alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest L. BAILEY et al *v.*Ernest BRADFORD, Parent and Next Friend of Carol Bradford, a Minor

5-5129

449 S. W. 2d 180

Opinion delivered January 26, 1970

*House, Holmes*& *Jewell,*for appellants.

*Martin, Dodds, Kidd, Hendricks*& *Ryan,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On November 29, 1964, in the city of Cabot, a car in which ten-year-old Carol Bradford was riding was struck violently from the rear by a truck owned by the appellant Bailey and being driven by his agent, the appellant Davis. Carol suffered a back injury, for which her father as her next friend brought this action in tort. The case was tried more than four years after the date of the collision and resulted in a $10,000 verdict for the plaintiff. The only contention here is that the verdict is excessive.

We find no error, but we need not detail the testimony at length, for we have often said that the facts in such litigation differ so greatly, from one case to the next, that the decisions are of scant; value as precedents.

Carol testified that on the morning after the acci*1049dent her back hurt so much that she could hardly get out of bed. During the ensuing four years she was treated or examined by several doctors, but when the cas.e was finally tried Carol was still suffering pain. As a result of the injury she could no longer jump on a trampoline, serve as a cheerleader, tumble in physical education class, bend over, or help her mother in activities requiring that she bend over. At least twice she had taken doctors’ excuses to school to exempt her from excessive physical exertion. Carol testified that at the time of the trial her back trouble still existed and was getting worse. Her parents and her grandmother gave corroborating testimony.

Dr. Logue, an orthopedist, found an area of hypersensitivity in the injured region of the child’s back. This was in addition to a condition referred to in the testimony as epiphysitis, which is a roughening in the growing part of a bony structure. Whether the epiphysitis was the result, of the accident is not known with any degree of certainty, but Dr. Logue did attribute to the accidental injury a ten percent permanent disability to the child’s body as a whole. There was, of course, other medical proof contrary to that which we have reviewed, but the jury were warranted in finding the facts to be as we have stated them.

When we consider the pain that Carol suffered intermittently for more than four years before the trial, the additional discomfort to be expected in the future, and the permanency of the injury, we cannot say that the amount of the verdict is so great as to indicate prejudice on the part of the jury or to shock the conscience of the court. That being true, the verdict must be allowed to stand.

Affirmed.
§ 49.4253-7 Exemption for installation charges. ( a ) *In general.* The taxes imposed by section 4251 do not apply to any amount paid as is properly attributable to the installation of any instrument, wire, pole, switchboard, apparatus, or equipment.
( b ) *Maintenance charges subject to tax.* The exemption provided by section 4253(g) and paragraph (a) of this section is applicable only to amounts paid for installation. Amounts paid for the repair or replacement of instruments, wires, poles, switchboards, apparatus, or equipment, incidental to ordinary maintenance, are subject to tax.
www.gpo.gov

### §500*l*. Appointment of natives to administer industry

Whenever, in his judgment, it is practicable and to the best interests of the natives the Secretary shall appoint natives to the supervisory and other positions in the administration of such reindeer industry or business.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 897, §13, 50 Stat. 902.)

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 250*l* of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
SERV:EJJ: JUNE 21~ 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

· WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIR AMBULANCE BY AIR TREK, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1003 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

EXTENDING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF 

STIPULATIONS 

On June 18, 2012, Respondent filed and served a Joint Request for an extension of the 

June 15,2012, date for filing stipulations. 1 The parties assert that Complainant's Counsel has 

been traveling extensively and that this has "impeded completing a list ofstipulations."2 Respondent states that granting the request will not otherwise affect the schedule previously estab~ 

lished for this case. 

3 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT1.. For good cause shown, the deadline for filing stipulations is extended from June 

15, 2012, to June 25, 2012. 

SO ORDERED 

Chief Administrativ. 

1 Joint Request for Extension of Time to File Stipulations at 1. 

2 /d. 

3 B,y Order dated March 1, 2012, the parties had until (1) April13, 2012 to exchange exhibits and complete discovery; (2) May 15, 2012, to exchange lists of witnesses and a summary of each witness's proposed testimony; (3) June 

15, 2012 to file stipulations. See Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing Procedural Schedule at 1. 

