alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1740.9 Eligible and ineligible entities. ( a ) To be eligible for funding, an Applicant may be either a nonprofit or for-profit organization, and must take one of the following forms: ( 1 ) Corporation;
( 2 ) Limited Liability Company and Limited Liability Partnership;
( 3 ) Cooperative or mutual organization;
( 4 ) States or local governments, including any agency, subdivision, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof;
( 5 ) A territory or possession of the United States; or
( 6 ) An Indian tribe, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
( b ) Individuals and legal general partnerships that are formed with individuals are not eligible entities.
( c ) Co-Applicants are not eligible entities. If two entities would like to partner with each other in delivering broadband to areas without sufficient access, then one entity must take the lead on submitting an application. Inter-company agreements can be used to account for revenues and expenses on the applicant's financial projections. However, based on the existing financial and security arrangements, the Agency may require that both, or other entities, be parties to the award documents, or guarantee the award.
#### George A. Brotherton, Respondent, v Patricia E. Brotherton, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The petition in this proceeding (Family Ct Act, § 461) failed to allege any change in the circujpstances of the child or father sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether modification of the child support provision of the divorce judgment was warranted *(Tarr v Tarr, 70*AD2d 504; *Huber v Huber,*59 AD2d 1063). There is no claim that the child’s inability to function within the public school system necessitated her enrollment in a private school *(Matter of Monesi v Monesi,*55 AD2d 1020). Further, the mere fact that the child has grown older does not serve as a basis for increased support absent any other showing *(Roller v Roller,*64 AD2d 854, 855). Our affirmance is without prejudice, however, to a renewal of the application in Family Court on an appropriate showing, if appellant be so advised. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Deceased. Family Court — modify divorce judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
2006-0639.

#### State v. Biggers.

Morgan App. No. 05 CA 1, 2005-Ohio-5956. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
§ 1735.47 Rescissions of loans. ( a ) Rescission of a loan may be requested by a borrower at any time. To rescind a loan, the borrower must demonstrate to RUS that: ( 1 ) The purposes of the loan being rescinded have been completed;
( 2 ) Sufficient funds are available from sources other than RUS or FFB to complete the purposes of the loan being rescinded; or
( 3 ) The purposes of the loan are no longer required to extend or improve telephone service in rural areas.
( b ) Borrowers submitting loan applications containing purposes previously covered by a loan that has been rescinded shall include in the application an explanation, satisfactory to RUS, of the change of conditions since the rescission that re-establishes the need for those purposes.
( c ) RUS shall not initiate the rescission of a loan unless all of the purposes for which telephone loans have been made to the borrower under the Act have been accomplished with funds provided under the Act.
[56 FR 26598, June 10, 1991, as amended at 84 FR 59922, Nov. 7, 2019]
| **Consolidated Statements of Equity (Parenthetical) - $ / shares** | 6 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                   |           |   |
| Cash Dividends per share (in dollars per share)                    | $ 0.20         | $ 0.20 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the guidance, navigation, and control subsystemThe results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) is presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Subsystem hardware are documented. The function of the GNC hardware is to respond to guidance, navigation, and control software commands to effect vehicle control and to provide sensor and controller data to GNC software. Some of the GNC hardware for which failure modes analysis was performed includes: hand controllers; Rudder Pedal Transducer Assembly (RPTA); Speed Brake Thrust Controller (SBTC); Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU); Star Tracker (ST); Crew Optical Alignment Site (COAS); Air Data Transducer Assembly (ADTA); Rate Gyro Assemblies; Accelerometer Assembly (AA); Aerosurface Servo Amplifier (ASA); and Ascent Thrust Vector Control (ATVC). The IOA analysis process utilized available GNC hardware drawings, workbooks, specifications, schematics, and systems briefs for defining hardware assemblies, components, and circuits. Each hardware item was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode.Document ID19900001604Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsTrahan, W. H.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Odonnell, R. A.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Pietz, K. C.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Hiott, J. M.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 19, 1986Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberREPT-1.0-WP-VA86001-16NASA-CR-185555NAS 1.26:185555Accession Number90N10920Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001604.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 1710.413 Compliance with other laws and regulations.

Nothing in this subpart changes a Borrower's obligation to comply with all laws and regulations to which it is subject.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, of Newpark Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregg S. Piontek, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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.


