alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1c.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 1c.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 1c.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 1c.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
118 So.2d 875

#### *Mrs.*Bertha FRIEDENBURG, widow of Julius H. SCHWARZ v. Mrs. Ernestine FEDER, widow of Rudolph FRIEDENBURG.

No. 44970.

March 21, 1960.

Cyril F. Dumaine, New Orleans, for defendants.

*429Puneky & Barrios, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Mrs. Bertha F. Schwarz (a widow) instituted this suit against Mrs. Ernestine F. Friedenburg (also a widow) seeking to be recognized as the owner of certain real estate located in the City of New Orleans designated by Municipal Numbers 7700-7702 Hickory Street.

Answering, Mrs. Friedenburg asserted ownership of the property. Alternatively, and in reconvention, she demanded judgment against Mrs. Schwarz in the sum of $3,889.52 for repairs allegedly made.

Following the death of Mrs, Friedenburg which occurred during the pendency of the litigation in the district court her testamentary executrix, Mrs. Dorothy S. Moser, was substituted as the defendant. Later, on the suggestion of such executrix, the decedent’s sole legal heir was cited and also made a party defendant, she being Mrs. Marcelle J. Bernard. Thereupon, the two defendants adopted the pleadings originally filed by Mrs. Friedenburg.

After trial there was judgment, on the main demand, recognizing Mrs. Schwarz as the owner of the real estate and, on the reconventional demand, ordering that (he testamentary executrix, Mrs. Moser, be paid the sum of $2,188.52 (this for the aforementioned repairs made).

In due course the testamentary executrix obtained and perfected an appeal to this *court,*both suspensive and devolutive, from that part of the judgment which recognized Mrs. Schwarz as the owner of the property. Mrs. Bernard, the sole legal heir, appealed therefrom devolutively.

Appellee, Mrs. Schwarz, has moved to dismiss the *suspensive appeal*of the testamentary executrix because (1) the sole legal heir was not joined therein and (2) the bond given therefor is insufficient in amount.

In our opinion the motion to dismiss is without merit.

We know of no law, and none has been cited to us, requiring that all parties seeking to appeal must join together in their efforts to attain that end. In this connection it is to be noted that the two defendants aggrieved by the judgment in the instant cause duly obtained and perfected appeals (even assuming for the sake of argument that it was necessary in litigation such as this for both to do so) and, hence, they are properly before this court.

With respect to mover’s second assigned reason we have often held that a complaint that an appeal bond is insufficient in amount must be urged first in the court of original jurisdiction. See Succession of Roth, 230 La. 33, 87 So.2d 719 and the cases therein cited.

*431For the reasons assigned the motion to dismiss the suspensive appeal of the testamentary executrix, Mrs. Dorothy S. Moser, is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DAVID L. PATTON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 588 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DAVID L. PATTON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 589 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
From: Montalvo Kara M [Kara.Montalvo@srpnet.com]

Sent: 08/24/2012 08:41 PM GMT

To: Deborah Jordan; Colleen McKaughan

Cc: "Pratt James M (Jim)" <Jim.Pratt@srpnet.com>; Barr Kelly J <Kelly.Barr@srpnet.com>; Sprungl Barbara J 

<Barbara.Sprungl@srpnet.com>; "Olsen Robert A (Bobby)" <Bobby.Olsen@srpnet.com>

Subject: Letter Providing Additional Information on Coronado Unit 2

Good Afternoon Debbie and Colleen –

Please find attached a letter signed by Jim Pratt providing SRP’s response to the letter you sent to Kelly 

Barr on July 27, 2012, requesting additional information regarding the Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) system under construction at SRP’s Coronado Generating Station Unit 2. A hard copy of this letter 

is being sent Federal Express for arrival at Region 9 by tomorrow. 

Both Jim and Kelly are out of the office today, but will be available next week if you have any questions 

regarding the content of this letter. In the interim, if you have any immediate questions, please feel free 

to contact me.

Regards,

Kara 

Kara M. Montalvo, QEP

Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting

Salt River Project

(602) 236-5256 - v

(602) 236-3407 - f

kara.montalvo@srpnet.com
98-1474.

#### State v. Coley.

Lucas C.P. No. CR971449.

