alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(October 30, 1963)

#### In the Matter of Theodore R. Kupperman, Appellant, v. Herman Katz, as City Clerk of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Order, entered October 23, 1963, denying petition for judgment declaring invalid Local Law, No. 51 of the Local Laws of 1963 of the City of New York and enjoining submission of Proposition Number One to the voters on November 5, 1963, unanimously affirmed, without costs to any party. It is clear enough that in the absence of express statutory authority, an advisory referendum by a city is not authorized *{Mills*v. *Sweeney,*219 N. Y. 213, 221). It is also clear that the City of New York possesses no such authority. It is equally clear that a legislative referendum is not authorized unless specifically required by statute *{Matter of McCabe*v. *Voorhis,*243 N. Y. 401, 413, involving an abortive attempt to submit to the public the question of a rapid transit fare increase). It has also been held that a transparent attempt to formulate *825a mandatory legislative referendum on some technical basis will not suffice, if in fact the attempt is really to avoid governmental responsibility and shift the burden of decision to a public poll *(Jlatter of Astwood*v. *Gohen,*291 N. Y. 484, 490-491). On these premises, most of the court believe that the instant referendum could not survive analysis that it is an advisory, and, therefore, unauthorized referendum. The committee appropriation concededly could have been obtained in just slightly more than 10 days without submission to the voters (N. Y. City Charter, § 124, subd. [e]) — hardly a significant delay in view of the much greater time involved between the date of enactment in August and the projected submission to the voters in November. However, the applicable remedy is in the nature of mandamus involving the exercise of judicial discretion *(Matter of Ahern*v. *Board of Supervisors,*6 N Y 2d 376, 381). Although the local legislation was enacted in the City Council on August 20, 1963, this proceeding was not instituted until October 14, 1963, and the related proceeding not until October 7, 1963. In the meantime all of the machinery and expenditure for the conduct of the referendum have gone forward. The delay in bringing the proceeding has not been adequately explained, is not justified, and is harmful (see 22 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 297, p. 388; 1 N. Y. Jur., Administrative Law, § 169). Inexcusably delayed proceedings in election matters coming to judicial determination close to the eve of the polling are especially not to be encouraged. Consequently, on this ground the order is affirmed. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10234 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. NICHOLAS MAURICE RODRIGUEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-42-1 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicholas Maurice Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdrawis GRANTED, counsel isexcused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0036 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM230AD

84 -28 - 03, RB --- 10/18/06 84 -28 - 04, RA --- 11/15/06 84 -28 - 04 --- 6/29/06 84 - 57 - 09, RA --- 3/19/07 PSM 1 - 84 - 7, ALI - 103 --- 4/26/10 MTCM 000 -28 - 520 - 714, R20 --- 10/5/09 MTCM 000 -28 - 620 - 713, R22 --- 7/5/10 MPD PSM 1 - 84 - 7, R24 --- 7/5/10 AMM PART 2, PSM 1 - 84 -2, R33 --- 7/5/10

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: 03/05/2008
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28614]



[[Page 85639]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 20-20]


Astra Supply Chain, LLC and TDS Management, LLC, Complainants v. 
B&Q Freight China Limited, Respondent; Notice of Filing of Complaint 
and Assignment

Served: December 17, 2020.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Astra Supply Chain, LLC., and TDS 
Management, LLC, hereinafter ``Complainants'', against B&Q Freight 
China Limited, hereinafter ``Respondent''. Complainant alleges that 
Respondent is a foreign NVOCC registered with the Commission.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent violated sections 10(b)(11) and 
10(b)(12) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), and 46 CFR 
515.32(c) with regard to a failure to release containers. The full text 
of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading 
Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/20-20/.
    This proceeding has been assigned to Office of Administrative Law 
Judges. The initial decision of the presiding office in this proceeding 
shall be issued by December 17, 2021, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by June 17, 2022.

Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28614 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                          52,380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  405,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               460,607
<PP&E>                                       7,507,018
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,642,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,400,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          624,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       479,764
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,295,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,400,114
<SALES>                                      1,162,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,187,652
<CGS>                                        1,153,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,153,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,463
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael C. Coffman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panhandle Royalty Company(the Company);  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of, the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:   a). designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;    b). evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this annual report based on our evaluation; and    c). disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscalyear that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors:   a). all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information;    b). any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.   /s/ Michael C. Coffman Michael C. Coffman  Chief Financial Officer  Date: December 13, 2005
file:///J|/SNURS/SNUR%20Batch%20FY10-3/sanitized%20report/sanitized%20engineering%20reports/p080742.sanitized.eng.txt [5/11/2010 1:13:28 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 08-0742 Focus Ready Draft 10/9/2008 (sanitized 12/14/2009) ENGINEER: Prothero \ CPW PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: SACHEM, Inc.
USE:
OTHER USES: MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: Ensure adequate ventilation, especially in confined areas/ Protect against splashes from pouring/ avoid formation of aerosol/ goggles/ face shield if splashes are likely to occur/ chemical resistant apron/ impervious clothingg/ rubber gloves. Respirator: In case of mist, spray or aerosol exposure wear suitable personal respiratory protection and protective suit. Health Effects: Corrosive to the eyes and may cause severe damage including blindness/ corrosive to skin, causes burns/ avoid breathing vapors or mists, causes burns/ can burn mouth, throat, and stomach. TLV/PEL: none established

CRSS : Chemical Name: Phosphonium, tetrabutyl-, hydroxide (1:1) S-H20: 1000 g/L @ VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ MW: 276.00 %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: Neat: Solid Mfg: Solution, 40% PMN material in water Proc/Form: Solution, 40% PMN material in water End Use: Solution, PMN material in polymerization process or destroyed. Submitted data: The MSDS contains data for the 40% aqueous solution. Estimated data: The vp is expected to be negligible (salt). When the case was previously submitted (L-95-0215), the submitter verified (in a phone conversation) that the PMN material is completely soluble in water.
Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (10/03/2008): Migration to groundwater: Slow to moderate PBT rating: P1B1T2 Health: 2-3 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1)file:///J|/SNURS/SNUR%20Batch%20FY10-3/sanitized%20report/sanitized%20engineering%20reports/p080742.sanitized.eng.txt [5/11/2010 1:13:28 PM] OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.
EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No
### Part F—Miscellaneous Provisions and Appropriations

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 87–703, title III, §324(1), Sept. 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 626, redesignated part E as F.

Act May 28, 1956, ch. 327, title V, §501(2), 70 Stat. 208, redesignated part D as E.
(October 3, 1963)

#### In the Matter of Irving Mason, Appellant, v. Busch's Kredit Jewelry Co., Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on April 15, 1963, denying appellant’s petition to vacate assignment of wages given in 1950 and for return of moneys recently collected thereunder, unanimously affirmed, without costs, with leave to appellant to renew his petition on the ground of loches of respondent, if the circumstances warrant, within 60 days from notice of entry of the order hereon. Appellant’s contention that the Statute of Limitations prevents enforcement of the assignment might have merit if the assignment covered only specific wages earned in the past beyond the period of limitations, and if the assignee’s right of action related back to such time-barred accruals of wages (see *Matter of Isensee,*7 A D 2d 224, affd. 7 N Y 2d 873). However, this assignment covers all wages earned “until the indebtedness i:: * ° shall have been paid in full”, and thus recent wages earned are subject to the assignment as long as the indebtedness has not in fact been fully paid. Consequently, the assignee’s rights, and therefore rights of action, accrue upon these wages as they are earned. The applicable Statute of Limitations, in further consequence, does not bar the rights of the assignee to the recent wages *(Matter of Lott,*49 N. Y. S. 2d 134, 139). However, equitable assignments such as this are enforced only so long as it is not against public policy or inequitable to do so (see *Field*v. *City of Neiv Tori:,*6 N. Y. 179, 186-187). Since respondent apparently has failed for over' 12 years to enforce its right to collect assigned wages, the circumstances may show it should be barred by its loches, which, to be sure, requires detriment to the one resisting a claim and inexcusable delay on the part of the claimant (see *Reynolds*v. *Snow,*10 A D 2d 101, 111, affd. 8 N Y 2d 899; *Prouty*v. *Brake,*18 Mise 2d 887, 890-891; *Palmer*v. *Palmer,*112 Me. 149, 155-156). If respondent is guilty of loches, the wage assignment may, perhaps, be vacated under the statute (Personal Property Law, § 47-e). Of course, the court does not now pass on any of the legal implications which may rise from facts not now presented to it. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §961. Establishment

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, is authorized to establish a voluntary government-private sector program (to be known as the "Customs–Trade Partnership Against Terrorism" or "C–TPAT") to strengthen and improve the overall security of the international supply chain and United States border security, and to facilitate the movement of secure cargo through the international supply chain, by providing benefits to participants meeting or exceeding the program requirements. Participants in C–TPAT shall include Tier 1 participants, Tier 2 participants, and Tier 3 participants.

