alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mrs. Earlene ASHABRANNER, Adm’x *v*. Gerald PEARLSTEIN

5-5164

451 S. W. 2d 177

Opinion delivered March 9, 1970

[Rehearing denied April 6, 1970.]

*213
      *Camp ir Lingle,*for appellant.

*Pope, Pratt, Shamburger, Buffalo & Ross,*for appellee.

John A. Fog lemán, Justice.

This appeal comes from a judgment denying a homestead exemption of the proceeds of the sale of a homestead by appellant’s decedent in his lifetime.

Earl W. Johnson, a widower, whose children were all adults, sold his homestead in July 1967. He deposited the proceeds in his bank account. There is no doubt that the balance in the decedent’s bank account at the time of his death consisted of whatever remained of the proceeds of sale. Johnson had drawn certain checks against the bank account into which nothing except these proceeds had been deposited. Appellant, his oldest child, was appointed administratrix of his estate after his death on August 4, 1967. Although Johnson had not vacated the house on the property at the time of his death, he had been paid all of the consideration for the sale except for $52.09, representing the excess of the amount withheld for satisfaction of a mortgage on the property over the amount actually owed. Thére was testimony tending to show that he remained on the place under some agreement with the purchaser, who had fully performed his obligations on the date of the sale.

Appellant relies entirely upon our decision in *Stanley*v. *Snyder,*43 Ark. 429. Although it is clearly held there that one’s homestead is not lost through death of his wife and maturity of his children, it was not contended there that the proceeds of a sale of the homestead made voluntarily by the occupant are exempt *214from the claims of creditors. It was held. that creditors had no standing to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of a homestead, because they had no rights in the homestead before its conveyance. This case is inapplicable because appellee, a judgment creditor, is not trying to reach or levy upon the homestead.

We have heretofore clearly held that the proceeds of sale of a homestead made voluntarily are not exempt from the claims of creditors. *Drennen*v. *Wheatley,*210 Ark. 222, 195 S. W. 2d 43. What we said in the *Drennen*case governs here. Appellant does not specifically argue that the continued occupancy of the premises by the decedent after the sale was complete caused the property to retain its character as a homestead. It can readily be seen that this fact would not affect the result because no levy upon the lands is sought.

The judgment is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5891 Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator to treat headache. ( a ) *Identification.* A transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator to treat headache is a device used to apply an electrical current to a patient's cranium through electrodes placed on the skin.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 2 ) Appropriate analysis/testing must validate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical, mechanical, and thermal safety.
( 3 ) The technical parameters of the device, including waveform, output modes, maximum output voltage and current (with 500, 2,000, and 10,000 ohm loads), pulse duration, frequency, net charge (μC) per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current density (mA/cm2, r.m.s.), maximum average current (mA), maximum average power density (W/cm2), and the type of impedance monitoring system must be fully characterized.
( 4 ) Electrical performance, adhesive integrity, shelf life, reusability, and current distribution testing of the electrodes must be conducted.
( 5 ) Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 6 ) Clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective as a treatment for headache in the indicated patient population.
( 7 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) Appropriate contraindications such as not for use in subjects with an implanted metallic or electronic device in the head, a cardiac pacemaker, or an implanted or wearable defibrillator.
( ii ) Appropriate warnings such as not to apply the device on the neck or chest, not to use the device in the presence of electronic monitoring equipment, not to use in the bath or shower, not to use while sleeping, not to use while driving, not to use while operating machinery.
( iii ) Appropriate precautions such as the long-term effects of chronic use of the device are unknown.
( iv ) A summary of the expected risks and benefits of using the device.
( v ) A summary of the clinical performance data, including information on the patient population for which the device has and has not been demonstrated to be effective, and any adverse events and complications.
( vi ) Information on how the device operates and the typical sensations experienced during treatment.
( vii ) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters.
( viii ) An expiration date/shelf life for the electrodes and the number of times they can be reused.
( ix ) Disposal instructions.
[79 FR 37948, July 3, 2014]
#### Research Associates, Inc. *v.*New Haven Redevelopment Agency

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim: and Ryan, Js.