This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
#### § 201.42 Small containers.

In sampling seed in small containers that it is not practical to sample as required in § 201.41, a portion of one unopened container or one or more entire unopened containers may be taken to supply a minimum size sample, as required in § 201.43.

[30 FR 7888, June 18, 1965]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793595
<NAME> BEEPER PLUS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          25,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,000
<INVENTORY>                                        696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,618
<PP&E>                                         293,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,880
<OTHER-SE>                                   (163,963)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,540
<SALES>                                        828,331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               828,331
<CGS>                                          211,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               806,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (182,023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   108,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (290,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (290,173)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 278
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 278 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 278.4 Procedure for redeeming coupons. ( a ) *Coupons accepted without authorization.* Coupons accepted by a retail food store or a wholesale food concern before the receipt by the firm of an authorization card from FNS may not be presented for redemption unless the FNS officer in charge has approved the redemption under § 278.7(b). Burned or mutilated coupons shall be presented for redemption to the FNS officer in charge as provided in § 278.7(c).
( b ) *Endorsing coupons.* Each authorized retail food store or authorized wholesale food concern shall mark its authorization number or name on each coupon before it presents the coupons for redemption.
( c ) *Using redemption certificates.* FNS will provide all authorized firms with redemption certificates. Wholesale food concerns and retail food stores, except for drug addict and alcoholic treatment and rehabilitation programs and public or private nonprofit homeless meal providers, shall use the redemption certificates to present coupons to insured financial institutions for credit or for cash. All retail food stores which wish to redeem coupons at wholesale food concerns shall use the redemption certificates for that purpose. An authorized retail firm using redemption certificates to redeem coupons shall fill out the redemption certificate to show the value of the coupons redeemed, the name of the insured financial institution or wholesaler, the date, and the signature and title of the official of the firm redeeming coupons.
[Amdt. 136, 43 FR 43274, Sept. 22, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 286, 52 FR 7558, Mar. 11, 1987; Amdt. 344, 56 FR 54778, Oct. 23, 1991; Amdt. 343, 61 FR 53601, Oct. 15, 1996]
#### Jones *et al. vs.*Tipton.

AssumpsitI

Assumpsit, for use and occupation (as between landlord andtenontimay be maintained, even upon an *implied contract*to pay.— But—

A vendor cannot maintain assumpsit against a *vendee,*for his Use of the land, while in possession under a contract of sale, after-wards rescinded. As between them, and in this view, the relation of tenancy does not exist; and the law implies no promise by the vendee, to pay rent.

[Mr. Apperson for Plaintiffs : Mr. Owsley for Defendant.3

From the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

*October*24.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The only question deemed essential in this case, is, whether assumpsit for use and occupation, can be maintained by a vendor against his vendee of land, to recover the value of the vendee’s use of the land, between the date of the contract of sale, and a virtual rescission of that contract, by a judgment for damages against the vendor, for failing to convey the legal title.

Assumpsit for use and occupation may be maintained, on common law principles, even when there is only an implied contract to pay. Logan vs Lewis, 7 *J. J. Mar. 3.*

But the law will not imply a contract to pay rent when the occupant held as a vendee ; because he held the land as his own ; and therefore the relation of landlord and tenant, so far as rent may be involved, cannot be inferred; and, consequently, although the contrary doctrine was laid down in the modern case of *Hall*vs. *Vaughan*in England, it is well settled, in this country, and in England too, as we confidently believe, that, *as between vendor and*vendee, assumpsit for use and occupation cannot be maintained on an implied contract, because, in such a case, an undertaking to pay rent will not he implied. *Smith*vs. Stewart, 6 Johnson, 46. *Bancroft*vs *Wardwell,*13 *Ib.*489. *Vanderheauvel*vs. *Storrs, 3 Con. Repts.*203. *Little*vs. Pearson, *7 Pick.*301. *Wheaton’s Selwyn,*549.