Date: February 23, 2024


/s/ Gregg S. PiontekGregg S. PiontekSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Eads *vs.*Rucker.

Traverse,

Ejectment may be maintained tenanfby a°co-tenant — and so may a warrant 0f forcible entry and detain-er, when there has been a disseizin by actual force.-The warrant, in such case, may be in the usual form — the judgment must be for the undivided interest.-- A warrant for a forcible entry and detainer will lie only against a party in possession at its date — not against one whoi does not in fact hold the land.

£Mr. Crittenden for Appellant: no appearance for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.

*April*23.

•Chief Justice Roberts on

delivered *the*Opinion of *the*Court.

Three questions will be considered in this case:—

*First.*Can'a joint tenant maintain a warrant against his co-tenant for *a forcible detainer*?

*Second.*What should be the form of the warrant, and the character of the judgment for restitution, m such a *p*

*112
      *Third.*Can a warrant for *forcible detainer*be maintained against a person who was not in possession at the date of the warrant, and who had never been the tenant of the plaintiff ?

I. Ejectment may be maintained by one joint tenant against a co-tenant for an actual disseizin ; and no reason can be perceived why a warrant for a forcible detainer may not be maintained between the same parties. A warrant for a forcible detainer may be maintained although the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties ; but then actual force must be proved. *Cammack*vs. *Macy,*3 *Mar.*297.

II. A warrant in favor of one joint tenant against another, may be in the form prescribed by the statute. It is not necessary that the warrant should describe the precise character of the possession. But the judgment fpr restitution should be — according to the right established by the *inquisition*— -for *an undivided interest.*

III. A warrant for a forcible detainer cannot be maintained against a person who was not in fact forcibly detaining when it was issued ; but it should always be brought against the person who, at its date, was in the actual possession of the thing detained.

As, in this case, Oliphant, and not Eads, was, at the date of the warrant, in the possession of the house which is the subject matter of this controversy, the judgment against Eads, for restitution, cannot be sustained.

Wherefore, without noticing any other objection, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0000042 08-FEB-2011 02:40 PM

NO. SCPW-11-0000042
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RICHARD K. PERKINS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NOS. 88-2209 and 89-0024)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Crandall, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner's notice of appeal, dated January 3, 2011, was not "denied" by the respondent judge, but was filed by the circuit court on January 10, 2011 and is being processed in the intermediate court of appeals as appeal No. CAAP-11-0000016. It further appears that a motion for waiver of appellate fees for No. CAAP-11-0000016 must be made in the appellate court, not the circuit court. See HRAP 24(a) ("A party to an action in the circuit . . . court who desires to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis shall file in the appellate court a motion for leave to so proceed[.]"). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. SeeKema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to petitioner filing, in the intermediate court of appeals, in No. CAAP-11-0000016, a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to HRAP 24(a). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, February 8, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Virginia L. Crandall

2
#### § 1230.9 Fiscal period.

*Fiscal period* means the 12-month period ending on December 31 or such other consecutive 12-month period as the Secretary or Board may determine.
Exhibit 23-a





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-33481 and Form S-8 No. 333-167406) pertaining to the Nordson Hourly-Rated Employees’ Savings Trust Plan of our report dated June 24, 2022, with respect to the financial statements and supplemental schedules of the Nordson Hourly-Rated Employees’ Savings Trust Plan included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.





/s/ Meaden & Moore, Ltd.


MEADEN & MOORE, LTD.





Cleveland, Ohio


June 24, 2022
#### Janey Cabibi, Respondent, v Melissa Lundrigan et al., Appellants.

[775 NYS2d 892]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an *557order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 25, 2002, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based on a release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) based on a release *(see Mangini v McClurg,*24 NY2d 556 [1969]; *Haynes v Garez,*304 AD2d 714 [2003]; *Curry v Episcopal Health Servs.,*248 AD2d 662 [1998]; *Carola v NKO Contr. Corp.,*205 AD2d 931 [1994]; *Horn v Timmons,*180 AD2d 717 [1992]). There are questions of fact as to whether the release was “fairly and knowingly” made regarding the injuries at issue in this case. Further, given the plaintiffs “later-discovered need for surgery, there are questions of fact as to whether there was a mutual mistake concerning such injuries” *(Haynes v Garez, supra*at 715; *see Mangini v McClurg, supra).*Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THEODORE RIDGEWAY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 446 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00234

- CV

J ohnathan David RICE and Diana Rice
,

Appellant s

v.
LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, L.P .; Lewis Petro Properties, Inc.; Lewis Resource Management,

LLC; Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd.; and Tercero Navarro, Inc., Appellee s

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexa r County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 08936 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On J ul y 24 , 2019
, we granted Appellants’ motion to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for it to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered, and they were filed on A ugust 26, 2019.

