alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Spence *et al. vs.*Cox.

A widow entitled to dower in certain lands levied on, though not yet assigned, needs no injunction to restrain a creditor of the deceased husband and the sheriff from causing a sale under the execution. She can give notice at the sale of her rights ; purchasers will buy subject thereto, and if they disturb her lawful possession it will be at their peril.

Injunction. Dowen Before Judge Wright. Mitchell ■county. At Chambers. April 16th, 1880.

Report unnecessary.

Bush & Lyon, by Jackson & Lumpkin, for plaintiffs in ■error.

No appearance for defendant.

Crawford, Justice.

Mrs. Cox filed her bill against Spence and the sheriff of Mitchell county. She alleged that Spence had become possessed, by transfer, of a certain *fi. fa.*against her deceased husband, that it had been compromised or settled in the hands of a former owner, but no entry to that effect made, and that Spence took with notice, and was proceeding to enforce it against certain lands left by her husband at his deatli; that she had filed an application for dower in these lands, which was still pending on objections to the return of the commissioners. She charges that if they?, *fa.*was allowed to proceed, she would be irreparably damaged, and the title to her dower lands clouded. She prayed that *544*the fi. fa.*be canceled, and. Spence and the sheriff be enjoined from enforcing it.

The answer denied the leading allegations of the bill. After hearing the bill and answer, and evidence in support of each, the chancellor granted the injunction, and Spence excepted.

This ease is controlled by the ruling in *Jaclcson & Co. vs.*Rainey, September term, 1879, pamphlet p. 94, and in accordance therewith the judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY









                                      98
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


The Undersigned, a Director of General Re Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
(the "Corporation"), Hereby Designates each of Charles F. Barr and Robert D.
Graham as his attorney in fact to execute on his behalf, as a Director of
General Re, General Re's Annual Report on Form 10-K under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                ----------------------------------------
                                Original powers of attorney
                                in this form signed by each
                                of the following:

                                LUCY WILSON BENSON
                                WALTER M. CABOT
                                WILLIAM C. FERGUSON
                                DONALD J. KIRK
                                KAY KOPLOVITZ
                                EDWARD H. MALONE
                                ANDREW W. MATHIESON
                                MARTIN G. MCGUINN
                                DAVID E. MCKINNEY
                                STEPHEN A. ROSS
                                WALTER F. WILLIAMS

Dated as of February 25, 1997.


