alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vallandingham vs. Duval, &c.

Assumpsit. Case 82.

Error lo the Muhlcriburg Circuit; M’Leah, Judge.

*Pleas. Partners. Assumpsit.*

To a joint declaration against partners, a plea bi *one,*<hat *they*did not assume within five years prii>" to the insii'ution of the suit, is a good plea.

April 25.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of (he Court.

This only question presented in this case is, whether, in an action of assumpsit against partners, a plea by *one*of them, averring that they; did not assume within five years prior to the institution of the suit is a good defence?

Each defendant, in such a suit as well as in any other, against a plurality of persons, has a right to sever in pleading and may, of course, plead any matter which may bar or abate the action as to himself; and, as no one partner is under any legal obligation to pay, or contribute to the payment of a partnership debt barred by time, the statute of limitations must be an available defence for each or for all of them.

When one partner pleads the statute of limitations in bar of a joint suit against all the partners, he should aver that *the partners*did not assume within five years; as the plea does not deny the partnership, nor the joint assumpsit as charged in the declaration, it would not be good if it averred only that *the party*filing it had not assumed within five years, because an assumpsit, within that time, by any one of the copartners, might be the assumpsit of all, and might be obligatory on all of them; and a plea that one of them had not assumed within five years, would not be responsive to the declaration. Therefore, as one of the plaintiffs in error (sued as partners) pleaded that *they*had not assumed within five years next preceding the impetration of the writ, *263the circuit court erred in sustaining a demurrer to llL plea. ■.

*JIPHenry,*for plaintiffs.

It would be premature now to decide whether, the plea be sustained, the whole action would be defeated, or whether it would be barred only as to the partner pleading the statute. That question does not arise on the demurrer to the plea, because the pica is a legal defence to the action by the partner who filed it, whether it may exonerate himself only, or may bar the whole action.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1430.301 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the following terms and acronyms apply:

*2014 Farm Bill* means the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-79).

*Actual dairy production margin* is as defined in subpart A of this part.

*AMS* means the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA.

*CCC* means the Commodity Credit Corporation.

*Deputy Administrator* means the Farm Service Agency Deputy Administrator for Commodity Operations.

*Distribution* means the provision of products purchased through DPDP to low-income groups through FNS food distribution programs in accordance with those program regulations and 7 CFR part 250.

*DPDP* means the Dairy Product Donation Program.

*FNS* means the Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA.

*FSA* means the Farm Service Agency of the USDA.

*FSA Administrator* means Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, USDA.

*Hundredweight or cwt* means 100 pounds.

*MPP-Dairy* means the Margin Protection Program for Dairy provided for in subpart A of this part.

*NDM* means non-fat dry milk.

*Recipient agencies* means agencies or organizations that are eligible to receive donated product for distribution under this subpart.

*USDA* means the United States Department of Agriculture.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1903 

To direct that certain coal mine safety grant funds be directed to study 

the prevention and treatment of Black Lung Disease. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself and Mr. ENYART) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To direct that certain coal mine safety grant funds be directed to study the prevention and treatment of Black 

Lung Disease. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GRANT FUNDS TO STUDY THE PREVENTION 

4 AND TREATMENT OF BLACK LUNG DISEASE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall 

6 award competitive grants under the Brookwood-Sago Mine 

7 Safety Grants established by section 14 of the Mine Im8 provement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 to 

9 entities eligible to receive grants under such section for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1903 IH

1 research and outreach related to the prevention and treat2 ment of Black Lung Disease. 

3 (b) FUNDING.— 

4 (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is es5 tablished in the Treasury of the United States a sep6 arate account for the deposit of penalties described 

7 in paragraph (2) to be known as the Mine Safety 

8 Grant Fund. 

9 (2) DEPOSIT OF CIVIL PENALTIES.—The Sec10 retary of Labor shall deposit amounts determined by 

11 the Secretary that are collected as penalties under 

12 section 110 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

13 Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 820) into the Mine Safety 

14 Grant Fund established by paragraph (1). 

15 (3) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Amounts in the 

16 Mine Safety Grant Fund shall be available to the 

17 Secretary of Labor, as provided in subsection (c), to 

18 award grants under the Brookwood-Sago Mine Safe19 ty Grants established by section 14 of the Mine Im20 provement and New Emergency Response Act of 

