alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 9344.

Department Two.

October 13, 1911.]

#### Roy & Roy Mill Company, *Appellant,*v. Hitchcock-Kelly Shingle & Lumber Company, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal — Review—Findings. The findings of a trial judge upon a tedious accounting upon numerous involved items will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the evidence and a correct construction of tbe contract.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Skagit county, Joiner, J., entered September 10, 1910, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

Affirmed.

*Million, Houser*& *Shrauger,*for appellant.

*Thomas Smith,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 118 Pac. 1119.

Per Curiam.

— Action by Roy & Roy Mill Company, a corporation, against Hitchcock-Kelly Shingle & Lumber Company, a corporation, to foreclose a mortgage. The note and mortgage were originally given for $8,500. Plaintiff, after admitting certain payments, prayed judgment for $1,-900, together with interest, attorney’s fees and costs. By his answer the defendant pleaded payment in full, and demanded a cancellation of the mortgage. The trial court found the sum of $719.65 on the note and $60 insurance premiums to be due plaintiff, and entered a decree of foreclosure therefor, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant’s complaint is that the trial judge entered judgment for less than the amount due. Appellant is a shingle broker, and the respondent manufactures and sells shingles. At or about the time appellant made the loan of $3,500, the parties entered into a written contract covering a period of *318three years, by which it was agreed that the respondent was to sell its shingles to appellant and ship them in carload lots to points and consignees named by appellant; that payments of a certain percentage of the purchase price were to be made by appellant in cash less agreed discounts; that methods of ascertaining the amounts finally due were stipulated; and that all sums due respondent for the shingles which were not paid in cash by appellant were to be credited upon respondent’s note.

The contract was drawn with much detail, but no good purpose can be served by stating its terms in this opinion. The shipments made by respondents were numerous,' and the dispute between the parties as to the amount now due arises out of numerous items involving market prices, shortage on shipments, underweights, overweights, discounts, switching charges, and one separate car. These various items necessitate a tedious accounting arising out of many separate shipments. The trial judge heard the evidence, made his findings, and allowed respondent a total credit of $967.37 in excess of what appellant is willing to concede. An examination of the evidence satisfies us the trial judge arrived at as correct a conclusion as would be possible for us to reach, and that his findings should not be disturbed.' We also conclude the terms and provisions of the contract were correctly construed in considering the evidence and ascertaining the amount due.

The judgment is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.13 Compliance. ( a ) Contractors must achieve compliance with all the requirements of Subpart C of this part, and their approved worker safety and health program no later than May 25, 2007. Contractors may be required to comply contractually with the requirements of this rule before February 9, 2007.
( b ) In the event a contractor has established a written safety and health program, an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) description pursuant to the DEAR Clause, or an approved Work Smart Standards (WSS) process before the date of issuance of the final rule, the Contractor may use that program, description, or process as the worker safety and health program required by this part if the appropriate Head of the DOE Field Element approves such use on the basis of written documentation provided by the contractor that identifies the specific portions of the program, description, or process, including any additional requirements or implementation methods to be added to the existing program, description, or process, that satisfy the requirements of this part and that provide a workplace as safe and healthful as would be provided by the requirements of this part.
( c ) Nothing in this part shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect contractual obligations of a contractor to comply with contractual requirements that are not inconsistent with the requirements of this part.
#### BARKIN CONST. CO., Respondent, v. GOODMAN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 5, 1915.)

Action by the Barkin Construction Company against Edmund L. Goodman and another.

M. H. Cane, of New York City, for appellants. J. A. Seidman, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. *1103Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 10.1


                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Agreement made and entered into as of this 7th day of June, 2006 by and between
First Ipswich Bancorp and First National Bank of Ipswich, Massachusetts,
companies having their principal places of business in Ipswich, Massachusetts
(the "Company") and Russell G. Cole of Kennebunk, Maine (the "Employee").

      1.    Term - The Company hereby employs the Employee and the Employee
            hereby accepts employment by the Company for a period of six months
            beginning June 7, 2006.

      2.    Position - During the term of this agreement the Company agrees to
            employ the Employee as its interim President and Chief Executive
            Officer.

