alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-562-E 

November 20, 2012 

 

 Exemption No. 7926E 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13291 

Mr. Steven L. Hotle 

Director/Testing Center Supervisor 

Pulaski Technical College 

1600 West Maryland Avenue 

North Little Rock, AR 72120 

Dear Mr. Hotle: 

We are pleased to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 7926, as amended. This letter explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 17, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Pulaski Technical College (PTC) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 7926, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) permits PTC to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to 

students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but 

before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

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 exemption has not 

changed. 

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

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

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to PTC. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7926, 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 termination date of Exemption No. 7926 as amended, to 

November 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 7926 remain the same. This letter will be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 7926. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05252

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

Jay Marshall Strabala

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, December 18, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown: Plaintiff's Motion for

Entry of Dismissal Order [67] is granted. Enter Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Status

hearing previously set for 1/10/13 at 9:45 a.m. is hereby stricken, and no appearance is

necessary. Terminate civil case. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 68 Filed: 12/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:872
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of MB Software Corporation on Form 10-K for
the period ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof,  I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief Executive  Officer and
principal financial officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
result of
         operations of the Company.

April 2, 2008
/S/    Scott A. Haire
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01082]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 78, No. 7, 
Thursday, January 10, 2013, page 2257.

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 10 
a.m.-11 a.m.

MEETING CANCELED. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01082 Filed 1-15-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### 22.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements the statutes which prescribe labor standards requirements for contracts in excess of $2,000 for construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works. (See definition of *Construction, alteration, or repair* in section 22.401.) Labor relations requirements prescribed in other subparts of part 22 may also apply.

[53 FR 4935, Feb. 18, 1988; 65 FR 46074, July 26, 2000]
## Performance Reports

## Annual Performance Report

Recipients of multi-year discretionary awards are required to submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) annually; the collection number is OMB 1840-0766. The annual report provides data on the status of the funded project that corresponds to the scope and objectives established in the approved application and any approved amendments. Under EDGAR Section 75.118, the report must provide the most current performance and financial information (including cost-share data, if applicable). ED Program Staff will analyze each report to ensure that the grantee has made substantial progress toward reaching the objectives included in the grantee’s approved application.

Annual Performance Reports are typically due 90 days after the performance period ends; however, grantees will be notified by their ED Program Officer if the submission deadline changes.

**Note**: If you are a project director and have responsibility for completing the annual report for your institution, please be sure you are designated on the official grant award notification and your e-mail and telephone number are listed correctly in the G5 database.

## Final Performance Report

All recipients, in accordance with EDGAR Section 75.590, are required to submit a final performance report. ED Program Staff will review the final performance report and determine whether the grantee achieved the scope and objectives of the grant. The program staff will also determine if all applicable administrative actions and financial obligations have been completed by grantee.

Final Performance Reports are typically due 90 days after the performance period ends (September 30th); however, grantees will be notified by their ED Program Officer if the submission deadline changes.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 06/23/2011
|-------------------------
#### BELOTTI, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 23, 1906.)

Action by Salvino Belotti, as administrator, against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

R. H. Ames, for appellant.

T. J. O’Neill, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
## FY 2023

- New Award(s):   MS Excel  (13K)
- Absolute Priority 1—Enhancing Modeling and Simulation at Institutions of Higher Education:   PDF  (178K)
- Absolute Priority 2—Establishing Modeling and Simulation Programs:   PDF  (208K)

## FY 2022

- New Awards(s):   MS Excel  (13K)
- Absolute Priority I – Enhancement Grant(s): (n/a)
- Absolute Priority 2 – Establishment Grant(s):   PDF  (403K)

## FY 2021

- New award(s):    MS Excel   (12K)
- Project Abstract(s): 
Absolute Priority 1 - Enhancement Grants 
 PDF
 (102K)
Absolute Priority 2 - Establishment Grants 
 PDF
 (126K)

