alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(50 Misc. 669)

#### In re THOMPSON'S WILL.

(Surrogate's Court, Kings County.

May, 1906.)

In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Edwin ID. Thompson, deceased. See 100 N. Y. Supp. 492. Ira J. Dutton, for proponent

CHURCH. S.

Since writing the second opinion herein, counsel for the proponent has submitted an additional brief, and contends that the authorities therein cited establish that the will and codicils should be admitted to probate. A careful examination of the cases does not, however, justify such contention. The case of Deck-er v. Waterman, 67 Barb. 460, did not arise on probate, but was an action between legatees to a will to have judicially determined the extent of the estate of the deceased. Although the situation was radically different from the case at bar, yet the court considered the legal proposition in regard to actual and constructive undue influence, and the decision rendered was on all fours with the previous decisions therein; using the following language (page 466): "The fact that such a relationship exists does not prevent the principal from making a voluntary donation to his agent and attorney. The same is not absolutely prohibited by the rules of law. But when it is established that such a relation exists between the donor and donee, then, before the validity of the gift will be upheld, it must be made to appear that the transaction was unaffected by fraud of any description whatever, either actual or constructive. The burden of proof rests on the donee, to establish its perfect fairness and propriety. * * * If such proof cannot be given, then the case will be treated as one of constructive fraud, and set aside." Reference is also made to the case of Matter of Sheldon (Sur.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 454. This latter case has a lengthy opinion by the surrogate of Madison county, which is devoted to a careful discussion of the facts of that case. No reference is made to any decisions therein, however, and it cannot be said to indicate any intention *1146on the part of the surrogate to decline to follow the doctrine of Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357, to distinguish or to modify the same, as in the statement of the legal principles there seems a complete recognition of the rules of that case. The law, therefore, is exactly as stated previously, and the sole question is one of fact as to whether the proponent has successfully borne the burden of rebutting the presumption of undue influence. The effect of the evidence having been heretofore discussed, there is no necessity for repeating the same.
#### § 351.2 Location of inspectors.

Inspectors of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs and customs officers are stationed at the following locations:

Anchorage, Alaska, Arlington, Va., Atlanta, Ga., Baltimore, Md., Baton Rouge, La., Blaine, Wash., Boston, Mass., Brownsville, Tex., Buffalo, N.Y., Calexico, Calif., Chantilly, Va., Charleston, S.C., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V.I., Chicago, Ill., Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., Cleveland, Ohio., Corpus Christi, Tex., Dallas, Tex., Del Rio, Tex., Detroit, Mich., Douglas, Ariz., Dover, Del., Duluth, Minn., Eagle Pass, Tex., El Paso, Tex., Galveston, Tex., Hidalgo, Tex., Hilo, Hawaii, Hoboken, N.J., Honolulu, Hawaii, Houston, Tex., Jacksonville, Fla., Jamaica, L.I., N.Y., Key West, Fla., Laredo, Tex., McGuire AFB, N.J., Memphis, Tenn., Miami, Fla., Milwaukee, Wis., Mobile, Ala., New Orleans, La., New York, N.Y., Newport News, Va., Nogales, Ariz., Norfolk, Va., Pensacola, Fla., Philadelphia, Pa., Port Arthur, Tex., Port Canaveral, Fla., Port Everglades, Fla., Portland, Oreg., Presidio, Tex., Progreso, Tex., Ramey AFB, P.R., Roma, Tex., Rouses Point, N.Y., St. Paul, Minn., San Antonio, Tex., San Diego, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., San Juan, P.R., San Luis, Ariz., San Pedro, Calif., San Ysidro, Calif., Savannah, Ga., Seattle, Wash., Tampa, Fla., Toledo, Ohio, Washington, DC, West Palm Beach, Fla., Wilmington, N.C.

[28 FR 5203, May 24, 1963, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971]
# 4.103 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.204-1 Approval of Contract, in *solicitations* and contracts if required by agency procedures.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 4.1 - Contract Execution
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BOYCE v. BOARD OF AUDITORS OF TOWN OF LAKE PLEASANT, HAMILTON COUNTY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

June 27, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people, on the relation of Lynn L. Boyce, against the board of auditors of the town of Lake Pleasant, Hamilton county, N. Y.