Complainant submitted its list of exhibits and witnesses on May 1, 2012. 

0· t• 3~ • 0 
CORRECTED SERVICE LIST 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 fudependence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591. 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-· Suite 2Wl0004 

. ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Stephen W. Brice, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region, AEA-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 AViation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3268 

FAX: 718-533-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

4 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the folloWing address: Federal 

Aviation A~ministration, 600Jndependence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|Date: November 21, 2005 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------
|                        | John P. Manning            
|                        | Principal Executive Officer
|                        |                            
|                        |                            
|                        |
(Hamilton County Common Pleas,

1901.)

#### GEORGE G. FLEUROT v. CLARA B. FLETCHER, et al.

In an action by the grantee in a deed where a reformation of the deed is sought so as to make it a mortgage the question of dower of grantee’s wife is involved and she should therefore be made a party to the suit.

Spiegel, J.

The petition in this case alleges that plaintiff loaned defendant $15,000 for a term of three years, receiving as security a deed in fee simple *319to certain real estate, giving a lease back to *■defendants;*that said loan has not been repaid, and that, therefore, he prays a foreclosure and sale of said property, the deed being in fact a mortgage. The defendants demur, because—

•Maxwell *&*Ramsey for demurrer.

Ben. B. Dale for plaintiff.

1. The petition discloses upon its face a defect of parties.

2. The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer must be sustained upon the first ground. The petition shows that George G. Fleurot is the record owner of the estate in fee simple. As a reformation of the deed and lease is sought, so as to make it a mortgage, a foreclosure of the same without making the grantee's wife a party, would not bar her after her husband’s death, to disavow the decision and ■claim that the transaction was an absolute conveyance to her husband. It follows, therefore, that she is a necessary party to make title under this proceeding.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.61 Conferences. ( a ) *In general.* The Commissioner, or delegate, may confer with a practitioner, employer, firm or other entity, or an appraiser concerning allegations of misconduct irrespective of whether a proceeding has been instituted. If the conference results in a stipulation in connection with an ongoing proceeding in which the practitioner, employer, firm or other entity, or appraiser is the respondent, the stipulation may be entered in the record by either party to the proceeding.
( b ) *Voluntary sanction* — ( 1 ) *In general.* In lieu of a proceeding being instituted or continued under § 10.60(a), a practitioner or appraiser (or employer, firm or other entity, if applicable) may offer a consent to be sanctioned under § 10.50.
( 2 ) *Discretion; acceptance or declination.* The Commissioner, or delegate, may accept or decline the offer described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. When the decision is to decline the offer, the written notice of declination may state that the offer described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section would be accepted if it contained different terms. The Commissioner, or delegate, has the discretion to accept or reject a revised offer submitted in response to the declination or may counteroffer and act upon any accepted counteroffer.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning August 2, 2011.
[T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54551, Sept. 26, 2007, as amended by T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32309, June 3, 2011]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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
Encorium Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip L. Calamia, Interim Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of 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/ Philip L. Calamia          
|Philip L. Calamia              
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Accounting Officer) 

November 16, 2009

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 100.8 Packaging and shipping of mutilated currency. Mutilated currency examiners are best able to determine the value of the currency when it has been carefully packed and boxed as described below. As a result, failure to follow the directions in this section may result in a denial of redemption: ( a ) Regardless of the condition of the currency, do not disturb the fragments more than is absolutely necessary.
( b ) If the currency is brittle or inclined to fall apart, pack it carefully in cotton and box it as found, without disturbing the fragments, if possible.
( c ) If the currency was in a purse, box, or other container when mutilated, it should be left therein, if possible, in order to prevent further deterioration of the fragments or from their being lost.
( d ) If it is absolutely necessary to remove the fragments from the container, send the container with the currency and any other contents found, except as noted in paragraph (g) of this section.
( e ) If the currency was flat when mutilated, do not roll, fold, laminate, tape, glue or in any other way alter the currency in an attempt to preserve it.
( f ) If the currency was in a roll when mutilated, do not attempt to unroll or straighten.
( g ) If coin or any other metal is mixed with the currency, remove carefully. Do not send coin or other metal in the same package with mutilated paper currency, as the metal will break up the currency. Coin should be exchanged in accordance with subpart C of this part.
( h ) Mutilated currency shipments must be addressed as follows: ( 1 ) USPS Delivery—Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, MCD/OFM, Room 344A, Post Office Box 37048, Washington, DC 20013.
( 2 ) Non Postal Courier (FEDEX/UPS)—Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, MCD/OFM, Room 344-A, 14th & C Streets SW., Washington, DC 20228.
#### § 9.3 Temporary TRASOP requirements for 1-percent additional investment credit.

