alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### (A) Winthrop Tilley, as Administrator of the Estate of Peter M. Tilley, Deceased, v. Silver Bay Association for Christian Conferences and Training et al. (B) Chatham Security Corporation v. J. R. Williston & Beane.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.— [In each action] Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
#### Dominick Santucci, as Administrator of the Estate of Louis Santucci, Deceased, Respondent, v. Howard L. Wood, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term denied defendant’s motion to examine the parents of the plaintiff’s intestate upon the plaintiff’s claim, as set forth in the bill of particulars, that the intestate son was furnishing 30 to 35% of the support of his mother and father. The reason given for the refusal was that the defendant had examined the plaintiff, administrator and brother of the deceased, and that this examination was sufficient to enable defendant to meet this issue without further examination. The affidavit in opposition to the motion recites that portion of the brother’s examination relating to the contribution made by the deceased to his parents and it clearly reveals its insufficiency for the purpose for which it was sought. The brother’s knowledge of facts relating to support was clearly inadequate. The deceased lived with his parents and they are in fact the persons who will profit most from any recovery secured by plaintiff. Under these conditions the defendant has shown special circumstances which entitle him to the examination of the parents *(Lyon*v. *582
      *Feldgren Realty Corp.,*190 Misc. 700, affd. 273 App. Div. 917). The information sought is solely within the knowledge and possession of the parents and there is no reason why defendant should not learn of these facts before proceeding to trial *(Harrington*v. *City of Albany,*8 A D 2d 545). (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying defendant’s motion to examine two witnesses before trial.) Present — • Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 96-60691 Summary Calendar

ALICE M. WASH Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-107-LN

- - - - - - - - - - July 7, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alice Wash appeals from the district court’s decision in favor of the Commissioner which denied disability and supplemental security income benefits to her. Wash argues that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner failed to apply the correct legal standards. The Commissioner applied the proper legal standards inNo. 96-60691 - 2 - denying benefits to Wash. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995); Leggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558, 563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, a review of the record reflects substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Wash failed to carry her burden of proving a disability making her eligible for disability or supplemental security income benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423.
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1185
JAMES CLINTON DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and LEONARD LOWERY, Honda of South Carolina; JHON BLACH, Honda of South Carolina; BRAD SMITH, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:03-cv-03546-RBH) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: May 2, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - James Clinton Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, Regina Hollins Lewis, Joan Wash Hartley, NEXSEN PRUET, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: James Clinton Davis appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2000) and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeDavis v. Honda of SC , No. 4:03-cv-03546-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **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 Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual
          Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
          the
          Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
          Domonic
          J. Carney, Chief Financial 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, as amended, 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/
                    Domonic J. Carney*
                  
                  *Domonic
                    J. Carney*
                  *Chief
                    Financial Officer*
                  *(Principal
                    Financial and Accounting Officer)*
                  
                  *Date:
                    December 14, 2007*
1 Ostigaard, Crystal

From: Dave [dave@montanapetroleum.org]

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:19 PM

To: Ostigaard, Crystal

Cc: Spencer Gray; Dave; Mark Lambrecht Subject: Fwd: Comments for NAAQS Designation - Yellowstone C ounty

Attachments: Comments - EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 - Yellowstone Count y - MT.pdf; ATT00001.htm; Cover Letter - EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 - Yellowstone County - MT.pdf; ATT00002.htm

Subject: Comments for NAAQS Designation - Yellowstone County

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov

Please find the attached comments and cover letter submitted by Montana Petroleum Association, Treasur e States Resource Industrial Association, and Billing s Laurel Air Quality Technical Committee.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.108 Asserting the claim. When asserting the claim, the base SJA will: ( a ) MCR personnel assert a claim against a tortfeasor or other third party using a formal letter on Air Force stationery. The assertion is made against all potential payers, including insurers. The demand letter should state the legal basis for recovery and sufficiently describe the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident giving rise to medical care. Applicable bases of recovery include U.S. status as a third-party beneficiary under various types of insurance policies, workers' compensation laws, no-fault laws, or other Federal statutes, including Coordination of Benefits (COB) or FMCRA.
( b ) The MCR authority must promptly notify the injured parties or their legal representatives, in writing, that the United States will attempt to recover from the third parties the reasonable value of medical care furnished or to be furnished and that they: ( 1 ) Should seek advice from a legal assistance officer or civilian counsel.
( 2 ) Must cooperate in the prosecution of all actions of the United States against third parties.
( 3 ) Must furnish a complete statement regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident which caused the injury.
( 4 ) Must not execute a release or settle any claim which exists as a result of the injury without prior notice to the MCR authority.
( c ) Mail all copies of the SF 96, or claim notice on Air Force letterhead: ( 1 ) By certified mail with return receipt requested in all claims in which the amount claimed is $5,000.00 or more or in which there is a substantial likelihood that the final amount claimed will be $5,000.00 or more.
( 2 ) By regular or certified mail with return receipt requested at the SJA's discretion in cases in which the final amount claimed is less than $5,000.00, unless there is no response to the initial notice of claim within a reasonable period of time and a second notice of claim is required to be mailed. All second notices of claim and copies will be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested.
( d ) Notify the injured parties promptly in writing that the United States will attempt to recover from the third parties the reasonable value of medical care furnished or to be furnished and that they: ( 1 ) Should seek advice from a legal assistance officer or civilian counsel and furnish the civilian counsel's name to the claims officer.
( 2 ) Must cooperate in the prosecution of all actions of the United States against third parties.
( 3 ) Must furnish a complete statement regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident which caused the injury.
( 4 ) Must not execute a release or settle any claim which exists as a result of the injury without prior notice to the SJA.
( 5 ) Should read the enclosed Privacy Act statement.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83698, 83699, Nov. 22, 2016]
§ 60.5 Responsibilities. ( a ) The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy (DASD(MC&FP)), under the authority, direction, and control of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management, shall: ( 1 ) Monitor compliance with this part.
( 2 ) Train, maintain, and support a team of full-time or permanent part-time federal officers or employees from various disciplines to comprise the FACAT and respond to child sexual abuse in DoD-sanctioned activities.
( 3 ) Develop and coordinate criteria for determining the appropriate professional disciplines, support staff, and the required capabilities of FACAT members.
( 4 ) Ensure that policies and guidelines on activation and use of the FACAT are shared and coordinated with the DoD Components.
( 5 ) Program, budget, and allocate funds for the FACAT.
( 6 ) Appoint the chief of the FACAT and team members, and provide required logistical support when the FACAT is deployed.
( 7 ) Coordinate the management and interaction of this effort with other Federal and civilian agencies as necessary.
( 8 ) Foster general awareness of FACAT goals and responsibilities.
( b ) The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall: ( 1 ) Ensure compliance with this part throughout their respective Departments.
( 2 ) Establish departmental procedures to implement with this part.
( 3 ) Designate nominees for the FACAT upon request and ensure replacements are nominated when vacancies are indicated.
( 4 ) Ensure that commanders and staff are aware of the availability and proper use of the FACAT and the procedures for requesting a FACAT to assist in addressing extrafamilial child sexual abuse allegations covered by this part.
( 5 ) Encourage timely and comprehensive reporting in accordance with this part.
Fiscal Year 2012 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