Argued October 1

decided October 23, 1968

*588
      *Benjamin M. Chapnich,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*George C. Hastings,*with whom was *Alan B. Spier,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

This appeal is taken from a judgment rendered following the sustaining of a demurrer to three counts of a substituted complaint purporting to assert causes of action for breach of a promise, fraud, and illegal exercise of statutory authority. Prior litigation between the parties arising from the same events is reported in 153 Conn. 118, 214 A.2d 375, and 152 Conn. 137, 204 A.2d 833.

The record discloses several preliminary procedural irregularities, but the basic and controlling question is whether the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the three counts of the substituted complaint. We conclude that it did not and that the demurrer was well taken. The burden rests on the plaintiff to allege a recognizable cause of action, and it is not sufficient that a complaint refer to a basis of liability by some distinctive name. *Lombardi*v. *J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc.,*153 Conn. 19, 22, 213 A.2d 449; *Anderson*v. *Colwell,*93 Conn. 61, 65, 104 A. 242. A demurrer does not admit legal conclusions; *McAdam*v. *Sheldon,*153 Conn. 278, 282, 216 A.2d 193; and, in any action, the complainant is required to set forth facts upon the basis of which, if true, he may be able to establish in law a *589right to relief, for, unless that is done, the pleading is demurrable. *Rossignol*v. *Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc.,*154 Conn. 549, 558, 227 A.2d 418.

There is no error.
#### § 1.1082-4 Basis of property acquired by corporation under section 1081(a), 1081(b), or 1081(e) as contribution of capital or surplus, or in consideration for its own stock or securities.

If, in connection with an exchange of stock or securities for stock or securities as described in section 1081(a), or an exchange of property for property as described in section 1081(b), or an exchange as described in section 1081(e), property is acquired by a corporation by the issuance of its stock or securities, the basis of such property shall be determined under section 1082(b). If the corporation issued its stock or securities as part or sole consideration for the property acquired, the basis of the property in the hands of the acquiring corporation is the basis (adjusted to the date of the exchange) which the property would have had in the hands of the transferor if the transfer had not been made, increased in the amount of gain or decreased in the amount of loss recognized under section 1081 to the transferor upon the transfer. If any property is acquired by a corporation from a shareholder as paid-in surplus, or from any person as a contribution to capital, the basis of the property to the corporation is the basis (adjusted to the date of acquisition) of the property in the hands of the transferor.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 18 to Registration
Statement No. 33-60702 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account Ten of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the
financial statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and of
our report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account Ten, appearing
in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7810 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7810

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify the clock hour 
 requirements for certain eligible programs under title IV of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2024

Mr. Smucker (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Meuser, Mr. 
  Van Orden, and Mr. Lawler) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify the clock hour 
 requirements for certain eligible programs under title IV of such Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clock Hour Program Student 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CLOCK HOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS OF TRAINING.

    Section 481(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1088(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) An otherwise eligible program that provides a program 
        of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a 
        recognized profession in a State, and for which the number of 
        clock hours of instruction exceeds the minimum number of clock 
        hours of instruction required by such State for training in the 
        recognized profession for which the otherwise eligible program 
        prepares students, shall be determined to be an eligible 
        program under this subsection if the number of clock hours of 
        instruction provided by such otherwise eligible program does 
        not exceed the greater of--
                    ``(A) 150 percent of the minimum number of clock 
                hours required by such State for training in the 
                recognized profession for which the otherwise eligible 
                program prepares students; or
                    ``(B) 150 percent of the minimum number of clock 
                hours required by a Federal agency for such 
                training.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this section shall take effect on July 1, 
2024, and apply with respect to award year 2024-2025 and each 
subsequent award year.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3160 Elbow joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An elbow joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace an elbow joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that consist of a humeral resurfacing component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a radial resurfacing component made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. This generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

National Business Aircraft Association, Krneger Aviation, 

Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson 

Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Yonri Bujko, James Ross, 

Wondeful Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Santa Monica, California 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Docket No. 16-14-04 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, the date by 

which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to on or about 

June 15,2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

determination in this case. 