FIPSE Home
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure A-1. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in fourhorn sculpin at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). Figure A-2. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in Arctic flounder at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). Figure A-3. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in yellowfin sole at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Figure A-4. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in Pacific staghorn sculpin at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Figure A-5. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in barred sand bass at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }.
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Earl L Yager, as Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that:
(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e)and 15(d)-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, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Paragraph omitted;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially 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 most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit 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 adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 27, 2005 /s/ Earl L. Yager     Earl L. Yager  Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:786
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:787
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:788
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:789
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:790
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:791
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:792
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:793
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:794
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:795
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:796
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:797
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:798
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:799
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:800
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:801
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:802
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:803
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:804
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:805
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:806
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:807
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:808
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:809
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:810
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:811
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:812
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:813
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:814
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:815
Case: 1:12-cv-05710 Document #: 38-1 Filed: 03/21/13 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:816
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon ROSALES-GONZALEZ, also known as Gilberto Gonzalez, also known as Jorge Oviedo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-11092

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 4, 2008.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramon Rosales-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 *294(5th Cir.2007), cert. *denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

CHAD HACKER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 400 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of January, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.**This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350,and is filed with respect to the quarterly report onForm 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarterended October 8, 2005 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the“Issuer”). I, David H. Murdock, Chairman of theBoard and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that tothe best of my knowledge:     (i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements    of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and      (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Issuer.     /s/ David H. Murdock           David H. Murdock *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*November 22, 2005
Parkson Screen Shipping Weight versus Max Flow Rate

Weights from Parkson Corporation for HRS screens provided to Mark Briggs on March 3, 2011

Estimated fish waste assumes 8.5 lbs/gal. 

Parkson Screen 

Model Number

Screen Length 

(inches)

Screen Length 

(ft)

Max Screen Flow 

Rate (gpm)

Screen 

Shipping 

Weight (lbs)

RSA-2512 50 600

RSA-2524 100 716

RSA-2548 200 989

HRS3672DV 119 9.9 496 1,700

HRS6096DV 174 14.5 725 4,495

HRS80160DV 247.5 20.6 1,031 6,000

50 600

100 716

200 989

496 1,700

725 4,495

1,031 6,000

y = 5.6659x - 40.537

R2 = 0.9406

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 200 400 600
800 1000 1200
# C_2017021EN.01000101.xml

| 21.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 January 2017

(2017/C 21/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0632 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4359 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86595 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5073 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0727 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9990 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,09 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3699 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4940 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0665 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4115 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4217 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2487 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4891 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5198 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 250,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4850 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3125 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5165 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 257,51 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7285 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,216 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,6075 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,680 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3977 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,3700 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,4825 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0632

JPY

Japanese yen

122,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4359

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86595

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5073

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0727

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9990

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,09

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3699

RON

Romanian leu

4,4940

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0665

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4115

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4217

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2487

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4891

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5198

KRW

South Korean won

1 250,66

ZAR

South African rand

14,4850

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3125

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5165

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 257,51

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7285

PHP

Philippine peso

53,216

RUB

Russian rouble

63,6075

THB

Thai baht

37,680

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3977

MXN

Mexican peso

23,3700

INR

Indian rupee

72,4825

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### John G. Brooks et al., Appellants, *v.*The Mexican National Construction Company, Respondent.

To authorize a review here of an order vacating an attachment, it must appear in the order itself that it was not vacated in the exercise of the discretion vested in the court below. The opinion of that court may not be looked at to ascertain the grounds of the decision.

(Argued June 29, 1883 ;

decided October 2, 1883.)

The following is the mem. handed down herein :

“ The Special Term of the New York Superior Court vacated the attachment granted in this action, and its order was affirmed at the General Term. It appears in the opinions pronounced in the court below, that the attachment was vacated on the ground that all the plaintiffs were not residents of the city of New York or of this State. (Code, §§ 263, 1780.) But it does not appear in the orders that the attachment was vacated on that ground. They do not show upon what ground, or for what reason, it was vacated. We have always held that we cannot look at the opinions of the court in such a case for the grounds of its decision. With reference to the jurisdiction of this court, we have a simple, uniform rule, so often announced that it must be familiar to the profession, and that is, that the ground for vacating the attachment must be found in the orders appealed from, and that they must show that it was not vacated in the exercise of a discretion vested in the court.

“ This order, therefore, is not appealable to this court, and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.”

*Henry D. Hotchkiss*for appellants.

*George Zabriskie*for respondent.

*648Earl, J.,

reads for dismissal of appeal.

All concur, except Andrews, J., absent. Appeal dismissed.