The provisions listed in § 1.46-8 (a)(4) (i)-(ix) (Income Tax Regulations) are deemed effective only as temporary regulations under this section.

(Sec. 301(d)(2)(C) and (10) of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 and sec. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (89 Stat. 38, 68A Stat. 917 (26 U.S.C. 7805)))

[T.D. 7589, 44 FR 4145, Jan. 16, 1979; 44 FR 6715, Feb. 2, 1979]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          75,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (625)
<INVENTORY>                                         97
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,769
<PP&E>                                         118,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                (61,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,402
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,845
<SALES>                                         13,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,784
<CGS>                                            3,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    73
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                        98
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
#### Clifton Bernard HICKEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joyce K. CONLEY, Dr., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Clifton Bernard Hickey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*652PER CURIAM.

Clifton Bernard Hickey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Hickey v. Conley,*No. CA-01-183-5 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 1, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### § 1.12 Regulations not applicable to official request.

The regulations in this part shall not be applicable to official requests of other governmental agencies or officers thereof acting in their official capacities, unless it appears that granting a particular request would be in violation of law or inimical to the public interest. Cases of doubt should be referred for decision to agency counsel (as defined in § 1.11(b)(1)).

[69 FR 54003, Sept. 7, 2004]
§ 1021.311 Filing obligations. Each casino shall file a report of each transaction in currency, involving either cash in or cash out, of more than $10,000. ( a ) Transactions in currency involving cash in include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Purchases of chips, tokens, and other gaming instruments;
( 2 ) Front money deposits;
( 3 ) Safekeeping deposits;
( 4 ) Payments on any form of credit, including markers and counter checks;
( 5 ) Bets of currency, including money plays;
( 6 ) Currency received by a casino for transmittal of funds through wire transfer for a customer;
( 7 ) Purchases of a casino's check;
( 8 ) Exchanges of currency for currency, including foreign currency; and
( 9 ) Bills inserted into electronic gaming devices.
( b ) Transactions in currency involving cash out include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Redemptions of chips, tokens, tickets, and other gaming instruments;
( 2 ) Front money withdrawals;
( 3 ) Safekeeping withdrawals;
( 4 ) Advances on any form of credit, including markers and counter checks;
( 5 ) Payments on bets;
( 6 ) Payments by a casino to a customer based on receipt of funds through wire transfers;
( 7 ) Cashing of checks or other negotiable instruments;
( 8 ) Exchanges of currency for currency, including foreign currency;
( 9 ) Travel and complimentary expenses and gaming incentives; and
( 10 ) Payment for tournament, contests, and other promotions.
( c ) Other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding, casinos are exempted from the reporting obligations found in this section and § 1021.313 for the following transactions in currency or currency transactions: ( 1 ) Transactions between a casino and a dealer in foreign exchange, or between a casino and a check casher, as those terms are defined in § 1010.100(ff) of this chapter, so long as such transactions are conducted pursuant to a contractual or other arrangement with a casino covering the financial services in paragraphs (a)(8), (b)(7), and (b)(8) of this section;
( 2 ) Cash out transactions to the extent the currency is won in a money play and is the same currency the customer wagered in the money play, or cash in transactions to the extent the currency is the same currency the customer previously wagered in a money play on the same table game without leaving the table;
( 3 ) Bills inserted into electronic gaming devices in multiple transactions (unless a casino has knowledge pursuant to § 1021.313 in which case this exemption would not apply); and
( 4 ) Jackpots from slot machines or video lottery terminals.
[75 FR 65812, Oct. 26, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 43597, July 21, 2011]