#### (b) Minimum security requirements

The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall review the minimum security requirements of C–TPAT at least once every year and update such requirements as necessary.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title II, §211, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1909.)
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TONY ORLANDO SLOAN

No. 11A97

(Filed 3 October 1997)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from an unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 124 N.C. App. 672, 478 S.E.2d 677 (1996), affirming a sentence imposed on the defendant on 8 September 1995 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 1997.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Don Wright, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Isabel Scott Day, Public Defender, by Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Guadalupe Mountains
National ParkTexas
#### Harold V. Engle, Respondent, v. Yankee Realty Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a fall by plaintiff while working as a steamfitter on a building which was in the process of construction by defendant, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the City Court of Yonkers, dated October 25, 1960, as failed to grant unconditionally its motion to dismiss the action by reason of plaintiff’s failure to serve his complaint within the time prescribed (Civ. Prac. Act, § 257); as granted the motion “unless the complaint is served upon the defendant’s attorney within ten days”; and as directed defendant to accept service of the complaint within such 10-day period. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the action granted unconditionally. The accident occurred on April 3, 1957. The action was commenced by the service of a summons on November 23, 1957. A notice of appearance was served on November 29,1957. On March 29, 1960, a few days prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, plaintiff served his complaint. On March 30, 1960 defendant returned the complaint as not timely served (Civ. Prac. Act, § 257). In our opinion, under the circumstances the motion to dismiss should have been granted unconditionally. The explanation of plaintiff’s counsel for the late service of the complaint was: (1) that he was delayed in his efforts to ascertain from the plaintiff and his witnesses the location of the accident, and (2) that there were several personnel changes in his office. Such explanation is insufficient to excuse the unreasonable delay in serving the complaint *(Parmett*v. *Concord Hotel,*9 A D 2d 767, and cases there cited; *Lasner*v. *Lefrak Organization,*23 Misc 2d 916). The absence of an affidavit of merits and the failure to show any justifiable cause for the long delay preclude the revival of plaintiff’s cause of action *(Constanzo*v. *Schwedler,*14 A D 2d 814). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 2002.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part describes the executive branch's Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program (the CUI Program) and establishes policy for designating, handling, and decontrolling information that qualifies as CUI.
( b ) The CUI Program standardizes the way the executive branch handles information that requires protection under laws, regulations, or Government-wide policies, but that does not qualify as classified under Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information, December 29, 2009 (3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298), or any predecessor or successor order, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011, *et seq.*), as amended.
( c ) All unclassified information throughout the executive branch that requires any safeguarding or dissemination control is CUI. Law, regulation (to include this part), or Government-wide policy must require or permit such controls. Agencies therefore may not implement safeguarding or dissemination controls for any unclassified information other than those controls consistent with the CUI Program.
( d ) Prior to the CUI Program, agencies often employed *ad hoc,* agency-specific policies, procedures, and markings to handle this information. This patchwork approach caused agencies to mark and handle information inconsistently, implement unclear or unnecessarily restrictive disseminating policies, and create obstacles to sharing information.
( e ) An executive branch-wide CUI policy balances the need to safeguard CUI with the public interest in sharing information appropriately and without unnecessary burdens.
( f ) This part applies to all executive branch agencies that designate or handle information that meets the standards for CUI. This part does not apply directly to non-executive branch entities, but it does apply indirectly to non-executive branch CUI recipients, through incorporation into agreements (see §§ 2002.4(c) and 2002.16(a) for more information).
( g ) This part rescinds Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Office Notice 2011-01: Initial Implementation Guidance for Executive Order 13556 (June 9, 2011).
( h ) This part creates no right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
( i ) This part, which contains the CUI Executive Agent (EA)'s control policy, overrides agency-specific or *ad hoc* requirements when they conflict. This part does not alter, limit, or supersede a requirement stated in laws, regulations, or Government-wide policies or impede the statutory authority of agency heads.
#### MILLER v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Eli P. Miller against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company.

No opinion. Motion denied.