21 2006. $10,000,000 of such amounts (or a greater 

22 amount as determined by the Secretary based on the 

23 availability of funds) shall be used by the Secretary 

24 to award grants for the purposes described in sub25 section (a). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1903 IH

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi2 tion to funds appropriated under section 114 of the Fed3 eral Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 824), 

4 there is authorized to be appropriated from the Mine Safe5 ty Grant Fund to the Secretary of Labor an amount equal 

6 to the total amount deposited into the fund pursuant to 

7 subsection (b)(2) during the previous fiscal year. Such 

8 amounts are authorized to remain available until ex9 pended. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, Mark Tripp, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Easton-Bell Sports,Inc.;  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,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date: May 16, 2006/s/ Mark Tripp   Mark Tripp   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1
 Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.
  By email
   Severance Benefits




---



##### 



Other Separation Provisions
    Conditions to Severance Benefit Eligibility
 -2-




---



##### 



Exhibit A
  Employees Ancillary Covenants.
 Confidential Information
 -3-




---



##### 



Protection of Documents
 Restricted Activities.
  -4-




---



##### 



Enforcement of Covenants
 -5-




---



##### 



Withholding
 Definitions
      -6-




---



##### 



Miscellaneous.
  
 
  Signature:
    
    /s/ DANIEL J. ARMENTDaniel J. Arment
  -7-




---



##### 



Exhibit A
      -8-




---



##### 



-9-
----

----

|   | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented in this report. |

|  /s/  Dongliang Su |                           |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                         | Dongliang Su              |   |
|                         | Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                         |                           |

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA study of the temporal stability of multiple cell vorticesThe effect of initial mean velocity field on the stability characteristics of longitudinal vortices is documented in detail. The temporal stability of isolated multiple cell vortices is considered. The types of vortices studied include single cell as well as two and three cell vortices. It is shown that cell multiplicity in the vortex core has drastic effects on the stability characteristics. On the basis of numerical calculations, it is concluded that the growth rates of instabilities in multiple cell vortices are substantially larger (two to threefold increases are observed) than those of a single cell vortex. It is also determined that there is a substantial increase in the effective range of axial and azimuthal wavenumbers where instabilities are present. But most importantly, there is the appearance of a variety of viscous modes of instability. In the case of vortices, these latter instabilities which highlight the importance of viscous forces have never been reported before. These effects are discussed in detail for the case of a two cell vortex.Document ID19900002652Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKhorrami, Mehdi R.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1989Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4261NAS 1.26:4261Accession Number90N11968Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-31-07CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-530Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900002652.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
§ 1710.602 Fund advance period. ( a ) The fund advance period begins on the date of the loan note and will last no longer than five years, after September 30 of the fifth year after the fiscal year of obligation. The fiscal year of obligation is identified in loan documentation associated with each loan. The Administrator may extend the fund advance period on any loan if the borrower meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. However, under no circumstances shall RUS ever make or approve an advance, regardless of the last day for an advance on the loan note or any extension by the Administrator, later than September 30 of the fifth year after the fiscal year of obligation if such date would result in the RUS obligating or permitting advance of funds contrary to the Anti-Deficiency Act.
( b ) The Administrator may agree to an extension of the fund advance period for loans if the borrower demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the loan funds continue to be needed for approved loan purposes (*e.g.,* facilities included in a RUS approved construction work plan). Policies for extension of the fund advance period following certain mergers, consolidations, and transfers of systems substantially in their entirety are set forth in 7 CFR 1717.156. ( 1 ) To apply for an extension, the borrower must make a request to RUS prior to the last date for advance as noted in the borrower's loan documents and provide, the following: ( i ) A certified copy of a board resolution requesting an extension of the Government's obligation to advance loan funds;
( ii ) Evidence that the unadvanced loan funds continue to be needed for approved loan purposes; and
( iii ) Notice of the estimated date for completion of construction.
( 2 ) If the Administrator approves a request for an extension, RUS will notify the borrower in writing of the extension and the terms and conditions thereof. An extension will be effective only if it is requested in writing prior to the last date for advance as provided in the borrower's loan documents.
( 3 ) Any request received after the last date for advance shall be rejected.
( c ) RUS will rescind the balance of any loan funds not advanced to a borrower as of the final date approved for advancing funds.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant
                           --------------------------