Wherefore, as the consequence of this opinion is an affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court, that judgment must be affirmed, without regarding other points presented by the assignment of errors.
#### ALLISON Respondent, v. LUEDERMANN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 14, 1906.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District. Action by Wallace Allison against Albert Luedermann. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed. Truax, Watson & Roberts, for appellant. Benjamin F. Edsall, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

There was sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion that the engineer, *1104acting as defendant’s servant, in the scope of his employment and in the course of his work, cut the pipe, and thus caused the loss sustained by the plaintiff. There was evidence that 577 mirrors were damaged, which, undamaged, were of the value of $203.30; that some of these were cut up, and some resilvered, at a cost of $36.25; and that thereafter they were sold for $107.36. There was also evidence that the case goods were damaged $50. This evidence, under the circumstances, warrants a conclusion that the total loss was $182.19. This sum, with interest thereon from February 1, 1904, to the date of judgment, makes a total of $207.69. There was no evidence to warrant an allowance of more than this sum. The judgment will be modified accordingly, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.
#### Hyman Willensky et al., Respondents, v Victor Brill et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 21, 1979, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The appeal from the order entered on September 10, 1979, is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as said order is nonappealable. No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1924.276 Action against contractor.

If Rural Development pays for correction of construction defects which are the responsibility of the contractor, debarment proceedings will be initiated against the contractor in accordance with subpart M of part 1940 of this chapter (available in any Rural Development office), even if the contractor has gone out of business, declared bankruptcy, cannot be located, etc. The debarment will be pursued in both the contractor's company name and the principal parties as individuals, and any successor entities, if known. If the manufacturer of the defective product is determined to be solely responsible, no action will be taken against the contractor. In such a case, debarment will be initiated against the manufacturer. An assignment of the borrower's claim against the contractor or other party will be obtained if it appears to the approval officials, with any necessary advice from the Office of the General Counsel, that recovery is reasonably possible.
118 So.2d 880

#### Frances Harvey MALONE v. Coleman P. MALONE.

No. 44020.

March 21, 1960.

Robert H. Wimberly, Arcadia, for defendant-appellant.

Meadors, Shaw & Meadors, Homer, for appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The appellee has answered the appeal in this case seeking to have the judgment rendered in her favor below 1 reversed and her suit dismissed on the ground the matter is now moot.2 The appellant, through counsel, concurs in this answer to his appeal.3

*445Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled and set aside and that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed. The appellant is to pay all costs of this appeal.

1

. This judgment granted plaintiff a divorce; custody of the minor child, issue of the marriage; alimony of $50 a month for herself and an additional $50 a month for the child’s support, attorney fees of $300; and all costs.

2

.- The original judgment of divorce was procured under the provisions ■ of Article 138 of the Revised Civil Code. While the matter was pending here on appeal the plaintiff secured another judgment of divorce on the ground of two-year separation, under the provisions of RS 9:301, and has amicably compromised all of the differences between the parties with respect to alimony, attorney fees, court costs, etc.

3

.Appellant, concurring, contends that inasmuch as some of.the evidence was inadmissible and the remainder largely circumstantial, he is entitled to have the charges against him nullified.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Lakefield Wind Project, LLC, EG10-57-000; Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, EG10-58-000; Pattern Gulf Wind, LLC, EG10-59-000; New Harvest Wind Project, LLC, EG10-60-000; Dry Lake Wind Power, II LLC, EG10-61-000; Learning Jupiter Wind Power, LLC, EG10-62-000; Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC, EG10-63-000; Baldwin Wind, LLC, EG10-64-000]

      ( print page 70234)    
Take notice that during the month of October 2010, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-28903 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Directed Electronics, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald F. Dutt, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                         /s/ Ronald F. Dutt   Ronald F. Dutt  Date: November 8, 2007 Chief Financial Officer
2006-0701.

#### Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-732-EL-MER. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
2006-0660.

#### Hall v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Jerome Hall. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
§ 25.606 Financial management and records. ( a ) In complying with the requirements of 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, or 3019, as applicable, grantees must submit, in lieu of the forms prescribed therein, the equivalent of such forms prescribed by the Office of Community Development pursuant to this subpart as such may be adapted to the USDA EZ/EC grant program and which may be submitted and retained in electronic form.
( b ) Grantees must retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other records pertinent to the grant for a period of at least 3 years after the end of the designation period, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3 year period if audit findings have not been resolved or if directed by the United States. Records may be retained and submitted in electronic form if allowed by Generally Accepted Government Accounting Principles.