alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Felty *v.*Southern Flour and Grain Company.

Fish, C. J.

1. If a vendee refuses to take and pay for goods bought, one of the remedies given the vendor by the Civil Code, § 4131, is: “he may sell the property, acting for this purpose as agent for the vendee, and recover the difference between the contract price and the price on resale.” However, before the vendee will be liable for such difference, it must appear that he was notified of the vendor’s intention to resell at the vendee’s risk. *Green*v. *Ansley,*92 *Ga.*647 (19 S. E. 53, 44 Am. St. R. 110) ; *Davis Sulphur Ore Co.*v. *Atlanta Guano Co.,*109 *Ga.*607 (34 S. E. 1011); *Mendel*v. *Miller,*126 *Ga.*835, 837 (56 S. E. 88, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1184).

*(a)*Nothing was said in *McCord*v. *Laidley,*87 *Ga.*221 (13 S. E. 509), contrary to what was held in the above-cited cases. It appears from the record in *McCord*v. *Laidley,*of file in this court, that the petition specifically alleged that notice of the resale was given to the vendee, and that on the trial such notice was proved by the plaintiff and not denied by the defendant. The record raised no point as to want of notice, and the opinion rendered in the case dealt only with the con*333trolling points. That case, therefore, is not even a “physical precedent” for holding that notice to the vendee of resale at his risk is not necessary.

July 19, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. February 2, 1912.

*George B. Bush,*for plaintiff. *Walter*McElreath, for defendant.

(6) The fact that the vendor tendered the goods, and that the vendee refused to accept them, is no reason why a notice of resale by the vendor at the vendee’s risk should not be given. This is true because the right to-recover the difference between the contract price and the price on resale is given to the vendor only where the vendee refuses to take and pay for the goods bought; and manifestly there could be no refusal to take the goods by the vendee unless he had the opportunity to take them.— that is, unless they had been offered or tendered to him by the vendor. What was said in *Davis Sulphur Ore Co.*v. *Atlanta Guarno Co.,*109 Ga. 607 (34 S. E. 1011), to the effect that proof of tender of the goods and demand for payment by the vendor, and refusal by the vendee to take the goods or pay for them, would dispense with the necessity of notice to the vendee of the vendor’s intention to resell at the vendee’s risk, was not necessary to the decision there rendered, and the last sentence in the opinion clearly shows that the ruling made was distinctly put on the fact that the petition did not allege that the vendee was notified of the resale.

2. The action being for the recovery of the difference between the contract price and the price on resale by the plaintiff of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, which the latter refused to take and pay for, and there being no evidence of any notice to the defendant of the intention of the plaintiff to resell the goods at the defendant’s risk, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and therefore the court properly granted a nonsuit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 1707.301 Fees. ( a ) Generally. The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to DNFSB.
( b ) Fees for records. Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the demand or request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. Costs for employee time will be calculated on the basis of the hourly pay of the employee (including all pay, allowance, and benefits). Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by DNFSB in its Freedom of Information Act fee regulations at 10 CFR part 1703.
( c ) Witness fees. Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear. Such fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, in travel, and for attendance in the legal proceeding.
( d ) Payment of fees. You must pay witness fees for current DNFSB employees and any records certification fees by submitting to the General Counsel a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the Treasury of the United States. In the case of testimony by former DNFSB employees, you must pay applicable fees directly to the former employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) Certification (authentication) of copies of records. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board may certify that records are true copies in order to facilitate their use as evidence. If you seek certification, you must request certified copies from DNFSB at least 45 days before the date they will be needed. The request should be sent to the General Counsel. You will be charged a certification fee of $15.00 for each document certified.
( f ) Waiver or reduction of fees. The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
( g ) De minimis fees. Fees will not be assessed if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Diaz, Also Known as John Diaz Cruz, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1968, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. Appellant contends that his judgment of conviction for attempted grand larceny in the second degree was not a final, appealable judgment and could not serve as the predicate for second felony offender treatment. This argument is based upon the fact that appellant was sentenced to an indefinite term in the New York City Penitentiary pursuant to the then applicable subdivision (b) of section 203 of the Correction Law (L. 1939, ch. 661, § 1). We find no merit to this argument. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:          (1)  Registration Statement (Form S-3 File No. 333-198158) of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable             Infrastructure Capital, Inc.;        (2)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-212913) pertaining to the 2013 Hannon             Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan; and         (3)  Registration Statement (Form S-3ASR File No. 333-215229) of Hannon Armstrong             Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.,  of our report dated March 20, 2018, relating to the consolidated financial statements of MM Solar Parent,  LLC, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.                                                                                                                                                                  EKS&H LLLP    March 26, 2019  Boulder, Colorado
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1
       