                                      99
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000435

07-AUG-2014

08:07 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1996 and the Statement Of Income
for the period ended September 30, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         867,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               891,197<F1>
<PP&E>                                      39,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              35,612,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,278,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          501,563<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,777,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,278,826
<SALES>                                      4,514,063<F3>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,520,408<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,753,461<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,766,947
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,766,947
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,766,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   838.47<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   838.47<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes prepaid rent
<F2>Includes deferred credit
<F3>Rental income
<F4>Includes dividend income
<F5>Leasehold rent, supervisory fees, amortization of leasehold 
    and miscellaneous expense
<F6>Earnings per $10,000 participation unit, based on 3,300 participation 
    units outstanding during the year
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 22.405 Policy. ( a ) *General.* Grants officers normally shall award grants or cooperative agreements only to qualified recipients that meet the standards in § 22.415. This practice conforms with the Governmentwide policy to do business only with responsible persons, which is stated in OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.125(a) and implemented by the Department of Defense in 2 CFR part 1125.
( b ) *Exception.* In exceptional circumstances, grants officers may make awards to recipients that do not fully meet the standards in § 22.415 and include special award conditions that are appropriate to the particular situation, in accordance with 32 CFR 34.4 for awards to for-profit organizations or as described in OMB guidance at 2 CFR 200.207 for awards to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes.
[63 FR 12164, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 49464, Aug. 23, 2005; 72 FR 34988, June 26, 2007; 85 FR 51242, Aug. 19, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.112 Waiver and compromise of United States interest. Waivers and compromises of government claims can be made. This section lists the basic guidance for each action. (See this subpart for claims involving waiver and compromise of amounts in excess of settlement authorities' delegated amounts.) ( a ) *Convenience of the Government.* When compromising or waiving a claim for convenience of the Government, settlement authorities should consider the following factors: ( 1 ) Risks of litigation.
( 2 ) Questionable liability of the third party.
( 3 ) Costs of litigation.
( 4 ) Insurance (Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist and Medical Payment Coverage) or other assets of the tortfeasor available to satisfy a judgment for the entire claim.
( 5 ) Potential counterclaim against the U.S.
( 6 ) Jury verdict expectancy amount.
( 7 ) Amount of settlement with proposed distribution.
( 8 ) Cost of any future care.
( 9 ) Tortfeasor cannot be located.
( 10 ) Tortfeasor is judgment proof.
( 11 ) Tortfeasor has refused to pay and the case is too weak for litigation.
( b ) *Hardship on the injured party.* When compromising or waiving a claim to avoid undue hardship on the injured party, settlement authorities should consider the following factors: ( 1 ) Permanent disability or disfigurement of the injured party.
( 2 ) Decreased earning power of the injured party.
( 3 ) Out of pocket losses to the injured party.
( 4 ) Financial status of the injured party.
( 5 ) Pension rights of the injured party.
( 6 ) Other government benefits available to the injured party.
( 7 ) An offer of settlement from a third party which includes virtually all of the thirty party's assets, although the amount is considerably less than the calculation of the injured party's damages.
( 8 ) Whether the injured party received excessive treatment.
( 9 ) Amount of settlement with proposed distribution, including reductions in fees or damages by other parties, medical providers, or attorneys in order to reduce the hardship on the injured party.
( c ) *Compromise or waiver.* A compromise or waiver can be made upon written request from the injured party or the injured party's legal representative.
[81 FR 83699, Nov. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<CASH>                                           1,002
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,852
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                         302,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 194,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                        10,026
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,924
<SALES>                                          4,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,917
<CGS>                                            4,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,847
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
§ 310.9 Requests for an accounting of record disclosures. ( a ) An individual may make a request for an accounting of any disclosure that has been made by the Department to another person, organization, or agency of any record about the individual maintained in a system of records.
( b ) This accounting contains the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure, as well as the name and address of the person, organization, or agency to which the disclosure was made. Records of disclosure accountings are maintained for five years after the disclosure or for the life of the record, whichever is longer.
( c ) The request for an accounting should identify each particular record in question and should be made by writing directly to the DoD Component that maintains the record, following the procedures in § 310.3.
( d ) DoD Components are not required to provide disclosure accountings when related to: ( 1 ) Disclosures for which accountings are not required to be kept—in other words, disclosures that are made to employees within the Department who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties and disclosures that are made under the Freedom of Information Act;
( 2 ) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law enforcement activities in response to written request from the head of the agency or instrumentality of those law enforcement agencies specifying the law enforcement activities for which the disclosures are sought; or
( 3 ) Disclosures made from systems of records that have been exempted from accounting requirements.
( e ) An individual may appeal a denial of a request for a disclosure accounting to the address listed in the notification of denial letter, in the same manner as a denial of a request for access to records, following the procedures in § 310.6.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Three-Five
Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jeffrey D. Buchanan, 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 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Jeffrey D. BuchananJeffrey D. BuchananChief Financial Officer
 Date: November 9, 2004
Exhibit 31.1**Certification****Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002**I, Adrian Ma, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit
35

 
   committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 16, 2007       /s/ Adrian Ma     Adrian Ma    Chief Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to EmersonRadio Corp. and will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
36
#### §§ 750.37-750.40 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMERY J. YOST, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1074

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Emery Yost (“Yost”) has just sued the City of Chicago and

its Park District, asserting federal claims of asserted

employment discrimination and related state law claims. This

memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of one problematic

aspect of Yost’s Complaint.

