waivers of liability entered into prior to the date of this memorandum are hereby ratified.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton.
Exhibit 12 (b)

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DIVIDEND

                          (in thousands, except ratios)

                                                            Twelve-month
                                                            period ended
                                                          December 31, 2002
                                                          -----------------

Net income                                                    $ 32,894
                                                                ======
Fixed charges
      Audit fees                                                    25
      Trustee fees                                                 166
      Administrative and consulting fees                         1,207
                                                               -------
Total fixed charges                                              1,398
                                                               -------
Earnings before fixed charges                                $  34,292
                                                               -------
Fixed charges, as above                                          1,398
                                                               -------
Preferred securities dividend                                   38,690
                                                               -------
Fixed charges including preferred securities dividends       $  40,088
                                                               -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
  securities dividend                                             0.86
                                                               -------
#### In re RIVERSIDE PARK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

In the matter of the Riverside Park. B. M. Whitlock, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
#### KELSEY v. BANK OF MANSFIELD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Otto Kelsey, as receiver, etc., against the Bank of Mansfield.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
§ 881.2 Definitions. As used in the regulations in this part and in cooperative agreements entered into pursuant to the regulations in this part: ( a ) *Government* means the United States of America;
( b ) *Commission* means the Appalachian Regional Development Commission established by section 101 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965;
( c ) *State* means any one of the States listed in section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965; and
( d ) Local authorities or local bodies of government means a county, city, township, town, or borough, and other local governmental bodies organized and existing under authority or State laws.
### §70907. Maintaining use through at least 2030

(a) Policy.—The Administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the International Space Station remains a viable and productive facility capable of potential United States utilization through at least September 30, 2030.

(b) NASA Actions.—In furtherance of the policy under subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the International Space Station, as a designated national laboratory—

(1) remains viable as an element of overall exploration and partnership strategies and approaches;

(2) is considered for use by all NASA mission directorates, as appropriate, for technically appropriate scientific data gathering or technology risk reduction demonstrations; and

(3) remains an effective, functional vehicle providing research and test bed capabilities for the United States through at least September 30, 2030.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3438; Pub. L. 114–90, title I, §114(b)(4), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 716; Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title VII, §10815(d)(1), Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1738.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70907 | 42 U.S.C. 17751(a). | Pub. L. 110–422, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4793. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–167, §10815(d)(1)(A), substituted "2030" for "2024" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–167, §10815(d)(1)(B), substituted "September 30, 2030" for "September 30, 2024".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 117–167, §10815(d)(1)(C), substituted "September 30, 2030" for "September 30, 2024".

2015—Pub. L. 114–90 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to maintaining the International Space Station as a viable and productive facility capable of potential United States utilization through at least 2020.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA- 2013 - 0329 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM032AD
A330 - 27 - 3176 --- 7/26/11 A330 - 27 - 3176, R01 --- 3/27/12 A340 - 27 -4162 --- 1/10/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
### §320105. Criminal penalties

Criminal penalties for a violation of a regulation authorized by this chapter are provided by section 1866 of title 18.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3259.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 320105 | no source. | |

Section

The section is added for informational purposes.
United States Navy–Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Brandon M. FONTANEZBURGOS

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201800354

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Decided: 21 March 2019.

Military Judge: 

Lieutenant Colonel Emily A. Jackson-Hall, USMC.

Sentence adjudged 3 October 2018 by a special court-martial convened 

at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: confinement for 

60 days and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE, and GERRITY

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. FontanezBurgos, No. 201800354

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Milestones, cancer researchwith a purpose, highlights**
 
2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3152: M 59/
Item Number:N/A
CGP systemNumber:001051995
 
March 4, 2020
#### Ruth C. Kirp, Respondent, v. Caleb’s Path Realty Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover real estate brokerage commissions, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supremo Court, Suffolk County, entered October 9, 1962 upon the court’s decision' after *745a, noujury trial, as is in plaintiff’s favor against it. No appeal has been taken from that portion of the judgment which granted to the defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, a judgment against certain third-party defendants. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. On the basis of the official documentary proof, to wit, the plaintiff’s license as a real estate broker, which has been submitted to us on this appeal and which appears to be incontrovertible, we are satisfied that, at the time the alleged cause of action accrued, plaintiff was a real estate (broker duly licensed as such by the State of New York (Real Property Law, § 442-d). For the purpose of sustaining a judgment, incontrovertible, documentary evidence dehors the appeal record may be received by an appellate court *(Dunford*v. *Weaver,*84 N. Y. 445, 451; *Dunham*v. *Townsend,*118 N. Y. 281, 286; e£. *People*v. *Fla eh,*216 N. Y. 123, 127-130; *Ripley*v. *Hiorer,*309 N. Y. 506, 518). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 1071 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2024. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 6276) to direct the Administrator of General Services 

and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

to identify the utilization rate of certain public buildings and 

federally-leased space, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 

five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure now printed in the bill shall be considered 
2 

•HRES 1071 EH 

as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 

waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 

be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such further amendments 

are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 

amended, to the House with such further amendments as 

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 

motion except one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order without intervention of any point of order to consider 

in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1065) denouncing the 

Biden administration’s immigration policies. The resolution 
3 

•HRES 1071 EH 

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 

of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Map 2-22: Alternative D

Areas Withdrawn from Mineral Entry

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)

Withdrawn from Mineral Entry

Recommended for Withdrawal from

Mineral Entry

Federal Locatable Mineral Estate

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.