We REINSTATE the appellate timetable. Appellants’ brief is due on September 25, 2019.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alv arez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E . HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
#### M. Beck et al., appellants, v. Carrie J. Hines, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,268.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Lazar H. Gladstone, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
|  | (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 results of operations of theCompany. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 22, 2010 | /s/ Yale Farar                                          |   |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Yale      Farar, President                              |
|                         |  (Principal      Executive Officer)                |
|                         |                                                    |
| Date:      November 22, 2010 | /s/ Mitchell W. Turk                                    |   |
|                         | Mitchell      W. Turk, Chief Financial Officer          |
|                         |  (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 19, 2006*

[Cite as *06/19/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-3032.]

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2004-2144.

#### Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jurczenko.

On August 24, 2005, this court suspended respondent, Alexander Jurczenko, for a period of two years with one year stayed on conditions. On February 14, 2006, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a motion for order to appear and show cause, requesting the court to issue an order directing respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be found in contempt for his failure to comply with this court’s August 24, 2005, order. On March 27, 2006, this court granted that motion and advised respondent to file a written response. Respondent did not file a response to the show cause order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent appear in person before this court on July 18, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.
§ 1744.67 Temporary excess construction funds. ( a ) When unanticipated events delay the borrower's disbursement of advanced funds, the funds may be used as follows: ( 1 ) With RUS loan funds for loans approved prior to November 1, 1993, or hardship loan funds, the borrower may invest the funds in 5 percent Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness—RUS Series.
( 2 ) With RUS cost-of-money or FFB loan funds, the following apply: ( i ) The borrower may invest the funds in short term securities issued by the United States Treasury.
( ii ) If permitted by state law, the borrower may deposit the funds in savings accounts, including certificates of deposit, of federally insured savings institutions.
( 3 ) Funds advanced by a guaranteed lender other than the FFB may, if so permitted by such lender, be invested under the terms and conditions described above for FFB advances.
( 4 ) Any security or investment made under this authorization shall identify the borrower by its corporate name followed by the words “Trustee, Rural Utilities Service.”
( 5 ) All temporary investments and all income derived from them shall be considered part of the construction fund and be subject to the same controls as cash in that account.
( 6 ) Securities and other investments shall have maturity dates or liquidating provisions that ensure the availability of funds as required for the completion of projects and the payment of obligations.
( 7 ) Any instrument evidencing a security or other investment herein authorized to be purchased or made, may not be sold, discounted, or pledged as collateral for a loan or as security for the performance of an obligation or for any other purpose.
( 8 ) The Administrator may, at his sole discretion, require a borrower to pledge any security or other evidence of investment authorized hereby by forwarding to him all pertinent instruments and related documentation as he may reasonably require.
( 9 ) Borrowers shall be responsible for the safekeeping of securities and other investments.
( b ) All interest and income received from investments of temporary excess funds, as described in this section, shall be deposited in the Construction Fund.
( c ) The borrower shall account for investment proceeds on the next FRS submitted to RUS. RUS will make the necessary adjustments on budgetary records.
( d ) The Administrator reserves the right to suspend any borrower's authorization to invest temporary excess funds contained herein if the borrower does not comply with the requirements.
( e ) For RUS loans approved prior to October 1, 1991, the borrower may return advanced funds to RUS as a refund of an advance. Interest stops accruing on the refunded advance upon receipt by RUS. A refunded advance may be readvanced. A refund of an advance shall be sent to the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Collections and Custodial Section, Washington, DC, 20250. The borrower should clearly indicate that this is a refund of an advance, and not a loan payment or prepayment.
[54 FR 12186, Mar. 24, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 66257, Dec. 20, 1993; 84 FR 59922, Nov. 7, 2019]