<S>                                       <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-Mos
<CASH>                                        306,971
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              342,168
<PP&E>                                      9,857,855
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,669,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,535,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         184,435
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,350,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,535,358
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,053,347
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 719,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               333,410
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           333,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  333,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   29.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   29.87
<FN>
The  earnings  per share data  noted  above  refers to net  income  per  limited
partnership unit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00033-CR

______________________________

ERIC LAMOND DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 349th Judicial District Court

 Houston County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-CR-123

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
This case was transferred to this Court from the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in Tyler 1

as part of the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization program. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN.

§ 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are not aware of any conflict between the precedent of the Tyler Court

and the precedent of this Court on any issue relevant in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eric Lamond Davis was on trial in Houston County for murder. After the first day of 1

testimony, one of the jurors serving in Davis' trial was arrested on a hot-check charge pending in

another county. Over Davis' objection, the trial court released the arrested juror from further service

in this case, seated one of the two alternate jurors that had previously been selected, and overruled

Davis' motion for mistrial. 

From a murder conviction and a life sentence, Davis appeals, asserting that the trial court erred

in denying his motion for mistrial. We affirm the judgment, because by statute an alternate juror may

replace a disqualified juror.

In his sole point of error, Davis argues that "statutes do not allow an alternate juror to serve

in place of a disqualified juror." We disagree.

Article 33.011 allows a trial court to select up to four alternate jurors to "replace jurors who,

prior to the time the jury renders a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the defendant . . . become or

are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties . . . ." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art 33.011(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008) (emphasis added).

A person is disqualified from serving as a juror if he or she is under indictment or other legal

accusation for misdemeanor theft or a felony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 35.16, 35.19
3

(Vernon 2006). In this case, no one disputes that the disqualified juror was "under indictment or other

legal accusation for misdemeanor theft or felony" or that the alternate juror replaced the disqualified

juror before the verdict. Accordingly, once the arrested juror was "found to be" disqualified, the trial

court was required to, and did, excuse her from the jury. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. arts.

35.16, 35.19. The court then appropriately replaced her with an alternate juror. See TEX.CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 33.011(b). The trial court did not err.

We overrule Davis' point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 15, 2009

Date Decided: September 18, 2009

Do Not Publish
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HOWARD GLEN TOOLE

VS CASE NO. 5:06cv126/MCR/AK

JAMES MCDONOUGH

NOTICE OF TRANSFER OUT OF DISTRICT

To: CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

PO BOX 711 

MONTGOMERY, AL 36101-0711

The above-styled case is being transferred to your district by Judge M. Casey

Rodgers. Attached are a certified copy of the docket, a certified copy of the order of

transfer, and all other original documents filed to date.

Please acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this notice of transmittal.

 July 28, 2006

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 /s/ Teresa Cole

DATE: Deputy Clerk: Teresa Cole

Acknowledgment:

Date received in your district:

Your Case No.:

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 5-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 5:06-cv-00126-MCR-AK Document 5 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00711-MHT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY 

TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 In order to fully address the matters now before the Court, Defendant 

respectfully seeks permission to file a reply to Plaintiff’s Reply in Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41), which Plaintiff filed on 

April 25, 2007. A copy of Defendant’s proposed reply is attached as Exhibit A. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/Charles A. Stewart III 

Charles A. Stewart III (STE067) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

cstewart@bradleyarant.com

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

adriscoll@bradleyarant.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Skilstaf, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 26, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

Robert E. Cole 

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Beth A. Friel 

Jeanne L. Bakker 

Mongtomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by U. S. Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: None. 

