alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 42,096

#### C. P. Hirst, *Appellee,*v. R. L. Allen, *Appellant.*

(361 P. 2d 803)

Opinion filed May 13, 1961.

*Thomas E. Joyce,*of Kansas City, argued the cause, and *Thomas H. Finigan,*of Kansas City, was with him on the brief for the appellant.

*J. H. Dickens,*of Kansas City, argued the cause, and *Samuel J. Wells,*of Kansas City, was with him on the brief for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Price, J.:

This was a quiet title action. The court rendered judgment for and granted equitable relief to plaintiff. Defendant has appealed.

One phase of the matter has been here before in *Hirst v. Allen,*185 Kan. 764, 347 P. 2d 372.

It appears that in 1957 plaintiff Hirst purchased the property in question from the estate of an incompetent for the sum of $2,500. For some reason unknown to plaintiff defendant Allen’s name also appeared as a grantee in the guardian’s deed. Counsel for defendant contended that Allen’s name was inserted as a grantee because of a contemporaneous oral agreement between plaintiff and one of the estate’s attorneys that if more than $2,500 was obtained for the property in a condemnation proceeding then contemplated by the Kansas Turnpike Authority the excess would be divided between plaintiff and the incompetent’s estate. The sum of $5,000 was ultimately received by way of an award in the condemnation proceeding.

Be that as it may — the matter was thoroughly aired in the trial court and all interested parties testified. It was developed that defendant Allen was a mere “straw man” to the transaction, and he disclaimed any and all interest in the property and the amount of the condemnation award. In, fact, in answer to a question concerning his interest in the matter — he replied—

> “I don’t know what the Hell it’s all about.”

*202The trial court made findings of fact which need not be related or detailed here. Insofar as plaintiff and defendant were concerned, title to the property in question was quieted in plaintiff, and he was adjudged to be the owner of the full amount of the condemnation award.

In their brief counsel for defendant make several contentions as to why the judgment is erroneous. All have been noted and considered, but, as applied to the record, are held to be without merit. Error in the trial court is never presumed. The burden is on an appellant to make it affirmatively appear. That has not been done in this case. As we read the record, the judgment of the trial court was eminently correct and is affirmed.
#### 613.303 Blanket purchase agreements (BPAs).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT LEWIS BAILEY, SR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 141 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of December, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool      

# Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool

Developed by the Department of Education, college applicants and their families can use this tool to access campus crime statistics for colleges and universities.

http://ope.ed.gov/security/
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Webinar Series: Community of Practice with Healthy Native Youth Part 2      

# Webinar Series: Community of Practice with Healthy Native Youth Part 2

In this webinar series (PDF, 2 pages), presenters will share strengths and experiences around uplifting and supporting Native youth. The series is designed for Tribal health educators, teachers, parents, prevention specialists, and other adults who share a passion for improving the lives of Native youth. Webinar topics include: 
                  -  **Sexual Health 101:**February 14, 2024, 1:00 pm ET  
                  -  **Swab Squad to the Rescue:** March 13, 2024, 1:00 pm ET  
                  -  **Substance Misuse 101:** April 10, 2024, 1:00 pm ET  
                  -  **Being a Good Relative 101:**May 8, 2024, 1:00 pm ET  
                  -  **Celebrating Culture and Community 101:** June 12, 2024, 1:00 pm ET  

Sessions include new resources and opportunities to engage with topical experts.**Learn more and register.**
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Leo Andreacchio, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 1964, which granted defendant’s motion and which dismissed the indictment charging him with incest and assault in the second degree, on the ground that- insufficient legal evidence had been adduced before the Grand Jury to warrant the indictment. Order reversed on the law; motion denied, and indictment reinstated. In our opinion, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was the equivalent of prima facie proof that the crimes charged had been committed by the defendant *(People*v. *Peetz,*7 N Y 2d 147, 149). The decisions in *People v. Oyola*(6 N Y 2d 259) and *People*v. *Porcaro*(6 N Y 2d 248) do not require corroboration of the sworn testimony of the 14-year-old complainant in order to return an indictment for incest and assault in the second degree. A court has no alternative but to deny a motion to set aside an indictment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury, when that body has acted *893upon evidence sufficient, “if unexplained or uneontradieted” (Code Crim. Pro., § 251), to warrant a conviction by the trial jury *(People*v. *Donahue,*309 N. Y. 6, 7; cf. *People*v. *Eckert,*2 N Y 2d 126, 129). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Sarah A. Bond, and Philip Q. Bond, appellants, v. Henry J. Lageschulte, appellee.

Gen. No. 30,681.

□ Bill to establish deed as mortgage, and for an accounting and re-conveyance. Decree for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis 6. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Opinion filed July 13, 1926.

Fred B. Silsbee, for appellants.

Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 603.704 Policy.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.704.

[59 FR 66754, Dec. 28, 1994]
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Rivet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  March 25, 2005
#### Marcia Reggev, Appellant, v Avner Reggev, Respondent.

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 4, 1978, which, *inter alia,*found her to be in contempt of an order of Special Term directing her to produce the parties’ child in court on September 25, 1978. Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The difficulty of settling disputes between parents over the custody of their children is exceeded only by the importance of the question of custody itself. In the present case, the issue of whether the petitioner was in contempt of a court order directing her to return the parties’ child to New York is rendered academic in light of the fact that the child was ultimately returned to New York and a hearing on the issue of custody was held. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that resolution of the custody issue will be furthered by a review of the order finding the plaintiff to be in contempt. Furthermore, the order of contempt imposed no punishment upon her. Insofar as a temporary transfer of custody was directed, pending the hearing, this court stayed that provision and the hearing, as stated earlier, has been held. The appeal from the order of contempt should, therefore, be dismissed as academic. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Dear Colleague Letter: Unaccompanied Homeless Youth Determinations      

# Dear Colleague Letter: Unaccompanied Homeless Youth Determinations

ED released a Dear Colleague letter that clarifies determinations for unaccompanied homeless youth for financial aid (PDF, 4 pages). This information can help financial aid administrators better understand the definition of “homeless” and how to determine if students qualify as such.