OJ I~ J 2[)/j, 

r Date I 

for Airports 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on2'01-114J'lt!{2o16, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, addressed to: 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

rsimon3@verizon.net 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Marsha Jones Moutrie 

Joseph Lawrence 

Lance S. Gams 

Ivan Campbell 

Santa Monica City Attorney's Office 

1685 Main Street, Room 31 0 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

G. Brian Busey 

Paul Varnado 

James Sigel 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Zane 0. Gresham 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, 

AC0-100 ('Paufwflt;r;p 

cl"audia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5892 External vagal nerve stimulator for headache. ( a ) *Identification.* An external vagal nerve stimulator for headache is a prescription device used to apply an electrical current to a patient's vagus nerve through electrodes placed on the skin for the treatment of headache.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The technical parameters of the device, including waveform, output modes, maximum output voltage and current (with 500, 2,000, and 10,000 ohm loads), pulse duration, frequency, net charge (μC) per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current density (mA/cm2, r.m.s.), maximum average current (mA), maximum average power density (W/cm2), and the type of impedance monitoring system shall be fully characterized through non-clinical performance testing.
( 2 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis shall be performed.
( 3 ) Biocompatibility evaluation of the patient-contacting components of the device shall be performed.
( 4 ) The device shall be tested for electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety, and for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).
( 5 ) The labeling must include: ( i ) Instructions for proper use of the device, including placement of the device on the patient; and
( ii ) Instructions on care and cleaning of the device.
[82 FR 61169, Dec. 27, 2017]
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-703 Rev. 1, 11/2013



### Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 3/11/2014 Sample Number: 140763-001 Date Collected:03/05/2014 09:38 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### Recirculation Pond Outlet at Weir Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 4.39 2 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 0.8 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-002 Date Collected: 03/05/2014 09:38 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### FGD Landfill Discharge to Pond Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 135 50 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 20 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-003 Date Collected:03/05/2014 09:55 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### WWTP Outlet Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 144 50 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 20 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-004 Date Collected: 03/05/2014 09:52 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### Secondary Clarifier Outlet B Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 145 20 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 8 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-005 Date Collected:03/05/2014 09:50 Date Received:3/5/2014 

## Secondary Clarifier Outlet A Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 142 20 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 8 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-006 Date Collected: 03/05/2014 09:58 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### Primary Clarifier Outlet B Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 1350 50 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 20 03/10/2014 

### Sample Number: 140763-007 Date Collected:03/05/2014 10:00 Date Received:3/5/2014 

## Primary Clarifier Outlet A Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 1460 50 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 20 03/10/2014 Amos Plant, 140763 Page 1 of 2

### Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 3/11/2014 Sample Number: 140763-008 Date Collected:03/05/2014 10:03 Date Received:3/5/2014 

### WWTP Inlet Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 251000 10000 TLT EPA 1631E-2002 4000 03/10/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit. Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Amos Plant, 140763 Page 2 of 2
Abatement Order filed November 26, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00973

- CR

____________ MIGUEL ANGEL CONTR ERAS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 0850245



### ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 18, 2013, adjudicating appellant’s guilt for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. A ccording to information provided to this court, a ppellant is not represented by counsel . The record reflects that appellant claimed indigence and requested appointment of appellate counsel when he filed his notice of appeal. To date, this court has not been advised that counsel has been appointed. Accordingly, w e issue the following
order:2

We ORDER the judge of the 182nd District Court to immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant, appellant’s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to deter mine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge shall appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall se e that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law or order the appointment of cousnel , and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and
conclusions or order appointing counsel . The transcribed record of the hearing and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before
December 23 , 20 13

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from thi s court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court = s active docket when the supplemental record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may

r einstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, th e court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5410 Powered finger exerciser. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered finger exerciser is a device intended for medical purposes to increase flexion and the extension range of motion of the joints of the second to the fifth fingers of the hand.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1125, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38818, July 25, 2001]
**Exhibit32**

## **CERTIFICATION**

**The undersigned certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:**

(1)           The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2007 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in the accompanying Reportfairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  September 13, 2007 |   | /s/ Rodney A. Young                   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Rodney A. Young                       |
|                                |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |   |                                  |
|                                |   |                                  |
| Date:  September 13, 2007 |   | /s/ Dale H. Johnson                   |   |
|                                |   | Dale H. Johnson                       |
|                                |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----