FY 2012 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4300030 PUERTO RICO 481,384,851

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2012 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
### §416. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, from act May 11, 1922, ch. 185, 42 Stat. 517, known as the Agriculture Department Appropriation Act, 1923, authorized awarding a contract for up to five years for distribution of plants, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
Second Department,

July, 1959. 

(July 6, 1959)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert Borum, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person and for other relief denied. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<CASH>                                             187
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,772
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                         276,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                         9,763
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,696
<SALES>                                         11,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,122
<CGS>                                           10,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,069
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





ORION
      DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
      Irwin
      Pearl, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Orion Diversified Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July
      31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
      Annual Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of Orion Diversified Technologies,
      Inc.




Date:
      September 12, 2006





/s/
      Irwin Pearl________


Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:
      September 12, 2006





/s/
      Irwin Pearl________


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:
      September 12, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
All amounts in thousands of dollars.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000032379
<NAME>                        Elizabethtown Water Company & Subsidiary

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      656,427
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      7,456
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          49,007
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        34,698
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 747,588
<COMMON>                                        15,741
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      146,081
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             63,298
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 225,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           231,989
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              57,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       12,634
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      715
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 208,130
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  747,588
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       35,379
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,841
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      22,352
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      25,193
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         10,186
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 288
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  10,474
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,820
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,654
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        203
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    5,451
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         8,974
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,858
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           9,886
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
### §56. Establishment of cotton standards; furnishing copies of established standards sold

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish from time to time standards for the classification of cotton by which its quality or value may be judged or determined for commercial purposes which shall be known as the official cotton standards of the United States. Any such standard or change or replacement thereof shall become effective only on and after a date specified in the order of the Secretary of Agriculture establishing the same, which date shall be not less than one year after the date of such order: Provided, That the official cotton standards established, effective August 1, 1923, under the United States Cotton Futures Act shall be at the same time the official cotton standards for the purpose of this chapter unless and until changed or replaced under this chapter. Whenever any standard or change or replacement thereof shall become effective under this chapter, it shall also, when so specified in the order of the Secretary of Agriculture, become effective for the purposes of the United States Cotton Futures Act and supersede any inconsistent standard established under said Act. Whenever the official cotton standards of the United States established under this chapter shall be represented by practical forms the Department of Agriculture shall furnish copies thereof, upon request, to any person, and the cost thereof, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall be paid by the person making the request. The Secretary of Agriculture may cause such copies to be certified under the seal of the Department of Agriculture and may attach such conditions to the purchase and use thereof, including provision for the inspection, condemnation, and exchange thereof by duly authorized representatives of the Department of Agriculture as he may find to be necessary to the proper application of the official cotton standards of the United States.

(Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 288, §6(a), formerly §6, 42 Stat. 1518; renumbered §6(a), Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, §401(b), 58 Stat. 738.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The United States Cotton Futures Act, referred to in text, is part A of act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, 39 Stat. 476, which was repealed by section 4 of act Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, 53 Stat. 1. For complete classification of this Act to the Code prior to its repeal, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section is composed of the first five sentences of subsec. (a) of section 6 of act Mar. 4, 1923, as renumbered by section 401(b), of act Sept. 21, 1944. Last sentence of subsec. (a) of section 6 is classified to section 57 of this title. Subsec. (b) of section 6 is classified to section 57a of this title.
Appeal No. 73-301.

#### J. M. Mills, Inc. *et al. v.*Dennis Murphy, *Director Department of Natural Resources.*

*Domenic F. Cresto,*for plaintiffs-appellants. *Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Dorothy A. Carr,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for defendant-appellee.

Motion of plaintiff-appellants for an early hearing denied.

Paolino and Joslin, JJ. not participating.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 302


I, William Stone, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Digital Turbine, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: July 28, 2017By:/s/William StoneWilliam StoneChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### 1224.203 Policy.

DOT rules and regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the names and addresses of the OA FOIA offices are located in 49 CFR part 7. The DOT FOIA website can be found at *https://www.transportation.gov/foia.* Specific contract award information shall be requested from the FOIA office of the OA making the contract award.