/s/ Amelia T. Driscoll 

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 51-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 10 of 10
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.106 Notice of issuance. ( a ) The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will inform the State and local officials specified in § 2.104(c) and publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the issuance of: ( 1 ) A license or an amendment of a license for which a notice of proposed action has been previously published;
( 2 ) An amendment of a license for a facility of the type described in § 50.21(b) or § 50.22 of this chapter, or a testing facility, whether or not a notice of proposed action has been previously published; and
( 3 ) The finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter.
( b ) The notice of issuance will set forth: ( 1 ) In the case of a license or amendment: ( i ) The nature of the license or amendment;
( ii ) The manner in which copies of the safety analysis, if any, may be obtained and examined; and
( iii ) A finding that the application for the license or amendment complies with the requirements of the Act and this chapter.
( 2 ) In the case of a finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter: ( i ) The manner in which copies of the safety analysis, if any, may be obtained and examined; and
( ii ) A finding that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses have been performed, the prescribed acceptance criteria have been met, and that the license complies with the requirements of the Act and this chapter.
( c ) The Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will also cause to be published in the Federal Register notice of, and will inform the State, local, and Tribal officials specified in § 2.104(c) of any action with respect to an application for construction authorization for a high-level radioactive waste repository at a geologic repository operations area, a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, or an amendment to such license for which a notice of proposed action has been previously published.
( d ) The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards will also cause to be published in the Federal Register notice of, and will inform the State and local officials or Tribal governing body specified in § 2.104(c) of any licensing action with respect to a license to receive radioactive waste from other persons for disposal under part 61 of this chapter or the amendment of such a license for which a notice of proposed action has been previously published.
[37 FR 15131, July 28, 1972, as amended at 38 FR 9586, Apr. 18, 1973; 46 FR 13978, Feb. 25, 1981; 47 FR 57478, Dec. 27, 1982; 66 FR 55787, Nov. 2, 2001; 69 FR 2235, Jan. 14, 2004; 72 FR 49473, Aug. 28, 2007; 73 FR 5716, Jan. 31, 2008; 77 FR 46590, Aug. 3, 2012; 84 FR 65643, Nov. 29, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.461 Late payment and interest charges.

The Board shall impose a late payment charge on any handler failing to pay his assessment within 30 days of the billing date shown on the handler's assessment statement received from the Board. Such amount shall be shown on the statement as the “Assessment Due”. The late payment charge shall be 5 percent of the unpaid balance of that amount. In the event the handler fails to pay the delinquent amount, including the late payment charge, within 60 days following the billing date, an additional 1 percent interest charge shall be applied monthly thereafter to the unpaid balance, including any accumulated interest. Any amount paid by a handler as assessments, including any charges imposed pursuant to this paragraph, shall be credited when the payment is received in the Board's office.

[38 FR 5151, Feb. 26, 1973]
#### General Instrument Corporation, Respondent, v Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 5, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Klein, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. No opinion. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
# Subpart 1805.3—Synopses of Contract Awards

**Parent topic:**PART 1805—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

## 1805.303 Announcement of contract awards.

(a)(i) In lieu of the threshold cited in FAR 5.303(a), a NASA Headquarters public announcement is required for award of contract actions that have a total anticipated value, including unexercised options, of $5 million or greater.
# Subpart 2912.3 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of Commercial Items

**Parent topic:**PART 2912 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

## 2912.302 Tailoring of provisions and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

In accordance with FAR 12.302(c), a request for waiver to tailor terms inconsistent with customary commercial practice must be documented in a written justification by the contracting officer, and may be approved by the HCA on an individual or class basis.