No opinion. Determination of the board of auditors unanimously con- . firmed, with costs.
**~7/22/2015** 15:11 **4252271~~7** Jeffrey M. Harper FAA Office of Regional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton. Washington 98057 T(425) 227-2161 F (425) 227·1007 ANM7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGSWASHINGTON, D.C. Inthe Matter of: Sky West Airlines, Inc. FAA Case No. 2011NM060047 DMS No.F AA-2012-0872 Honorable Richard C. Goodwin NOTICE OF APPEAL Jn accordance with14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(a), Complainant hereby submits Notice ofhis intent to appeal the Initial Decision of Administrative Lsw Judge Richard C. Goodwin, served July 16,2015.Respectfully submitted this 22"" day ofJuly, 2015. Digitally s19nod by JEFFREY M HARPER 5 DN: **c~US, o~U.S.** 

d /1.dJ;.. **Go'"o'-~'"l** ou·ANM **.~,iM.-1:':!'artJd"'·** .... **o~:AN~~~JEFFREY** M :'FAA Attorney . HARPERDate: 201 5.07,;!2 14:28:30 -07'00'

PAGE 02/0507/22/2015 15:11 _4252271007 ANM7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifY thatthe foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, electronic mail and Certified Mail- Return Receipt R,equ.ested this date,tothe following: Th.e Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office of Hearings, M-20

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell -310) Washington, DC 20590 F (202) 366-7536 E Richard.goodwin@dot.govTodd Emerson, Esq. Sky West Airlines, lnc. 444 South River Road

St. George, UT 84790

F (435) 634-3505 E temerson@skywest.com Ihereby certifY thatthe foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date,tothe following: Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 Federal Aviation Adrn.inisrration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 F (202) 267-1293 Dated this 22nd day afJuly, 2015.

Notiee of Appeal In **th~** Matter of $kyWestAit11nes, lnc. Dana StephensonOfficeof Regional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2007 FAA Case No. 20UNM060047, DMS No. FAA·2012·0872 Page2of2 Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attornsy T (425) 227·2161 F (425) 227-1007

PAGE 03/05
#### § 3565.2 Applicability and authority.

The regulation prescribes the policies, authorizations, and procedures for the guarantee of multifamily loans under section 538 of the Housing Act of 1949.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      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; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. RappaportPrincipal
                Executive OfficerOctober
                16, 2008
#### § 3560.561 Technical, legal, insurance and other services.

The requirements established under § 3560.62 apply to all applications for off-farm labor housing loans and grants.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41168 Summary Calendar

TERRY PRESTON MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID FORREST, MAJOR; BOBBY LANE, MAJOR; A. J. JINKINS, DOCTOR; KENNETH SULEWSKI, CAPTAIN, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CV-271

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1997 Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Terry Preston Miller filed an action under § 1983 against several employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The district court dismissed the claim without prejudice because Miller failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking relief in the district court. Miller appeals. After the district court entered final judgment, Miller introduced additional evidence of administrative exhaustion intoNo. 96-41168 -2- the record. Because the district court reached the proper conclusion based on the evidence it was able to consider, we affirm the dismissal without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Kemlon Prod. & Dev. Co. v. United States , 646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1981). Miller is free to refile his complaint with consolidated evidence of administrative exhaustion. AFFIRMED.
98-1511.

#### State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 74224. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KARLA WOOTEN,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv263–WS/MJF

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 2) docketed May 19, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that Petitioner’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response,

Petitioner has filed a motion (ECF No. 3) for reconsideration, which the

undersigned has construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 

Having reviewed the record in light of Petitioner’s objections, the

undersigned finds that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is due to

be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00263-WS-MJF Document 4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 2) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Petitioner’s petitioner for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), and this

action, are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “This action is DISMISSED

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.” The clerk shall close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of June , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00263-WS-MJF Document 4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MARK VII, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 29, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           7,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,736
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,771
<PP&E>                                           8,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           497
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,265
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                       893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,234
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
#### § 29.3024 Form.

The stage of preparation of tobacco such as unstemmed or stemmed.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:03 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Dry‐Type LCC and NIA Results

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the draft LCC and NIA results for dry‐type medium‐voltage

transformers (design lines 9 ‐ 13B) attached.

Thanks you,

‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
Exhibit 16

                  March 20, 2001

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sir or Madam:

      We have read the statements made by ANTs software inc. (copy attached),
which we understand will be filed with the Commission, as part of the Company's
Form 10-KSB dated March 20, 2001 and Proxy Statement dated March 20, 2001. We
agree with the statements in such Form 10-KSB and Proxy Statement.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ Farber & Hass, LLP

                                        Farber & Hass, LLP
1.706 Expiration.