      3.    Compensation - During the term of this agreement the Company shall
            pay to the Employee, in equal bi-weekly payments, an annualized
            salary of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars.

      4.    Fringe Benefits -

            a.    During the term of this agreement the Company shall provide to
                  the Employee all fringe and other benefits plans that the
                  Company offers to all employees and to which the Employee may
                  have participated in prior to this agreement or may
                  participate in subsequent to this agreement.

            b.    During the term of this agreement the Company shall reimburse
                  the Employee for housing costs associated with obtaining
                  housing within the Greater Ipswich area. Such reimbursed costs
                  shall be limited to $3,000 per month.

            c.    The Company shall provide up to $10,000 in relocation expense
                  reimbursement.

      5.    At the termination of this agreement, the Employee shall return to
            the position, responsibilities, compensation, and benefits he held
            prior to this agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the within instrument as a
sealed document as of the date first above written.

Witness:                           FIRST IPSWICH BANCORP and
                                   FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF IPSWICH

/s/ Carol A. Lloyd                 By: /s/ Neil St. John Raymond
--------------------------             -------------------------
                                       Chairman of the Board

Witness:

/s/ Timothy L. Felter                  /s/ Russell G. Cole
--------------------------             -------------------------
                                       Russell G. Cole
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 29, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; consideration of amicus participation; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 22, 2010.

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-32727 Filed 12-23-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE P
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
April 9, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 03-60191

_______________



### L EROY 

### M ITCHELL 

### , J R 

### .,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS



### C ITY OF 

### G ULFPORT 

### , M ISSISSIPPI 

### , ET AL 

### ., Defendants,



### C ITY OF 

### G ULFPORT 

### , M ISSISSIPPI 

### ; M ARK 

### P EDUZZI 

### ; T ODD 

### W ALLIS 

### , Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi


### m 1:01-CV-449-GR

_________________________2

Before G ARWOOD , H IGGINBOTHAM , and S MITH , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

The di st rict court did not abuse its discretion in

considering the transcript of the criminal proceeding, which t ranscript bears sufficient indicia of reliability. In light of that transcript, the district cou rt determined that there are genuine issu es o f disputed material fact. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review the claim of excessive force. Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 317 (1995).

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdicti o n. Appellants’ motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. We express no opinion on the merits of any claim.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that t his 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.
#### Rose Levine et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 2, 1980, which denied their motion to increase the *ad damnum*clause of the complaint. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Since plaintiffs’ motion to amend the *ad damnum*was based solely upon an update and re-evaluation of the original injuries, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion on the ground that plaintiffs’ medical affidavits had failed to show "sufficient differentiation between the [injured] plaintiff’s condition prior to the accident and subsequent thereto to warrant * * * [an] increase in the amount of damages sought” from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Under such circumstances, proof of a causal connection between the accident and the injuries alleged is not necessary (see *Hillenbrand v 3801 Review Place,*72 AD2d 554; see, also, *Wagner v Huntington Hosp.,*65 AD2d 771). Additionally, the delay in making the instant motion is not per se an acceptable ground for denial in view of the fact that defendants have failed to demonstrate in what manner they would suffer actual prejudice at trial were the amendment to be granted (see *Wagner v Huntington Hosp., supra; Finn v Crystal Beach Tr. Co., 55*AD2d 1001). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Sanitized Consolidated Chemical Substance 3: Manufacture of 

Thermoplastic Pellets
#### § 71.83 Assumptions as to unknown properties.

When the isotopic abundance, mass, concentration, degree of irradiation, degree of moderation, or other pertinent property of fissile material in any package is not known, the licensee shall package the fissile material as if the unknown properties have credible values that will cause the maximum neutron multiplication.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.W., A MINOR
, AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES : : : : : : No. 127 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2024
, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

(1) Whether the judicially created “prospective adoptive parent” exception to the general prohibition against foster parents participating in dependency cases was abrogated by the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of Section 6336.1(a) of the Juvenile Act, which provides that preadoptive fo ster parents shall not have standing in the matter absent an award of legal custody of the child?
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Exhibit 11.0