    Subsidiary
    ----------

Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation
Health Management Associates, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation
Sebring Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Mooresville Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Marathon HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Louisburg HMA, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Orlando HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Biloxi HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Health Management Investments, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Gaffney HMA, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation
Durant HMA, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation
Van Buren HMA, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation
Hamlet HMA, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Health Management Associates of West Virginia, Inc., 
  a West Virginia Corporation
Paintsville Hospital Company, a Kentucky Corporation
Coffee Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation
Riverview Regional Medical Center, Inc., an Alabama Corporation
Topeka HMA, Inc., a Kansas Corporation
Haines City HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Natchez Community Hospital, Inc. a Mississippi Corporation
Sebastian Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Punta Gorda HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Hartsville HMA, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation
Statesboro HMA, Inc., a Georgia Corporation
Clarksdale HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Midwest City HMA, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation

                                      70
§ 1493.2 Purposes of programs. CCC is authorized to issue Payment Guarantees: ( a ) To increase exports of U.S. Agricultural Commodities and expand access to trade finance;
( b ) To assist countries, particularly developing countries and emerging markets, in meeting their food and fiber needs;
( c ) To establish or improve facilities and infrastructure in emerging markets to expand exports of U.S. Agricultural Commodities; or
( d ) For such other purposes as the Secretary of Agriculture determines appropriate.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY DARRELL COLBERT,

Applicant,

v.

RON HAYNES,

Respondent. No. 20

- 73839

MEMORANDUM *

Application to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Submitted August 10, 2021 * * Seattle, Washington

Before: BEA, BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Bobby Colbert applies for leave to file a second or successive federal habeas

petition challenging his 2005 state conviction and sentence for rape

. See Colbert v.

Haynes , 954 F.3d 1232, 123 4

– 3 5 (9th Cir. 2020). Colbert acknowledges that he

cannot meet the standard for a second or successive petition, but argues that his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 11 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

petition is not ac tually a second or successive petition because a 2017 order that

changed his community custody (the “2017 Order”) effected a new judgment. The

2017 Order changed his community custody on one count from a variable term to a

fixed term

, in compliance with a 2009 statutory amendment that prohibited

variable terms. This reduced Colbert’s community custody on that count to a fixed

term of 36 months instead of the prior variable range of 36 to 48 months. We deny

the application.

A petition is not second or suc cessive if it is the first petition to challenge a

“new judgment.” Id. at 1235 (citation omitted) . “Critical to this analysis is

whether the [ change in sentence] ‘replaces an invalid sentence with a valid one.’”

Id. at 1236 (citation omitted). “In Washington, only sentencing errors stemming

from a trial court exceeding its statutory authority render a sentencing judgment

invalid.” Id

. Because a variable custody term was lawful when the state court

imposed it in 2005

— four years before Washington’s statutory amendment

requiring fixed terms

— the 2005 judgment remains valid, and the 2017 Order did

not create a new judgment.

Further, even if there were an error, “sent encing errors correctible through

ministerial action

. . . are not errors that render the original sentence invalid.” Id.

“ [ R ] eset[ting] the end date for community custody [is] a purely ministerial

function ,” as evidenced by the Washington legislature’s delegation to the3

Department of Corrections of the power to modify community custody terms in

accordance with the 2009 statutory amendment. State v. Franklin , 172 Wash. 2d

831, 843 ( 2011) (en banc)

.

For these reasons, the 2017 Order did not create a new judgment, and

Colbert’s petition is therefore second or successive. Accordingly, Colbert must

satisfy the requirements for filing a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(2), which he concedes that he does not do. Thus, Colbert’s applic ation

to file his petition is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                             ALOETTE COSMETICS, INC.

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                               STATE OR JURISDICTION OF
  NAME                                              INCORPORATION

  ALOETTE COSMETICS, INC.
  OF DELAWARE                                       Delaware

  ALOETTE INTERNATIONAL, INC.                       Delaware

  ALOETTE REALTY, INC.                              Delaware

  ALOETTE COSMETICS, INC.
  OF PENNSYLVANIA                                   Pennsylvania

  ALOETTE COSMETICS OF CANADA INC.                  Canada

  ALOETTE COSMETICS (AUSTRALASIA) LTD.              Australia

  DD COSMETIC SALES COMPANY,INC.                    Texas