Complaint ¶12 and EEOC’s right-to-sue letter (attached as

part of Complaint Ex. 1) both reflect a November 14, 2011

issuance and mailing date, and the letter (as always) sets out

the statutory requirement that suit must be filed within 90 days

of Yost’s receipt of the notice. But Yost’s lawyer did not file 1

the Complaint until February 14, 2012--92 days after the letter’s

issuance.

Because it would seem likely that Yost’s receipt (the

controlling fact) was indeed within the relevant 90-day time

 Indeed, the “WITHIN 90 DAYS” requirement is emphasized in 1

three ways--it is in boldface type, it is underlined and both

words (as indicated in this footnote) are printed entirely in

capital letters.
frame, this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary

order setting a status hearing date and prescribing the

litigants’ responsibilities before that status date. But in the

meantime Yost’s counsel is ordered to file an amendment to

Complaint ¶12 (not a full-blown Amended Complaint) on or before

February 27, 2012 specifying Yost’s date of receipt of the EEOC

letter.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 16, 2012

2
AFS

- 1 3

- 362

- E June 7, 2013

Exemption No. 9576C

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2007

- 29162

Mr. John W. Hazlet, Jr.

VP

– Safety & Standards; Director of Operations

Ameriflight, LLC

4700 Empire Avenue , Hangar 1

Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Hazlet:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petiti on to extend Exemption

No. 9576, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By let ter dated May 9, 2013

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) for an extension of Exemption No. 9576, as

amended. That exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Reg ulations allows Ameriflight to perform air traffic control transponder tests and

inspections, altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests, and inspections for its

part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection program based on

Ameriflight’s continuous aircraft maintenance program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register beca use the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Amerifli ght

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9576 , as

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest.

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termina tion date of Exemption No. 9576 , as amended, to

December 31, 201 5

, unless sooner su perseded or rescinded.

All cond itions and limitations of Exemption No. 9576 , as amended, remain the same. This

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9576.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
### §6003. Issuance of plans

#### (a) In general

To effectuate the declared policy of section 6001(b) of this title, the Secretary shall, subject to this chapter, issue and from time to time amend, plans applicable to growers, grower-shellers, shellers, first handlers, and importers of pecans. Any such plan shall be national in scope. Not more than one plan shall be in effect under this chapter at any one time.

#### (b) Procedure

#### (1) Proposal for issuance of plan

The Secretary may propose the issuance of a plan under this chapter, or an association of pecan growers or grower-shellers or any other person that will be affected by this chapter may request the issuance of, and submit a proposal for, such a plan.

#### (2) Proposed plan

Not later than 60 days after the receipt of a request and proposal by an interested person for a plan, or when the Secretary determines to propose a plan, the Secretary shall publish a proposed plan and give due notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed plan.

#### (3) Issuance of plan

After notice and opportunity for public comment are given, as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue a plan, taking into consideration the comments received and including in the plan provisions necessary to ensure that the plan is in conformity with the requirements of this chapter.

#### (4) Effective date of plan

Such plan shall be issued and become effective not later than 150 days following publication of the proposed plan.

#### (c) Amendments

The Secretary, from time to time, may amend any plan issued under this section. The provisions of this chapter applicable to a plan shall be applicable to amendments to a plan.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1908, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3841.)
#### Michael Scarpulla, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Domenick Mogavero, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur except Halpern, J.. not participating. (Appeal by plaintiff Michael Scarpulla from judgment of Monroe Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 1301.602-1 Authority.

In accordance with CAM 1301.70, only individuals who have been certified as contracting officers through issuance of a Certificate of Appointment by the Senior Bureau Procurement Official may exercise the authority of DOC contracting officers. In addition to the authority to enter into, administer, and terminate contracts, contracting officers have been delegated certain functions as set out in appendix A to CAM 1301.70.
1301.105-1 Publication and code arrangement. ( a ) The CAR is published in the Federal Register, in cumulative form in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and is available online at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Acquisition Management Web site.
( b ) The CAR is issued as chapter 13 of title 48 of the CFR.