Expiration dates are required for class D&F’s and are optional for individual D&F’s. Authority to act

under an individual D&F expires when it is exercised or on an expiration date specified in the

document, whichever occurs first. Authority to act under a class D&F expires on the expiration date

specified in the document. When a solicitation has been furnished to prospective offerors before the

expiration date, the authority under the D&F will continue until award of the contract(s) resulting

from the solicitation.

Parent topic: Subpart 1.7 - Determinations and Findings
§ 3.72 Coordinating offset with another Federal agency. ( a ) When USDA is owed a debt by an employee of another agency, the other agency will not initiate the requested offset until USDA provides the agency with a written certification that the debtor owes USDA a debt (including the amount and basis of the debt and the due date of the payment) and that USDA has complied with these regulations.
( b ) USDA may use salary offset against one of its employees who is indebted to another agency, if requested to do so by that agency. Such a request must be accompanied by; ( 1 ) A certification by the requesting agency that the person owes the debt (including the amount and basis of the debt and the due date of the payment).
( 2 ) That the agency has complied with its regulations required by 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 CFR part 550, subpart K.
( c ) Debts may be referred to Treasury under § 3.44 for collection through salary offset in accordance with 31 CFR 285.7.
Exhibit 21



Pioneer Railcorp Subsidiaries:

  Alabama & Florida Railway Co., Inc.
  Alabama Railroad Co.
  Decatur Junction Railway Co.
  Fort Smith Railroad Co.
  Indiana Southwestern Railway Co.
  Keokuk Junction Railway Co.
  Michigan Southern Railroad Company.
  Midwest Terminal Railway Company
  Mississippi Central Railroad Co.
  Pioneer Air, Inc.
  Pioneer Industrial Railway Co.
  Pioneer Railroad Equipment Co., Ltd.
  Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc.
  Pioneer Resources, Inc.
  Shawnee Terminal Railway Company
  The Garden City Western Railway, Inc
  Vandalia Railroad Company
  West Michigan Railroad Co.
#### § 3560.52 Program objectives.

The Agency uses appropriated funds to finance the construction, rehabilitation of program properties, or purchase and rehabilitation of MFH and related facilities to serve eligible persons in rural areas. The Agency encourages the use of such financing in conjunction with funding or financing from other sources.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the “Report”) of ANTs software inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2004: 

          1. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

          This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

| Date:    March   10, 2005 | By:    | /s/ BOYD PEARCE                              |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                          |   |                                              |
|                                          |   | Boyd Pearce,    Chief Executive Officer |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
exhibit10-13_033109.htm


     

     

     

    Exhibit
10.13

    


    CFS
Bancorp, Inc. 2009 Performance-based Cash Incentive Plan

    


    The Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors approved a Performance-based Cash Incentive Plan (Cash Incentive Plan) for key
employees including the Company’s named executive officers (NEOs).  The Cash Incentive Plan
provides an opportunity for key employees to earn a cash bonus for 2009
based on the achievement of corporate, business unit, and/or individual
performance objectives at threshold, target or maximum levels, as established by
the Compensation Committee.

     

    
      
        If the employee achieves the
applicable performance objectives, the cash bonus earned is expected to be paid
in February 2010.  In addition, to receive a bonus, the employee must
be employed by CFS Bancorp, Inc. or Citizens Financial Bank, or a successor or
assign, on the date the cash bonus is paid.

         

      

      The Compensation Committee will have
full power and discretion to (a) select the employees who are eligible to
receive cash bonuses under the Cash Incentive Plan, (b) determine the amounts of
the bonuses to be paid, (c) determine whether the performance objectives have
been achieved by any employee, and (d) construe and interpret this
Plan.

      


      The Cash Incentive Plan may be
amended, modified or terminated at any time in the discretion of the
Compensation Committee.  Neither this Cash Incentive Plan nor a bonus
opportunity under this Plan constitutes an agreement, understanding or
commitment by CFS Bancorp, Inc. or Citizens Financial Bank for continued
employment with respect to any employee.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

t0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144950 & (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144950

COA: 307873

St Joseph CC: 02

- 011244

- FC

ROBERT EARL HACKNEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is

DENIED.
3.101-1 General.

Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by

statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none.

Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust

and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest

or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships. While many

Federal laws and regulations place restrictions on the actions of Government personnel, their official

conduct must, in addition, be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public

disclosure of their actions.

Parent topic: 3.101 Standards of conduct.