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1516Attach.pdf?utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
Exhibit 32.2 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 
**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

        Inconnection with the Annual Report of Teknowledge Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis A. Bugbee, the Principal Financial Officer ofTeknowledge Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(“Section 906”), that: 
 (1)                The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the               Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and**
#### Sidney Frankel et al., Individually and as Stockholders of Rochester Iron and Metal Co., Respondents, v. Rochester Iron and Metal Co. et al., Appellants.

Order modified by deleting therefrom the paragraph numbered 2 and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to renew the motion insofar as it extends to personal books, records and documents of the individual defendants within 60 days after completion of the discovery of the corporate records and upon a showing of necessity and propriety. Memorandum: We see no need for a discovery of the personal records of the individual defendants at this time. The discovery of the corporate books may make such personal discovery unnecessary. That, however, may be determined later. (Appeal by defendants from order of Monroe Special Term granting plaintiffs’ motion for a discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Halpern, McClosky and Henry, JJ.
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial 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 has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 9, 2011
    /s/ Michael J. BourgMichael J. BourgPresident, Chief Operating Officer
and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) 16
#### Vernon Douglas EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 74-2398.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 7, 1975.

*284David C. Howard, Memphis & Shelby County Legal Services Ass’n, G. Philip Arnold, Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas & Salky, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.

R. A. Ashley, Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for defendants-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents the question of whether an unsuccessful plaintiff in a civil action who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis may be required to pay a filing fee to the clerk of the court and service fees to the marshal as costs. The plaintiff in this case filed pro se a civil rights complaint. He was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and a legal services organization was appointed to represent him. Ultimately, the attorney representing plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal of the action. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for all the defendants. Thereafter the court entered an order assessing costs against the plaintiff in the amount of $48.92, directing the payment of $15.00 filing fee to the clerk of the district court and $33.92 to the United States Marshal for serving summons. These costs had not been incurred by the prevailing defendants and no bill of costs had been filed by them. The plaintiff has appealed from this order. We reverse.

Proceedings in forma pauperis are controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which provides for costs as follows:

> (e) Judgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other cases, but the United States shall not be liable for any of the costs thus incurred. If the United States has paid the cost of a stenographic transcript or printed record for the prevailing party, the same shall be taxed in favor of the United States.

Taxation of costs is provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 which specifically allows fees of the clerk and marshal to be taxed as costs. It also provides that “A bill of costs shall be filed in the case . . .” Costs are awarded to parties to an action, not to court officials. Rule 54(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides, in part, that

> Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the *prevailing party*unless the court otherwise directs . . . . (emphasis added).

A party who has paid a filing fee and fees for service of process in a civil case may include these items in his bill of costs. A court may refuse to permit an obviously frivolous action to be filed in forma pauperis. There is no statutory authority or provision in the federal rules, however, for permitting recovery of these items by the clerk and marshal *285from a plaintiff in a civil case who is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Bates v. United States District Court, No. 74-8224 (6th Cir. 1975).

The judgment of the district court is reversed.
# MESABAAIRLINES

April 5, 2011

Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office ofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 1200New JerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590


### Re: Proposal to Provide Essential Air 

### Service atWatertown, South Dakota, Docket DOT-OST -2001-10644. DearMr. DeVany: MesabaAviation, Inc. ("Mesaba") doing business as Delta Connection, is pleaseto submit the enclosed proposal for essential air service at Watertown, South Dakota. As the Department is aware, the Saab 340 aircraft are scheduled to beretired from Mesaba's fleet bythe end of2011. No decision has yet beenmade onreplacement aircraft orreplacement flying. Accordingly, Mesaba'sbid is for a short termEAS contract period ending on November 1,2011. Mesabawill advise the Department as soon as a decision is made regarding long term plans for service at these communities. 

# C\rNt:nritted, J'j: Spanjers President
Enclosures

1000 BLUE GENTIAN ROAD, SUITE 200, EAGAN, 

### MN 55I2I-1679.a.

Mesaba EAS service proposal for service to Watertown, South Dakota EAS Station Docket Number Hub Round trips perweek Completion Factor Total Passengers Total Block Hours Total Departures Passenger Revenue OtherRevenue Total Revenue Pilots Fuel Maintenance Aircraft Total Directs Totallndirects Total Operating Profit@5% Economic Cost Required Annual Subsidy Rate Daily Subsidy Rate 

## •

5.0%

Required Subsidyfor period August 1

- November I, 2011 An: DOT-OST-2001-10644 MSP

14 97% 17,174 1,684 1,416 $1,266,531

$201,695 $1,468,226

$474,876 $577,062 $805,157 $505,264 $2,362,359 $1,365,933 $3,728,291

$186,415 $3,914,706 $2,446,480 $6,703 $623,350MSP - A TV 14 weekly non-stop round trips Zx/Day, 7 Days/Week MSP

- ATY ATY

- MSP Station Time Station Orig Dest Dept Arr Orig Dest Dept MSP 

### ATY 11:25 12:36 

### ATY MSP 6:36 MSP 

### ATY 19:40 20:51 

### ATY MSP 13:08 

# . Time Arr 7:48 14:20