             MAGICWORKS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996

                                                                    1997                1996
                                                             --------------       --------------
<S>                                                          <C>                  <C>   
     PRIMARY:

Net income                                                   $      523,104        $     493,116
                                                             ==============        =============

Weighted average common shares outstanding                   $   24,394,300        $  21,831,180
Impact of dilutive warrants and options                           1,875,160               -
                                                             --------------        -------------
Weighted average number of common stock
    and common stock equivalents for primary
    earnings per share                                       $   26,269,460        $  21,831,180
                                                             ==============        =============

Net income per common share                                  $          .02        $         .02
                                                             ==============        =============

     FULLY DILUTED:

Net income                                                   $      523,104        $     493,116
Interest expense, net of tax benefit,
    on convertible notes                                     $       79,083        $           -
                                                             ==============        =============

Weighted average common shares outstanding                       24,394,300           20,831,180
Impact of dilutive warrants and options                             595,611                    -
Impact of convertible notes                                       1,481,643                    -
                                                             --------------        -------------
Weighted average number of common stock
    and common stock equivalents for fully diluted
    earnings per share                                       $   26,471,554        $  20,831,180
                                                             ==============        =============

Net income per common share                                  $          .02        $         .02
                                                             ==============        =============

</TABLE>
GBUAPCD
– Rule 203 Page 1 of 1 08/20/79 RULE 203
. APPLICATIONS Adopted : 0 8/20/79 Any person who desires to construct a new stationary source or modify an existing stationary source for which district regulations require an authority to construct shall file an application in writing with the Air Pollution Control Officer, except as provided in Section (E) of Rule 209A. Such application shall contain the information required pursuant to District regulations and the list and criteria adopted pursuant to 'AB 884' regarding information requirements
. [Intentionally left blank.]
PGI 213.307 Forms.

(a) Commercial products and commercial services. If SF 1449 is not used, use DD Form 1155 in

accordance with paragraph (b)(i) of this section.

(b) Other than commercial products and commercial services.

(i) Use DD Form 1155, Order for Supplies or Services, for purchases made using simplified

acquisition procedures.

(A) The DD Form 1155 serves as a—

(1) Purchase order or blanket purchase agreement;

(2) Delivery order or task order;

(3) Receiving and inspection report;

(4) Property voucher;

(5) Document for acceptance by the supplier; and

(6) Public voucher, when used as—

(i) A delivery order;

(ii) The basis for payment of an invoice against blanket purchase agreements or basic ordering

agreements when a firm-fixed-price has been established; or

(iii) A purchase order for acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures.

(B) The DD Form 1155 is also authorized for use for—

(1) Orders placed in accordance with FAR Subparts 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, and 16.5; and

(2) Classified acquisitions when the purchase is made within the United States or its outlying areas.

Attach the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, to the purchase order.

(ii) Do not use Optional Form 347, Order for Supplies or Services, or Optional Form 348, Order for

Supplies or Services Schedule—Continuation.

(iii) Use Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, to—

(A) Modify a purchase order; or

(B) Cancel a unilateral purchase order.

Parent topic: PGI 213.3 -SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION METHODS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40387

ERICK LAWSON, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, Individually and in his/her official capacity; 

MADELINE ORTIZ, Individually and in his/her official capacity, 

 Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CV-104

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Since the district court has granted Lawson’s motion for reconsideration, 

which it construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the appeal is moot. Thus, we REMAND 

the case in full for further proceedings.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40387 Document: 00514641048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2018
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.150 Instructions, procedures, and drawings.

The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall prescribe activities affecting quality by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall require that these instructions, procedures, and drawings be followed. The instructions, procedures, and drawings must include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
2007-1980.

#### Young v. Univ. of Akron.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-1022, 2007-Ohio-4663.

O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**WFRBS 2013-C12**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the "Reporting Period")**

 

**Annual ComplianceStatement**

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify withregard to the Company's role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement,(the "Agreement") dated as of March 1, 2013, pertaining to theabove-referenced certificates, that:

 

(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv) the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v) the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
RODERICA MARIE HARDAWAY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4403

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appel lant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.